Gender bias and wasted opportunities at the 2017 National Family Violence Summit

Today was the second and final day of the National Family Violence Summit. The Summit was facilitated by the Tara Costigan Foundation and sponsored by BaptistCare. An extract from today’s program is shown below:

And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.

How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.

This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.

This is an affront to men everywhere, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where women are now smeared and disregarded in such a manner.

And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.

Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.

The ‘big picture’ of domestic violence comprises substantial numbers of abusive men and women, and of both male and female victims of that abuse.  There is also a considerable (yet rarely acknowledged) element of bi-directional violence, where both partners perpetuate abuse.

And what of women’s role in addressing domestic violence, not only as empowered and autonomous individuals, but also in recognition of the fact that many women are also abusive. Not only is there a long-running problem with child abuse by women, but there is also a growing problem with female violence generally. These issues are alternately either excused away (“women are only ever violent in self-defence“), minimised or ignored altogether.

The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.

There have been so many talk-fests and inquiries in relation to domestic violence. Almost without exception their value has been severely compromised by a failure to open the floor to all ideas, especially those contrary to feminist dogma. That appears to have also been the case with the Summit, given that none of the speakers represented a men’s rights group, a father’s group, or an advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence such as One-in-Three.

Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?

The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.

Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.

Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?

I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.

Here are some links to related news coverage:

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims (28 February 2017)

The good thing to come out of horror of Tara Costigan’s murder (1 March 2017)

 

‘Diversity’: A buzzword that sounds good but is often misused

Diversity is another one of those buzzwords du jour – and apparently the cure for all that ails. Except there are a few problems.

Firstly, diversity is often not – in practice – extended to embrace many within the community. I’m thinking here, for example, of white men, non-feminists, and those with a conservative or right-of-centre political persuasion.

In this blog post for example I examined the example of a debate organised by the Diversity Council of Australia. In that example, diversity meant assembling two debating panels that represented or supported a range of feminist perspectives.

A couple of other examples are provided in these other blog posts:

A couple of queries concerning ‘Balancing the future: The Australian Public Service gender equality strategy 2016-19’

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Martin Daubney in the UK has drawn attention to this July 2013 article about part-time workers in Britain, which includes the following extract:

“For years, the term “part-time” has been synonymous with junior responsibility and low pay. And yet the pool of people who want to work in this way is incredibly diverse.”

Martin points out that only 12% of those featured on the ‘Power Part-time Top 50’ list mentioned in the article are male. Not so diverse in that regard, huh?

Elsewhere Martin provides the example of the organisation ‘CMI Women’, within whose web site we see an exhortation for gender diversity which starkly contrast with their own board membership (100% female).

Secondly, those who lobby for diversity tend to want to have it imposed by way of gender or racial quotas, selective recruitment, and the like. They do so despite the fact that such measures need not result in measurable improvements to organisational performance or community harmony, and may even be counter-productive in this regard. Indeed they are not averse to exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the benefits of diversity.

This aspect is discussed in these blog posts and others:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’
On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas
About what happened in Cologne

Thirdly, those who lobby for diversity fail to acknowledge, let alone analyse and debate, the negative outcomes that arise when achieving becomes the major determining factor when adopting government policy. Indeed, if we look at what is happening in some European countries now, such as greatly increased criminal activity, there is evidence of efforts being made to suppress such information.

See also:

Commissars in our universities (27 April 2019)

The ever-growing ‘diversity industry’ is overtaking higher education (25 April 2019) USA

Want viewpoint diversity on campus? Here’s how (16 April 2019)

Finally some robust research into whether ‘Diversity Training’ actually works – Unfortunately it’s not very promising (10 April 2019)

Ex-diversity officer smacked with massive fine after giving husband fellowship (15 March 2019) USA

Apple’s diversity VP apologizes for controversial statement at summit this week (14 October 2017)

A memo to Google – firing employees with conservative views is anti-diversity (11 August 2017)

Diversity Authoritarians (17 July 2017) Video

Opinion: Screen Australia’s sexist policies proof it is biased against men, by Mike O’Connor (12 May 2017)

Social Justice is winning (29 March 2017) Video

“Massive immigration and forced assimilation is called genocide when it’s done in Tibet. When it’s done in White countries it’s called “diversity.”” (Source)

College ‘Diversity Council’ Admits to Posting Fake Racist Flyers On Campus (23 March 2017)

Misguided drive for diversity is sending us headlong off a cliff (28 February 2017)

By promoting diversity over fighting ability the Army is alienating its warriors (25 February 2016)

Why Diversity Programs Fail (July-August 2016)

On gender traitors, white knights and manginas

As I discussed in another post within this blog, feminists often display a generous measure of spitefulness and intolerance towards those who don’t share their jaundiced view of the world. The degree of loathing demonstrated seems to depend in part on where people rank in the following list (with one being most loathed):

  1. Female men’s rights activists
  2. Male men’s rights activists
  3. Female celebrities who openly refuse to be labelled as feminists (example: Salma Hayek)
  4. Other women who openly refuse to be labelled as feminists (see this post and here)
  5. Men who claim to be feminists (example)
  6. Everyone else not in their own particular clique

I don’t recall having seen the term ‘gender traitor’ used within a men’s rights web site or forum. Nevertheless, when I googled that term, for some reason I half expected to bring up a list of sites towards the harsher fringes of the so-called ‘Manosphere’. Perhaps this is a hang-over from all those long years of gynocentric brain-washing that I’ve endured.

No, what I found instead was sites where the term ‘gender traitor’ was used by feminist women … sites such as these:

http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2012/11/01/gender-traitor-solidarity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411793

Interestingly also, when I review the search terms that people use to find my blog, I’ve noted several examples like “Erin Pizzey traitor” or “Karen Straughan traitor” (these being well-known men’s rights activists). And just recently an Australian journalist, Corrine Barraclough, was accused of being a traitor after calling for a gender-neutral approach to domestic violence.

This use of ‘gender traitor’ and other similar terms conflicts with this statement by a feminist writer: “Interesting that feminists do not have a derogatory word for women who are not active in their movement. Maybe men could just respect each other’s opinions and win minds with logic.”

Whilst browsing social media and the WWW, two terms that one may also encounter are ‘White Knight’ and ‘Mangina’. These terms tend, however, to be used with more of a sense of bemusement or mild disgust, rather than white hot anger. It is important to note also, that neither term are used in a blanket sense, i.e. to refer to all men who don’t support the men’s rights agenda. And in fact, many within the men’s rights movement reject the use of the term ‘mangina’ entirely, seeing it as inherently misogynistic.

White Knights are mainly driven by a sense of chivalry, impulsively responding to the impromptu cultural cue of a ‘damsel in distress’. Often white knights are largely ignorant of the nature of both feminism and the men’s rights movement. The historical derivation of the concept of a White Knight is discussed in this blog post.

Here is a recent example of ‘White Knight’ behaviour. Whilst I respect Ian Chappell as a person, his suggestion that cricketer Chris Gayle be banned from playing is an absurdly ‘over-the-top’ response to a relatively benign misdemeanour.

purse_poochWhereas ‘white knights’ can be ingenues in the context of the gender debate, manginas are active and informed. Manginas often consider themselves to be feminists. They are frequently wilfuly persistent in seeking out opportunities to compromise the efforts of those wishing to advance particular objectives of the men’s rights movement and/or counter aspects of feminist ideology.

This is the way one fellow explained the difference between the two:

“A white knight is a man who will mindlessly defend a woman even when she is in the wrong, particularly if he does it out a misguided hope of impressing women with his honor. White knights are not necessarily feminists; they may be traditionalists as well. Women, not just feminists, will manipulate white knights into attacking other men for their own ends (or even just amusement).

A mangina is a man who has embraced the misandry of radical feminism and uses it to denigrate and smear other men in a pathetic attempt to make himself look better by comparison or to specifically curry the favor of feminist women.

A white knight will attack you physically, a mangina will just accuse you of being an exemplar of toxic masculinity. A white knight may be a very masculine man, a mangina never is.” (Source)

white_knight

See also:

ewww

Male feminist, Jason Dion Bews, assaults female reporter then women cover his escape into the crowd (24 January 2017) Canada. Will this practice, feminists employing male muscle to fight their fights, become more common? If they get caught, meh, disavow & blame toxic masculinity!

The gendered nature of trolling, by Cory Zanoni (7 October 2016) An example of a mangina in action, employed by a web site widely-recognised for the degree of gender bias which it practices (example).

Things we could celebrate on an International Men’s Day, by Ben McLeay (7 March 2016) Another example of the handiwork of a mangina.

A more aggressive version of a ‘White Knight’ (20 January 2016) UK

Men Cannot Be Feminists, So Let’s Talk About Diversity Instead (10 December 2015) Australia

Beware the Self-Proclaimed Male Feminist (1 December 2015)

Philip Davies: ‘politically correct males pander to militant feminists’ (20 November 2015) UK

Gender identity triangle (3 June 2015) You Tube video

Masculinity, Positive Masculinity, and the White Knight as a Perversion of Masculinity (9 May 2015)

TV ad #4 Gender Traitor? Woman Hater? What kind of women think so? Divorce Attorney Marilyn York  (29 April 2015)

On White Knight syndrome (undated) India

7 reasons why dating feminist men truly sucks by Janet Bloomfield (14 November 2014)

The #GamerGate White Knight syndrome (18 October 2014)

Wanna be a Male Feminist? Okay, here’s what you have to do by Janet Bloomfield (9 August 2013)

Why so few men protest anti-male sexism (Or: Why men fear women) (23 January 2012) Some background to understanding why many men are, the way they are – see also my post on ‘chivalry’.

The One Good Man‘ by Alison Tieman (16 March 2011)

White Knight Syndrome

Manginas – Betrayers of men (20 August 2008)

LibDem Mangina Richard Reeves calls for more housework to be done by men for women (8 March 2013)

The failed manhood of white knights (23 May 2012) by Paul Elam

A Youtube video on what feminism does to men

‘It’s not a contradiction for men to discriminate against other men’ (14 July 2014)

http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=205

http://drewspective.com/2011.11/misandry-distinguishing-lied-to-men-from-white-knights-manginas-pussy-beggars/

Feminism as a mating strategy among beta males (30 June 2014)

#DearFeministMen, there are some people who value your opinions and experiences (2 August 2014)

The Rise of the Mangina (27 November 2013)

Other related posts within this blog:

On chivalry
What did you call me? On labelling and language in gender discourse
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone (working draft)