The mainstream media is awash with articles infused with anti-male bias. Indeed after being conditioned through decades of exposure to this material, most people accept what they are told. In comparison to most of those articles, the focus of this post regarding alleged male risk-taking behaviour is admittedly rather benign. Indeed, if taken at face-value it appears to be sympathetic to the welfare of men & boys.
Examined more closely however the article reflects the contrasting and hypocritical manner in which the media addresses men’s & women’s issues.
The same day I noticed this article I came across another in a similar vein. That article mocks men in relation to another trait associated with masculinity – demonstrating protective behaviour towards women.
No there is nothing controversial about shaming men – just men – about pretty much anything nowadays. That’s kind of my point. And the article isn’t so much about “asking why“, but telling us why … apparently men are foolish.
And oddly, whilst this is an article about men’s behaviour, it begins with an account of the drowning of a 23 month old toddler. This seems to infer that even very young boys are dying due to masculinity-induced recklessness. Presumably female toddlers are more careful.
As the article is relatively brief, I’ll provide it here in its entirety:
“The twin brother pulled unconscious from a Sydney swimming pool has died three days after his sister, in what has been described as a “deeply disturbing” week for water deaths.
Charli and Robbi Manago, 23 months, had been fighting for life in The Children’s Hospital at Westmead since they were found in their family’s pool around 7pm on December 20. The hospital last night confirmed Robbi had died.
His death takes the number of coastal and inland waterway fatalities since Sunday to 11. Nine of the dead were men.
Experts say a deadly cocktail of conditions — male bravado, consistent warm weather, and a poor understanding of water dangers — has led to the deaths.
As police and volunteers return to Sydney’s Maroubra Beach to find the body of missing teenager Tui Gallaher and search a Wagga river in the south of NSW for a 42-year-old man, experts have warned people not to overestimate their abilities.
Between 80 and 90 per cent of drowning victims are male, according to recent figures.
Four people died on Boxing Day, including 60-year-old Geoffrey Blackadder, who died trying to save young relatives from a rip on the NSW north coast, and 25-year-old Amine Hamza, who died after swimming with friends at Bents Basin in Sydney’s west.
“It’s deeply disturbing. Men are more likely to overestimate their swimming ability and underestimate how dangerous conditions are,” said Justin Scarr, chief executive at the Royal Life -Saving Society Australia.
“Men are more likely to swim in locations away from lifeguards and crowds, and they’re also more likely to consume alcohol.””
As you can see, the premise of the article is that substantially more men die from drowning due to those men taking excessive and presumably avoidable risks.
May I ask you, when was the last time you saw a headline “X blamed on women’s risky behaviour”? Where ‘X’ might have been death/rape/injury/cosmetic surgery/whatever. 1965? That’s because journalists know that when they discuss any such situations they must, at all costs, avoid be called-out for ‘victim-blaming’. And yet the same consideration is not on offer when men are the victims. Gender equality when it suits?
The assertion that drowning deaths result from men taking undue risks appears unproven. The examples of swimming outside the flags and drinking are provided, although neither of these behaviours are exclusive to men.
There are other possible explanations for a gender variation in deaths, particularly the likelihood that men venture into the water more often, and for longer periods, than do women. Clearly those who don’t go to the beach, or who lie on their towels 95% of the time, are less likely to drown in the ocean.
All outdoor activities have some degree of inherent risk, i.e. they are all “risky”. Given that men are significantly more likely than women to participate in almost all forms of outdoor recreation, they are clearly more likely to be injured or killed participating in such activities. One of the few exceptions is netball, a sport recognised as having a low risk of drowning.
If a significant number of drowning deaths were due to medical emergencies then it would make more sense to focus on men’s health, than male shaming. It is likely that some of the male drowning deaths were also the result of men attempting to rescue others.
For the purpose of this discussion let’s concede that “risky behaviour” (to be defined) may indeed result in more men drowning than women. And of course it would be preferable that those tragedies not occur. But before rushing to judgement let’s also consider the issue of risk-taking by men in a broader context.
Men tend to take more risks than women, and this risk-taking results in a range of both positive and negative impacts on society. On the positive side I would go so far as to propose that risk-taking by men has been and continues to be the powerhouse of civilisation.
Need someone to step forward to defend a woman being attacked? Men are expected to step forward, and are shamed if they do not. Need someone to defend a country from attack? Ditto.
In Australia 97% of workplace deaths involve men – around 175 people in 2016. Men working in dangerous and unpleasant jobs that women generally won’t accept. Where is the outrage about the risks these men take in providing necessary services to the community?
Based on media coverage, or lack thereof, it would appear that men taking risks in the name of chivalry, industry and national service is acceptable if not expected. In contrast, men taking risks during their leisure hours is unacceptable and worthy of negative media attention.
Men don’t deserve to be shamed for exhibiting the trait of risk-taking, nor for choosing not to do so. In fact greater recognition that male risk-taking more often benefits society would seem appropriate.
Sure there will be times when some men deserve a thoughtful journalistic rap over the knuckles, but this should not be the default position. Similarly there are times when women’s behaviour merits a commensurate sanction. At the moment however women are rarely subject to criticism, are encouraged to take risks, and the blame for any negative repercussions more often placed at the feet of men.
It’s time everyone got on the same page with gender equality, and recognised that there should be one standard to which we are all held. And that support and empathy should be consistently applied and gender-blind. Anything less will see more of the same unfortunate and divisive gender bias that now permeates the mainstream media.
Reader posts in a related Reddit discussion thread here
The author begins by pointing out the high levels of death/injury that occur in the farming, forestry and mining sectors. These are of course sectors which feature an overwhelmingly male workforce.
The author states that a high level of substance abuse is associated with the relevant employees and workplaces, and that this is a contributing factor in the incidence of workplace death/injury. Further, she notes that the relevant workplaces tend to be harsh, lonely and isolated, and that this might encourage substance abuse by way of people seeking relief.
Well that’s all reasonable enough, but then the author goes further and implies (as is evident from the title) that masculinity is a major factor behind the worrying statistics.
No, not the fact that the work being undertaken is inherently dangerous, and carried out in challenging environments. Nope, she sheets home a significant portion of the blame to men, both individually and collectively.
It’s at this point that I’m thinking, “hey, if this was about deaths/injuries in a female-dominated sector, I think the emphasis might be quite a bit different.” Even assuming female staff also demonstrated behaviour that elevated their level of exposure to risk.
I’m struggling to think of a suitable analogy. Perhaps if we run with the situation of the many women working in nursing or education in isolated areas. For the purpose of this discussion assume are likewise affected by high rates of injury, as indeed might well be the case. Can you imagine a male researcher suggesting that their femininity was a contributing factor to deaths or injuries? Because I can’t.
No, more likely, instead of victim-blaming there would be terms used like gender death gap, and a discussion of broader social forces and how these contributed to the situation. The thing that annoys me most about this article is what seems to be an unstated acceptance that doing this type of work is mens lot in life, and that this somehow renders discussion of the ‘big-picture’ redundant.
But back to men working in farming, forestry and mining. Given that the author has chosen to play the gender card, then why not discuss why the dirty and dangerous jobs are still left to men. And why the men took those jobs, whether it be to support families in the face of very limited employment opportunities for people of the relevant demographic. Note that this problem has been exaccerbated by the feminist push to have more women enter/return to the workforce. And what of the single men? Perhaps working in high-risk roles represents their only chance to accumulate assets needed to attract a wife in a era of rampant hypergamy.
Perhaps if they introduced gender quotas in these sectors then maybe the resultant mixed workforce might ameliorate these factors, at least a little. At the very least it would share the deaths/injuries more evenly between the genders. But heck no, a feminist suggesting gender quotas to encourage women into uncomfortable/unpleasant jobs? As if! A little too much gender equality for that idea to ever fly.
So no, rather than taking an empathetic and holist view of the matter, the author opts to take a free kick for feminism and paints a simplistic ‘boys being boys’ motif.
These are men dying or being maimed, to supply products that create the comfortable environment in which feminists can drink $6 lattes whilst bemoaning invented elements of a mythical patriarchy.
And now these are men dying or being maimed as fodder for the feminist machine. A half page in ‘The Conversation‘, and perhaps a well-paid gig for some ideologically-sound marketing company (think, ‘awareness’ campaign).
This article would have been so much better were the author enough of a professional to either avoid the gratuitous addition of gender politics, or to provide a more complete and unbiased account of men doing the best they can under the circumstances they find themselves in. And with this more fulsome account concluding with a road map to a better place for both the men in question, and their families.
Some time ago I came across an item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication that focused on men’s issues. In its September 2014 edition it featured an article entitled Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women. (Sadly the web site no longer exists, although the article is still available via web.archive.org).
The article informed us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.
“So what does this tell us about public attitudes towards men, women, boys and girls? Big charities aren’t stupid. They know what sells. The top 1,000 charities in the UK raise £11.5 billion every year in voluntary donations. Charity is big, BIG business and big business knows that all of us, men and women, are collectively more tolerant of the harm that happens to men and boys. If you want to raise money, you’ve more chance of doing it if you tell people women and girls are suffering.
And what message does this send to men and boys? That we are less valued by society, that we are not cared for as much as women, that we are not as vulnerable, that we don’t need the help of others, that we are tough and strong and should “man up” and get on with our lives and not expect help when we face problems in life. Is it any wonder that men are less likely to access help and support when they need it, when the constant message that we give to men and boys collectively is that we don’t need and don’t deserve help and support from others?”
I included a link to this article in tweets I sent to organisations such as ‘Plan International’, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they promoted online.
One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.
There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.
Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?
And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:
“In countries facing conflicts and crises, women & girls often eat least and last. Their specific needs must be prioritized in humanitarian response efforts.”
“Where women are absent, peace does not prevail” (28 October 2022) with full statement here wherein the Australian Government proudly informs the world that “Today’s topic is not one for debate. The evidence is clear that pathways to peace are paved with women’s resilience and leadership”. Cringe. Be a good boy and drink your glass of feminist Kool-aid.
Truss says she is “proud that we have rebalanced our international development budget” and focused it more on humanitarian aid, and women and girls. (19 October 2022) UK Source
“Our new four-year Strategic Partnership Framework with Australia and the commitment of AU$31.2 million to core resources are vital to UN Women’s ability to support gender equality and women’s empowerment” (19 June 2022) Source: A tweet from UN Women
Stronger partnerships with women in Southeast Asia (1 April 2022) ‘Women Together’ is $300 million program to “focus on building women’s economic empowerment, increasing women’s leadership in regional peace and stability and realise women’s and girl’s rights with a focus on violence prevention”
Russian soldiers are committing a genocide against boys & men in Ukraine. This has been picked up by the media, but they are avoiding saying the gender. They’re just “civilians” or “bodies”. Twitter thread (4 April 2022)
The silence about this (re: military draft) gender inequality is greatest from countries that profess to have a feminist foreign policy (Source) Certainly nothing has been said by any Australian politician or government agency.
“The Ambassador for Women and Girls raises the importance of addressing sexual and gender-based violence, increasing economic opportunities for women, promoting women’s leadership, the critical importance of promoting positive social norms and the rights of girls.”
A selection of foreign aid organisations that fail to address the welfare needs of men
See globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs
See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same
See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)
World Vision article prepared by news.com.au entitled ‘Why gender equality is about basic rights‘ only to then launch into a discussion of why (only) girls need help, and ignoring the fact that poor boys face the same challenges as poor girls, e.g. forced to work young, forced to marry young, genital mutilation, etc.
The article concludes with “All children can be vulnerable, and girls face particularly harsh realities because of their gender. That’s why World Vision has started a movement to sponsor 1000 girls by International Day of the Girl. You can join us now and help a girl in poverty live free of fear. Sponsor a girl today.” (September 2019)
“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”
“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”
“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:
• Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently; • Existing power inequalities between women and men exacerbates during crisis; • Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms; • Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and • Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”
Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.
“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being. We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”
Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why? Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?
Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”
“… The research by Lara Stemple at the University of California doesn’t only show that male sexual violence is a component of wars all over the world, it also suggests that international aid organisations are failing male victims. Her study cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. Only 3% of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically,” Stemple says, “as a passing reference.””
One of the defining features of the present-day feminist is their lack of compassion for the welfare of men/boys. This was again driven home to me this morning when I read an article ‘Suicide isn’t just an older man’s problem‘ (sub-titled ‘Suicide is increasing among young people, especially women‘).
The topic of men is dispensed with in a single paragraph (para 8):
“Historically, suicide in Australia has been largely seen as a male problem, with men, particularly middle-aged men, frequently identified as a high risk in our national strategies. Projects have focused on workplaces such as the construction industry, and men’s information resource centres. In men over the age of 25, rates are higher than those among younger women; however, with the exception of men aged between 55 and 64, these rates appear to be relatively stable.”
The bulk of the article is about women and young women, and how serious the problem of suicide is for them.
In this article today the authors only acknowledge the issue obliquely, by way of saying that ‘yes it’s a thing, but it’s not just about men’ … before proceeding to make it all about women. Seriously?
And so we have a serious social problem that disproportionately affects men, but which is largely ignored in feminist literature. On the odd occasion the male suicide issue is mentioned, the problem is essentially blamed on men, for e.g. masculinity, and the pressure imposed by gender roles.
A common theme is that the key to better means mental health is men opening up and talking to people. Oftentimes this is expressed in a simplistic and sometimes condescending way, viz. if only men would act more like women … problem solved.
Yes many, but not all, men might benefit from verbalising their concerns, but much more than that is needed. Systemic and cultural changes that acknowledge the value of men, and initiatives to address the myriad issues raised elsewhere in this blog. Measures that would act as a counterweight to the prevailing gynocentric bias. That’s the scale of action required to make substantial progress towards a remedy.
Oh, and take a look at this article in The Guardian … “Figures show more than one in 10 prison suicides are by women”. The other nine? Nothing to worry about.
“It does not surprise me that suicide among men is increasing. Forty a week is a national disgrace and the Family Court of Australia is a big part of this problem.My divorce took all my capital and reduced my ability to pay maintenance. It took my super, used to pay off the mortgage, after saying I could keep my super if my wife could keep hers. I put her through university, typed all her assignments and even writing some so that she could become a lawyer and use the system to screw me. When my wife failed to allow access to my daughter for weekends and holidays, I was told by the Family Court of Australia that it did not enforce court orders, “and especially not for men”.
I have not even spoken on the telephone with my daughter for more than fifteen years because her mother hangs up when I ring. I have a court order specifying alternate weekends and weekly phone calls. My daughter is now in her twenties and until two months ago I was still paying maintenance. I was down south a few weeks ago and was roundly abused as an MCP by one virago because I stepped back and allowed her to enter the lift first. In a modern society where few people seem to have any knowledge of good manners, life is sometimes confusing and disadvantaged.”
“Griffith University-based clinical psychologist Jacinta Hawgood said the macho culture of mining and construction was playing a key role in the stark statistics. “While women will talk to each other about difficulties, men often will not ask each other ‘are you OK?,’’ she said.”
“I do not think the high rates of suicide and depression in men can solely be attributed to unjust laws that put men into situations where they see no reason to go on living, or the general misandry spread in the media. These are but the tangible results of modern women’s callous attitudes towards men.”
What do we do now that suicide rates among young women are on the rise? (14 March 2016) It must have burned Jenna Price (‘Destroy the Joint’) to mention the word men (once) in a role other than as perpetrator of evil. Jenna thinks there needs to be more kindness shown, but presumably not the variety of kindness that radfem’s of her ilk shower on CIS-Het white men who constitute the bulk of suicides.
“Murder-suicide is most often perpetrated by men – but this is hardly surprising. Men are generally the perpetrators of murder, and men make up the majority of suicides in Australia, too.” Only a feminist would hold up the fact that many men kill themselves as proof that men are inherently violent.
Way back at the start of my career I was responsible for coordinating the undertaking of a major social survey. It was a face-to-face survey using randomly selected households across an area of the city. It asked people a wide range of questions about their leisure pursuits and many related issues. It covered the whole range of leisure activities from solo and/or passive and/or indoor pursuits to team sports and various outdoor activities. I designed the questionnaire in conjunction with staff from an internationally-recognised market research company.
The results of the survey were very interesting indeed. One of the most striking, and unanticipated findings was the huge degree of difference along gender lines, but not in terms of participation rates in specific activities, in terms of participation in anything. There were very few activities in which girls/women participated more than boys/men, and many in which they rarely/never participated. I remember thinking “what on earth are they doing with their time?” And no, this disparity could not readily be put down to obvious factors like a lack of facilities for women/girls.
Now many years later I know that there are many other areas of life, in which men are much more actively involved than women. I know there are contributing factors applying to some women in some situations, for e.g. many women are more involved in child rearing than are men. Feminists will no doubt point to further unseen patriarchal forces at work that, they say, prevent or discourage the participation of women in many fields. Whatever. For the purpose of this post I won’t delve into minutiae. And i’m not judging either men or women on the basis of this situation. Let’s just run with the simple premise that, overall, men do more of most things.
If men are doing more of most things then it follows that men are probably doing more bad things (including relatively benign things that feminists think of as being bad). And they are doing most of these things in the public gaze. This includes everything from driving more, being elected to government more, starting and running companies more, fighting more, etc.
The fact that men are doing more ‘bad’ things makes them an easy target for demonisation. It attracts a swathe of criticism in and of its own right. Women are also doing all of the same things but to a correspondingly lesser extent, so can more easily be portrayed as ‘better’ persons.
Today I came across an old article that took it one step further. It was in that tedious and censorious pro-feminist rag, ‘The Guardian‘.
In this article men are doing more of a good thing, but are still being castigated for doing so. Because if men are more actively involved then it can only be because women are being excluded, or men are going behind their back, etc. Feminist logic 101.
I spent some time the other day voicing my views in relation to an article that appeared in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘. Their motto is ‘academic rigour, journalistic flair’. Their track-record, in my experience, is based upon pandering to progressive liberals – especially feminists. Naturally that has a big bearing on their failure to satisfy the “academic rigour” part of the equation. They include nothing from a men’s rights or egalitarian perspective and heavily moderate readers comments to make sure as little as possible of that nasty triggering sort of stuff makes it online.
Anyway the article was entitled ‘Out of the shadows: The rise of domestic violence in Australia‘ (4 August 2014). I’m going to let you read that article, which is fairly typical of its genre, i.e. domestic violence IS men’s violence towards women and their children, no mention of female perpetrators or male victims, etc. Last time I looked there were more than 50 readers comments tagged on the end, including those of yours truly.
A day or two later I stumbled upon the facebook page of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘, an organisation tasked with lobbying for and on behalf of female victims of DV. The Foundation receives several million dollars each year from the federal government plus further funding from the Victorian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments.
Anyway, scrolling down the Foundation’s page I quickly came upon posts by people complaining about some of the comments contributed to the article mentioned above. The comments in question identified substantial omissions and misrepresentations in the way that the issue of domestic violence had been portrayed.
White knight ‘Mike’ bemoaned the fact that men were “nit-picking” the stats about the victimisation of men. Hmm, alerting the public to the fact that a large slab of the victims and perpetrators of DV are being ignored … yes, how petty of us. A spokesperson for the Foundation subsequently commented: “Yes it’s pretty upsetting but let’s hope this kind of resistance is a sign a raw nerve has been struck and that once these men get over the shock they will reach some kind of realisation.”
And then a few days later (6 August 2014) the following exchange took place:
Denise H – What about domestic violence against men. It happens, it’s very real.
Kirstina B – ‘Denise’ is a guy, obviously.
Kirstina B –Oh, and ‘Denise’, I’m sure gay men suffer violence from men, too. That will be addressed when DV is addressed for women.
Kris C –I wonder why some people are quick to hijack any publicity of DV with trying to talk about male victims. Yes, they are real, but it’s rather rude to butt in with that when that’s not the specific focus at hand. Imagine hijacking any publicity on the victims of the airline crash with “what about burns victims? they are real”. [See Footnote 2]
These and other material contained within the Foundation’s page go beyond simply being callous and offhand, to being either breathtakingly deluded or just plain sick. In fact the Foundation’s Facebook page appears to be a veritable goldmine of misandry and gloating indifference to the plight of men.
Men are being battered at the same rate as women but this is rarely acknowledged by the media. Men dare to draw attention to this disparity and instead of empathy and support, the Foundation treats them as if they were ignorant, selfish or stupid.
“Let’s hope” the men “reach some kind of realisation”, huh?Oh you bet we will. The realisation that the Foundation, and the feminist ideology with which it is so richly imbued, is content to angrily wave away the welfare of half of the community.
I’d like to invite members of the Foundation to peruse the following comments attributed to men who approached shelters for emergency accommodation: (Source)
“One abused man said:
They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.
They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.
Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:
They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.
They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.
Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.”
One abused man said: They just laughed and hung up the phone.
Another said: They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.
I call on the men and women of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘ to park their sexist bigotry for 30 minutes and scan the dozens of studies that I either list or link to on my post about domestic violence that show that as many women are violent as are men. Then take a look at my blog post about male victims of domestic violence and the shameful lack of support that they receive.
Ask yourselves, are all of the studies faked? Are they all wrong? Fraudulent components of a global patriarchal conspiracy? Consider those findings in relation to the message you broadcast in your web site and facebook page. Do you feel smugly self-satisfied about the twisted version of reality you are painting, or is there some small sliver of guilt?
Do you not see that acknowledging the true reality of male victimhood, of female perpetration, and of bi-directional violence, does not undermine the validity of advocating for women? Do you understand that this is not some sort of ‘winner take all’ blame game? [see Footnote 3] And that it’s not necessary to step on the backs of men, and certainly not the backs of male victims, to help female victims?
It hardly even matters what the ratio of male/female abusers is, what is important is to address the whole problem and to discuss potential solutions in a free, open, constructive and non-judgemental manner. This is not what the main players in the DV advocacy sector are doing at the moment. This is what they should be doing. What they could be doing if they stopped wasting time deleting posts from others equally invested in finding a solution, but whose ideas and perspectives happen to differ from their own.
Please submit your response to this post and I will be sure to put it online. Oh, and be sure to include your postal address so I can send you your very own commemorative singlet (pictured).
The first of these two staunchly gynocentric articles contained gems of feminist wisdom like:
“Until recently, the media weren’t interested in reporting domestic violence. Journalists didn’t see “domestics” as a story. The reason for this seems to be that the media hold the same negative attitudes to women that have been globally recognised as contributing to violence against them in the first place.
This is of concern, since media play a key role in forming societal attitudes to gender and gender roles.”
Well if you look at my primary post in this blog dealing with domestic violence you will see that the media has published quite a bit about domestic violence. You only need to get busy with google to confirm that. And not only that, but most of the coverage has pushed the feminist line 100%. That being the case I find myself agreeing with the feminists that it really IS a worry that the media forms societal attitudes … which will now be saturated with feminist dogma and strongly biased against men and boys.
“Australian media have a balance of power tipped overwhelmingly towards men, according to the most recent study of who owns, runs, influences, reports, presents and creates the news.”
Isn’t it just amazing that seeing how the media is run by men for men, that it takes such a strongly pro-feminist view towards the issue of domestic violence. Quite remarkable really. That little old patriarchy sure can move in mysterious ways.
Footnote 1: Flagrant misrepresentations by feminist DV spokespeople are by no means uncommon. Mike Buchanan in the U.K has also written letters seeking the retraction of biased and misleading information, and as with Ms Stott Despoja, no responses were forthcoming:
If any further proof was needed that a male life was worth less than a female life, then the global media furore surrounding the activities of Boko Haram provides us with just that proof.
‘Bring back our girls’ indeed. Whilst not wishing to detract from the terrible tragedy of the kidnapped schoolgirls, the associated media coverage raises serious questions about the media’s blindness to the abuse and murder of enormous numbers of boys by both this and similar groups in Africa. Indeed most media coverage of the issues makes no mention of harm done to boys and men at all, see for example this article.
A journalist from the Wall Street Journal, Drew Hinshaw, recently did an online Q&A during which he ignored questions about why the WSJ had made no mention of the harm done to boys/men by Boko Haram. Can’t say? Won’t say? Don’t care?
Yes, you have to search on google (e.g. “what about the boys Boko Haram”) to find the few articles that have been published which actually address all those missing/killed/abused males – see this, this, this, this, this and this.
In our next example let’s move to Europe. In the 2004 paper entitled Gendercide in Kosovo,author Adam Jones investigates gendercide of men in Bosnia by excluding men:
There is obviously a great deal of violence, oppression and areas of relative disadvantage affecting men and boys. The true extent of this is, however, suppressed by feminists and feminist sympathisers within the media, government agencies and universities because it undermines the dominant feminist narrative (men as oppressors/women as the powerless and oppressed).
I touched on this issue in a post I made on the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page on 23 August 2014 concerning a story they ran on modern-day slavery:
“Isn’t is funny how gender is never mentioned in these stories unless women/girls are worse off? Most enslaved people are male working in primary production and construction, but most of the attention and support is directed towards the far smaller number of women is sexual servitude. Guess that might have something to do with the abundance of feminists in the media/gov’t/NGO sectors and how feminists view males as disposable.”
Many feminists, particularly those towards the radical end of the spectrum, make it crystal clear that their view of men falls somewhere between cockroaches and rats. I was wondering then if there were in fact any men at all, amongst all those rapists and wife-beaters, that they looked up to.
What put this idea in my mind was this article about Angelina Jolie’s new film, ‘Unbroken’ about war hero and athlete, the recently deceased, Louis Zamperini … Angelina being of course quite an icon for many within the feminist movement.
Do feminists, for example, revere the efforts of a man like Ian Frazer, the inventor of a ground-breaking vaccine for cervical cancer? So I googled on “do feminists have male heroes”, but my net came up almost empty. There were just a couple of questions asked on Yahoo which attracted very few responses:
In this discussion ‘Dee’ responded thus: Generally feminists don’t like heroes, because a hero is a big, strong, masculine, courageous, male warrior. Like Hercules or Achilles, or Perseus, or Conan the Barbarian.
And most feminists really seem to hate strong, powerful, masculine men. (Especially the radical feminists, who want to make all men more like women, and make all women more like men. That is, they want to erase all the natural and wonderful differences between the sexes. How boring.)
… I outgrew my youthful feminist idealism years ago, when I realized how ridiculous “mainstream” feminism was becoming. And now it’s even worse, it has become downright man-hating nonsense that is destructive to men and women alike. But the good news is that when anything becomes that absurd, then inevitably the pendulum will start to swing back in the other direction, there will be a growing backlash against the radical extremes. And the backlash against feminism is well underway, and getting bigger every year.
The link to this article read “Hero motorists pull children from sinking car” (2 May 2017) USA. As is usually the case, if it’s a good news story about men then gender is not specified. If the reported incident had reflected poorly on men, you can bet that the writer/editor would have used “men” rather than “motorists”.
“Terrorist attacks are mostly done by men. I don’t mean to counter your post, I just think it is incomplete” (‘Peacock’)
“Honestly – this kind of myopia leaves me speechless. Of course most really, really bad stuff is done by men. Most really really good stuff is done by men as well.
For one simple reason – men are more exceptional then women. In any given population you will find far more male CEOs, Nobel Prize winners, breakthrough scientists, great leaders, sublime artists then you will women – about 8 times more in fact.
You will also find more male criminals, homeless, clinical imbeciles, despots than women – about 8 times more in fact.
For one very simple reason – eggs are more valuable than sperm. Nature needs us to evolve so it experiments, pushes the envelope of what it means to be human. And you don’t experiment with the most valuable part of your population – young fertile women – which of course means women in general.
Women, as a group, cluster much more around the average then men do, as a group.
This doesn’t mean that women are incapable of reaching the top, or the bottom, just that there will always be fewer of them there, compared to men.
And yet feminism continues to take the worst of men and use them to characterize all men, and take the best of women and use them to characterize all women. And use the fact that there isn’t a 50-50 split of men / women in EVERYTHING to justify it.
So men are demonized and many women are instructed to take paths they are not best suited for. End result; men disengaging and women increasingly relying on psychiatric drugs and other self destructive self medication to get by.
The sad thing is – you know who used to control the really bad men and help the ones at the bottom? The vast mass of balanced, reasonable, fair and decent men in the middle. The very men feminism has attacked because it knew these men were too good natured to truly fight back.
And they haven’t. Instead they are walking away. You might want to give that some consideration before you join the chorus implying that all men are as bad as the worst of men. And please don’t try to deny this was the implication of your post – leaving me speechless is one thing – don’t make me think you are feeble minded as well. I have a mother, wife and daughter whom I love very much but I know they tend towards plausible deniability when they think they can get away with it.. But they at least try to control it and see the men in their lives for what they are rather than what the herd tells them to think.
So should you.” (‘Cadders’)
Kevin Vickers saved many lives by quickly taking down a gunman in the Canadian parliament building. Everyone would be dead if he had waited for a feminist to intervene. But masculinity is toxic … until society needs someone to step up. (24 October 2014)
The life expectancy of both men and women has substantially increased over the past 130 years. Most people would recognise that women have always had a longer life expectancy than men. But did you did you know that the gap between the life expectancy of men and women is wider now than it was in 1884? Now why would that be?
“Feminism is wrong about which sex has it harder when it comes to health. Men are the real victims of biased public health programs designed to help women at the expense of men. But this section has only explored a few areas where feminism has created a false perception of which sex needs greater attention to their health issues. It should be clear that men have no special privileges when it comes to health. However, women’s health, both physically and psychologically, is taken very seriously, is far better funded, and women are privileged with longer healthier lives when compared to men because of the social and political privileges that are exclusive to women. Hence health is a men’s rights issue that needs to be addressed.”
In 2012, suicide was the third leading cause of death for American men and boys in the 10-14, 15-19, and 20-24 age groups along with the second leading cause of death for men 25-29 and 30-34. That year, it was also the leading cause of death for US soldiers. Overall, suicide was the 7th leading cause of death for American men in 2012 with males making up more than 78% of suicide victims for the year.
In 2012, more than twice as many boys aged 10-14 took their own lives than were victims of homicide. The only two causes of death that took more boys’ lives in this age group were cancer and accidental injuries. More than 72% of the children in this age group who took their own lives were boys. Even at a young age, boys are far more likely to end their own lives.
Why do men die younger than women? (18 December 2022) Zero mention of funding differentials re: research & treatment of men’s versus women’s ailments. Zero mention of ongoing feminisation of the health care sector and treatment methodology
I read this article the other day noting an alleged fall-off in PSA testing by men during the Covid pandemic. I subsequently received this info via a tweet:
“In 2018, 2999 women & 35 men died from breast cancer in Aust. In 2018, 3,264 men died from prostate cancer in Aust. Nearly $3.5m has been given to fund research specifically into prostate cancer whilst breast cancer received $460m”
On feminists actively undermining men’s health initiatives
In my blog I have listed hundreds of articles and academic papers that relate to various men’s rights issues. Within this collection there would be precious few that have been included purely because of how appallingly bad they were. This paper by Dr Michael Salter is therefore exceptional in that, and only in that, regard. His paper which attacks the involvement of men’s rights groups in lobbying for equitable treatment of men’s health issues displays a truly extraordinarydegree of anti-male and pro-feminist bias.
This Reddit mensrights discussion thread is about feminists seeking to undermine the ‘Movember’ men’s health initiative on the basis of it supporting masculinity (20 October 2014). Here is one of the examples cited, and following it is a detailed response from a representative of the Movember movement. I think it’s well-worthy of being reproduced here and now:
“Pete Bombaci here, Country Director for Movember Canada. I’ve read the above and I want to clarify many of the inaccurate points written about Movember here.
You say that “what once started out as a harmless campaign has become sexist, racist, transphobic, and misinformed.” This is simply not true.
As you admit in your article, Movember isn’t just about raising money. It’s about having conversations. The magic of Movember is that it can unite different people from all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds under one flag: men’s health. You don’t have to be rich to wear a Mo, and you don’t have to be cool to change the world.
Thanks to our amazing Mo Bros and Mo Sistas, we are changing the world, and that includes changing standard definitions of masculinity. Movember isn’t about men being super tough or butch, though many Mo Bros and some of our Mo Sistas are so. Movember isn’t about growing the biggest, butchest, moustache. It’s about growing the best Mo you can personally grow. It’s about personal bests, about getting engaged in men’s health, about knowing yourself and taking care of yourself and your communities.
The Movember community is a global one that cuts across race, class and gender because cancer and mental health illness cuts across race, class, and gender. The idea that white cisgendered men shouldn’t raise funds for prostate cancer because they aren’t the ones most affected by it is antithetical to Movember vision. Making sure our fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers, friends, neighbours, coworkers feel safer being vulnerable talking about and taking care of their health, their bodies, and their mental health can only make life better for ALL OF US.
Some folks might argue that Movember isn’t a space for transpeople. This only speaks to the stigma and lack of understanding that transpeople face on a daily basis. We are well aware that some Mo Bros don’t have prostates. Whether it’s because a Mo Bro’s cancer treatment required the removal of his prostate, or whether he simply wasn’t born with one, we don’t discriminate against our Mo Bros for not having a prostate. For us, the truest mark of a Mo Bro is his willingness to change the world. The only binary we recognize is Movember and the rest of the year.
To your claim that Movember is sexist, I would say that Movember was and continues to be inspired by women’s health movements. Beyond that, women are a vital part of Movember as team leaders, teammates, and supporters. Women are substantial fundraisers. Women are, traditionally, the gatekeepers of family health and can be experts at one of our main goals: getting conversations about male health going. SinceMovember is about moustaches, we don’t typically encourage women to grow out their leg or armpit hair, though we’ll never turn down a nicely styled Mo,regardless of who wears it. We have one Mo Sista this year from Ottawa who is sporting a Mo every day for the entire month of Movember. Who would dream of trying to squash that kind of determination?
An important face to note here is that you represent Movember as No Shave November. Taking comments from No Shave November participants and portraying them as the opinions of our Mo Bros and Mo Sistas is inaccurate and disingenuous. Movember is not No Shave November and No Shave November is not Movember.
Movember suggests that folks show solidarity with each other by joining the Movember journey, in whatever form that looks like for you: go to a MOVE event; talk to your friends about their health, grow a Mo, or if you can’t, don’t. However, the Mo will always be our King because ultimately, our awareness program is powered by the growth of a new moustache and the obvious question that follows – why the moustache? Because our community members want an explanation for our change in appearance, a new Mo, those with Mo’s arm themselves with knowledge, provided by Movember, about men’s health.
The conversations started as a result of the moustache help to educate, breakdown stigmas, and ultimately change behaviour. From this program we know that 90% of Movember participants spend time thinking about improving their health, 75% discussed their health with family, friends or colleagues during Movember, and 66% of participants have had a recent general check-up. Globally in 2012 Mo Bros and Mo Sistas started 2.7 billion conversations about men’s health and Movember. We know that pairing this program with funding of world class men’s health research and programs helping men live with and beyond cancer and mental illness will help to truly change the face of men’s health.
You have also misrepresented our recommendation on PSA testing. Movember suggests: Men should talk to their doctor about prostate cancer testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to PSA testing. Understand the prostate cancer risk factors, discuss these with your doctor and decide if prostate cancer testing is right for you. You can find this here –http://ca.movember.com/mens-he….
You’ll also find a tool about the PROS and CONS of testing that we developed with the Societe internationale du urology. As Movember has grown we have worked with medical professionals to evolve our men’s health information and the materials available on Movember.com have been approved by national and international experts in the field.
It’s honestly disappointing to see Movember misrepresented in this way Movember. McGill continues to be one of the top supporting teams and the University has been an integral part of Movember funded research in Canada and on an international basis. We’re very proud of the community there and the work they have done. To date Mo Bros and Mo Sistas in Canada have raised an astonishing $13.5 Million for mental health.”