Going Batty: The making of a champion of the domestic violence industry

I have absolutely nothing personal against Rosie Batty, and in fact as a parent myself I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who has lost a child under such horrific circumstances. Her tragic loss has provided her with a unique and potentially valuable insight, but it does not qualify her to direct public policy on dealing with domestic violence in the community. She is but one person affected by a scourge that has affected thousands of Australians.

This is a complex topic and we need to hear about, and be open to, the experiences and opinions of many others. We should also ensure that we consider different theoretical/ideological perspectives and not, as is done now, exclude serious consideration of all but one approach (feminism/Duluth Model).

Rosie has transformed herself and/or allowed herself to be transformed, into a veritable battering ram for the domestic violence industry. Feminist advocates and their allies in the media and political sphere have, like so many roman centurions, arranged themselves around her and are pressing her forward. Broader political events here in Australia have added further momentum as politicians look about for suitable populist issues with which to score cheap points and/or divert attention from other matters. This is patently obvious in Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s adoption of DV as one of his personal cause celebre.

This focussing of attention could have been a great thing in terms of getting decisive action on the issue of family violence and related issues like child abuse and elder abuse. But it won’t be. It won’t be because the whole episode is being choreographed by the archly-feminist domestic violence industry.

As a result all we will get is more of the same old failed and shockingly biased resourcing decisions and ‘initiatives’:

  • The continued turning-the-other-way when it comes to supporting male victims of DV and their children
  • The continued turning-the-other-way in relation the incidence of violent behaviour by women
  • The continued insistence that both the problem and its solution rests entirely in the hands of men
  • The continued emphasis on the discredited ‘Duluth model‘ of theorising domestic violence
  • The continued pouring of millions of dollars of public funds towards feminist consultants and advocacy groups
  • The creation of yet more consultative groups and the convening of more inquiries/royal commissions.

None of which have been proven to have any significant effect on reducing actual rates of perpetration and/or re-offending

And thus now we are witnessing a competition amongst state and federal politicians as to who cares the most about domestic violence, with ‘care’ manifesting itself through hideously costly inquiries and hand-outs to advocacy groups.

Here is a timeline of events:

Father who killed son, Luke Batty, at cricket ground had history of mental illness, says boy’s anguished mother (14 February 2014)

Luke Batty’s grieving mother speaks out on family violence (19 February 2014)

“The mother of Luke Batty says Australians need to have a greater understanding of family violence. Rosie Batty has also urged men to address the problem, in a long and emotional interview less than a week after her 11-year-old son was killed by his father at a Victorian cricket ground.”

Rosie Batty blasts Studio 10 host Joe Hildebrand on morning TV (2 April 2014)

Rosie Batty storms out of her murdered son’s inquest, almost in tears (23 October 2014)

It’s a disgrace some want Rosie to share the blame (23 October 2014)

Rosie Batty appointed ‘Australian of the Year’ (25 January 2015)

Rosie Batty’s speech after becoming 2015 Australian of the Year (25 January 2015)

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten seized the opportunity of Rosie’s appointment to climb higher upon the feminist bandwagon by calling for a federal Royal Commission on domestic violence. Someone should remind him that a federal inquiry is already underway and is due to report in March 2015.

Predictably the media then went to the Government to ask them whether they would support a national Royal Commission. Thank goodness that the Government stood its ground against this misguided proposal – at least thus far – although they did make other concessions.

Domestic violence funding in NSW: Rosie Batty as Australian of the Year raises profile of state ‘epidemic’ (26 January 2015)

Rosie Batty, Australian of the Year, will save lives of family violence victims, former police commissioner Ken Lay says (26 January 2015)

Ken Lay is one of the most well-recognised ‘white knights‘ on behalf of the Australian feminist movement, known for his frequent use of the incorrect statement that the “overwhelming majority” of domestic violence was perpetrated by men upon women.

Rosie Batty: I’d like to see a government campaign to stop domestic violence (27 January 2015)

Rosie Batty and Ken Lay appointed to new domestic violence advisory panel (28 January 2015)

I posted a quite cordial comment in response to this article but gee whiz, look what happened:

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Imagine that, a pro-feminist news source (The Guardian) censoring a (polite and non-threatening) dissenting viewpoint. Seriously now, this happens so often that I really must get into the habit of creating screen-saves each time I post a comment. (And so I did – refer below)

Any response to family violence must include funding legal services (29 Jan 2015)flooding

guardian12

guardian22

Rosie Batty – The Opposite Case (28 June 2015) Video

We must support Rosie Batty as she highlights domestic violence (6 February 2015)

Rosie Batty on why passion must lead to change on family violence (7 Feb 2015) In this article Rosie again makes no mention of the existence of male victims or female perpetrators. Rosie also suggests that the courts are biased towards the interests of the men’s rights movement and the rights of fathers.

‘Stop blaming the victim’: Rosie Batty to address MPs (2 March 2015) Rosie admits that the factors driving violent behaviour are “not readily understood“, whilst in the same paragraph asserting that it’s all about “gender inequality and “men’s sense of entitlement that a woman is their possession“. Except for violence committed by women, of course.

Rosie Batty calls for funds as poll finds family violence feared above terrorism (6 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Rosie Batty should apologise for this insult to Tony Abbott (28 September 2015)

See also:

Why people are furious John Setka reportedly invoked Rosie Batty’s name, by Wendy Tuohy (12 June 2019) It seems that he was expressing concern about the Domestic Violence Industry generally, rather than specifically about Rosie Batty, but look at the reaction.

Queen’s birthday honours list recognises trailblazers Rosie Batty and Ita Buttrose (10 June 2019)

The sad truth about the Luke Batty Foundation (19 February 2018) and Wrongdoing at Luke Batty Foundation is indefensible (22 February 2018) Mark Latham’s Outsiders discusses alleged financial irregularities and the abuse & turnover of female directors and staff, culminating in the closure of the Foundation.

If only Rosie Batty Hadn’t made her trauma about power (31 July 2017)

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

Mark Latham’s attack on Rosie Batty rejected by head of Rosie Batty Foundation (1 November 2016)

‘Women are being traumatised’: Rosie Batty call to end cross-examination by ‘abusers’  (25 October 2016) No mention, of course, of men traumatized via abuse and/or false accusations.

Rosie Batty partners with Lancome for domestic violence campaign (18 September 2016)

Anti-violence campaigner Rosie Batty shares son Luke’s struggle with male role models  (13 September 2016) Conveniently ignores the fact that girls are equally likely to grow to become abusers after exposure to violence/neglect perpetrated by mum and/or dad (or mum’s male partner).

Rosie Batty and Danny Blay Speak about MRA’s (15 June 2016)

Rosie Batty Says Men Who Have Never Hit Women Can Still Be Dangerous (15 June 2016) And women? Hmm, not so much it seems

Rosie Batty to lead family violence survivors council (23 March 2016)

Rosie Batty: Face to face with a domestic violence perpetrator (15 March 2016)

“The prospect of a feminist party in Australia intrigues Ms Batty. But she is not sure if she would make the giant step from activist to politician. “I would never discount it … who knows, all I do know is that I genuinely want to make a difference and so if I was comfortable and confident that I could make a significant difference through a political career, I think I would definitely consider that. I think it would be a real privilege to be given that opportunity.””

Saying goodbye to Rosie (25 January 2016)

Mark Latham slams Rosie Batty’s ‘feminist nonsense’ in podcast spray (22 January 2016) Some very interesting comments to be found amongst those in this reddit/r/Australia discussion thread

Outstanding response to Rosie Batty article (7 January 2016)

Liberal MP Graham Watt remained seated during Rosie Batty standing ovation (27 November 2015) See readers comments

Mark Latham argues we are putting women in danger (27 June 2015)

An open letter to Rosie Batty, by Mark Dent (15 March 2015)

Sanctified bigotry (10 February 2015)

Rosie Batty launches anti-domestic violence app for young women (15 February 2015) How easy it would have been to market this App as a tool for both young men and women, and what a sad indictment of feminism (& Ms. Batty) that this did not occur.

Is Rosie Batty Using Her Child’s Death For Her Own Fame And Fortune? (25 Jan 2015) Whilst many will consider this an unduly harsh and cynical assessment of the situation, I’ll let you be the judge as to the validity of the points raised within the context of the broader Australian DV debate.

For non-Australian readers: The meaning of the phrase “going batty

In exchanges within the reader’s comments section that follow various articles on the topic of DV, I have noted supporters of Ms Batty asserting that she is a champion for all victims of domestic violence. Her own Twitter profile makes it quite clear that is not the case.

batty1

Australian Government cuts funding to advocacy groups, except feminist ones

“As Scott Morrison prepared to step in as Social Services Minister, his new department was contacting housing advocacy groups and other community services providers on Monday to inform them their funding had been cut and contracts with the Commonwealth would be discontinued.

Social Services posted letters responding to requests for grants from the community sector for ongoing and new funding streams after a process first announced in March.

The government has previously warned it could satisfy just $800 million of the $3.9 billion in grants requested by the sector.” (Source)

Back in May 2014 around the time the federal budget was released, and when he wore a different hat, Scott Morrison was quoted as stating:

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says he axed funding for a refugee organisation just two weeks after guaranteeing it in the budget because he believes taxes should not be propping up advocacy groups.

“It’s not my view, it’s not the Government’s view, that taxpayer funding should be there to support what is effectively an advocacy group,” Mr Morrison said.

“They’re entitled to be an advocacy group; they do very good work in the community and the Government will continue to support that organisation for contracted services.

“But in terms of administrative funding for an advocacy group, in a tough budget like this, frankly I just formed the view that taxpayer funds were not going to be spent on those types of activities.”

Many groups have been affected by these cuts, not just immigration advocacy groups such as the one referred to above. Not only Scott Morrison but other Ministers have, in justifying the cuts, been at pains to differentiate between those organisations who provide “advocacy” and those that provide “frontline services” to those in need.

As I ran my eyes over the list of groups for whom funding has been withdrawn, one curious thing stands out. No groups that cater predominantly to the welfare of women or girls appear on the list, not even those that are quite clearly advocacy groups who do not provide frontline support services.

Consider the example of ‘Our Watch’, a feminist group within the domestic violence sector, who seem to have emerged from the budget maelstrom unscathed. Indeed ‘Our Watch’ received $4,675,550 in government funding in 2013/14, whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations.

What’s more, that sum incorporated only a portion of total promised federal funding of $13.1 million. ‘Our Watch’ will also act as a middle-man (oops) and conduit for additional government funding for sporting groups that successfully compete for the feminist tick of approval. Why it was considered appropriate to delegate this role to an NGO defies logic.

Turning our attention now to those groups that were subject to cuts in government funding. Some of those groups appear to cater to a predominantly male clientele, and I’m thinking in particular of those providing services to the homeless.

Why is this so? Surely if we did in fact exist within a patriarchy then the opposite should be true? Or could it be that feminists/white knights are the ones that really wield the power in Canberra? Is taking an axe to any organisation that has the feminist lobby’s tick of approval now just too scary for our civic ‘leaders’ to contemplate?

See also:

Community sector funding cuts begin (23 December 2014)

Homelessness advocacy groups lose $21m in federal government funding (23 December 2014)

Disability advocates warn Government cuts to social services grants could affect NDIS rollout (24 December 2014)

ABC interview with Scott Morrison (24 December 2014)

Brandis ties NGO funding to non-advocacy (26 July 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!

I wanted to draw your attention to a disturbing development involving the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign (‘WRC’). Before proceeding, I should clarify that this particular organisation is separate and fundamentally different from the White Ribbon Campaign led by Ms. Erin Pizzey. The distinction between the two groups is discussed in this other post.

In summary, Erin’s organisation recognises and advocates for victims of both genders. It believes that the root cause of domestic violence lies in generational family violence, and that the patriarchy is an ideological concept devoid of value or meaning within the context of the debate regarding domestic violence.

As is the practice with many feminist organisations, WRC suppresses useful and potentially constructive debate and actively censors dissenting views. A very clear example of this occurred in February 2015 involving one of WRC’s ‘ambassadors’, a fellow by the name of Tanveer Ahmed.

The role of ambassadors within the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign is described as follows:

“White Ribbon Ambassadors are men who recognise the importance of men taking responsibility and playing a leadership role in preventing men’s violence against women.

White Ribbon Ambassadors are formal representatives of White Ribbon Australia who have the knowledge, skills, attributes and determination to influence Australian men to critically evaluate their attitudes and behaviours toward women.” (Source)

Tanveer did just that. He showed leadership by writing an article about domestic violence that presented a perspective that included an acknowledgment of female perpetrators of violence, as well as a discussion of certain factors underpinning violent behaviour by both men and women.

For feminists this was like a red rag to a bull. They incorrectly interpreted “factors underpinning perpetration” as meaning “excuses for men to commit violence against women”. And as for his claims that significant numbers of women are also committing violence, well, every feminist knows that’s not true.

I should also point out that the sorts of ideas Tanveer shared in his article have been proposed by others and are hardly new or revolutionary. This fact sheet from SAVE, for example, also identifies various factors as being potential precursors of partner violence (refer Fact #5).

Here are some of the key items that have appeared in the media thus far:

Men forgotten in violence debate‘ by Tanveer Ahmed (9 February 2015)

Feminism in crisis as male supporter expresses view of his own (9 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed’s dangerous message on domestic violence by Clementine Ford (10 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed recommitting rather than resigning (11 February 2015)

Look at how the feminists turned on Tanveer by perusing his Twitter stream around 9/10/11 February 2015. See the brickbats hurled at him by high-profile feminists like Jane Caro and Elizabeth Broderick, as well as countless faceless SJW, their mouths frothing with spittle. It’s ironic how online bullying morphs from patriarchal scourge to sacred duty when someone dares to question the holy grail of feminism.

In a lengthy statement issued by WRC on 10 February 2015 it was noted that “Dr. Ahmed has agreed to participate in the Ambassador recommitment process”. (Source) Shades of totalitarianism … quite chilling really.

Yet despite the issuing of this statement an angry feminist horde continued to bay for Tanveer’s blood across the social media. See, for example, the WRC Facebook page (extract below) and Twitter stream. Perhaps somewhat surprising, most of the comments in the Facebook page were posted by women. Surprising only in that WRC is ostensibly an organisation for men. I guess the male supporters were well and truly cowed, just how their feminist masters wish them to be.

wrc1

Australian ‘White Knight’ politician Tim Watts, now teetering on the cusp of becoming a fully-fledged ‘Mangina’, stood up in federal parliament to demand that Dr Ahmed stand down from his role with WRC. A video of Tim’s speech is provided in his Facebook page (see 11 February), with further righteous fury evident in Tim’s Tweets.

The feminist’s message is crystal clear: “Men, we want you nice and visible up the front but don’t you dare say anything that isn’t 100% in accord with the feminist narrative or we will turn on you in a flash.”

The WRC is not an organisation that is interested in accurately describing the nature of domestic violence, in objectively teasing it apart into its component pieces, and in considering the widest possible range of solutions. This is an organisation that places a higher priority on maintaining the ‘integrity’ of the feminist narrative, and in pursuing both individual and collective self-interest.

Thus WRC portrays a picture of DV that conforms to their biased viewpoint, and that only acknowledges those causes and those solutions that fit neatly into the framework that they themselves have fashioned.

The thing is, we have already thrown many years and many million of dollars at that approach, only to have the self-same feminists come back to the public-funding trough claiming that the problem is getting worse and that we are now facing an “epidemic” of domestic violence. “Oh, but if only we had more funding we could keep the women and children safe“.

The ideologues at WRC and elsewhere in the femosphere now chanting ‘cast him out’ are nothing less than blinkered gender fascists. How any right-thinking adult could continue to support this group simply beggars belief.

The sacking of Tanveer from his role at The Australian newspaper and his removal from the role of ambassador with WRC demonstrate further escalation in the process of feminist retribution. The only question is whether the ad hominem attacks will continue in order to drive home the message to not only Tanveer, but others, to avoid criticism of all things feminist.

Rightly or wrongly I see some parallels with the case of recently-released Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste. I think I can state with confidence though, that any irony will be lost on SJW who pledged support for one, only to subsequently attack the other.

greste1

Tanveer’s next best step would be to accept a role as an ambassador for Erin Pizzey’s group, securing a far more inclusive outlet for his passion, as well as according him the opportunity to offer a one-fingered wave to his misguided former colleagues-in-arms.

Postscript 27 April 2015: Dr Ahmed to speak at USA DV symposium 5-7 June 2015

tahmed

See also:

Reddit mensrights discussion thread on this blog post (12 February 2015)

Say goodbye to the burly blue-collar face of unions: they’re now feminist (4 June 2015)

Lynched by the feminist mob-ette (14 March 2015)

White Ribbon Australia’s ethical dilemma (19 February 2015)

‘Disempowered’ men still lead on economic power (13 February 2015)

White Ribbon Australia ambassador challenges the sisterhood – is slated for re-education camp (15 February 2015)

Columnist Tanveer Ahmed sacked by the Australian over new plagiarism allegation (16 February 2015)

White Ribbon’s got some explaining to do (17 February 2015) As does the author of this article … so many obvious misrepresentations

Men’s rights activism, White Ribbon Campaign and Liberal Feminism (9 February 2015)

Elsewhere in this blog see:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

pplhaverights

White Ribbon Australia acknowledges male victims and invites communication (credibility trigger warning)

White Ribbon Day (25 November), and the days before and after it, saw quite a flurry of activity on the White Ribbon Australia Facebook page. I visited the page a number of times during this period to monitor discussion, occasionally contribute some comments, and generally check out what was going on.

I was interested to note the unexpectedly large number of posts from people drawing attention to the fact that many men were victims of domestic violence, that support services for male victims were inadequate or non-existent, and so on. I was also surprised to see a number of occasions where moderators sought to hose down dissent by uploading posts like this one:

“White Ribbon Australia believes that all forms of violence are unacceptable and acknowledges that domestic violence is experienced by both men and women. However, we also acknowledge that the majority of victims of domestic violence are women. We are aware that there are other organisations working to stop violence against men and we commend any work they do to stop violence. If you’re a male experiencing violence, please contact MensLine on 1300 78 99 78 bit.ly/wrmensline. Similarly, the White Ribbon Campaign has a central focus; end violence against women.”

Another post, from a WRC ‘ambassador’, was similar but also earnestly invited communication with those who held views that differed from those espoused by WRC.

I was surprised because I haven’t noted comments like this in the WRC web site, or in their literature or submissions to inquiries, etc.

But alas, the positive spin ends there.

For at the same time that WRC were proffering soothing words, they were progressively removing posts from people who questioned their female-only focus or were in any way critical of their mission or their claims. They didn’t do this straight away however. I guess that would have amounted to too-obvious censorship. No they waited a half a day or a day before they quietly disappeared those troubling and clearly unacceptable posts. I’m guessing the rationale was to preserve the ideological purity of their message for the benefit of future generations. But they didn’t stop there. Oh, no. In my case, and I doubt I was alone in this regard, they banned me from making any future posts on their Facebook page.

When later I saw a particular comment posted, I simply had to respond and so I used an alternate Facebook account. The one comment to which I responded was “1 woman per week dies at the hand of her partner or ex in Aus – what a sad stat”. All I said in response was “and every ten days a man dies at the hand of his partner or ex – also a sad stat” and provided a link to a web page in which that stat was discussed. 

The next day I discovered that my final comment had also been removed AND my Facebook account was locked – presumably as a result of a complaint to Facebook HQ. Given that I had not used that account for some time or for any other purpose, I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that the complaint came from WRC.

See also:

Comment on the White Ribbon Campaign (13 July 2012) Old habits die hard it seems!

Other posts in this blog most relevant to this topic:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses part of the problem Vs. The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses all of the problem

 

 

 

‘Our Watch’: DV advocacy or shrill mouthpiece for gender feminism?

I hold significant reservations in relation to the operation of the staunchly feminist group Our Watch‘, formerly known at the ‘Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children‘. The feeling appears to be mutual as, despite being a law-abiding Australian taxpayer, I have been blocked from both their Facebook page and Twitter stream since late 2014.

My concerns include, but are not limited to:

  • The cost-effectiveness of allocating public monies to ‘Our Watch‘ with regards to achieving a measurable reduction in the incidence of domestic violence and/or providing tangible assistance to all victims of domestic violence
  • The extent to which the activities of ‘Our Watch‘ are driven by a desire to maximise the acceptance and influence of feminist ideology rather than a desire to maximise the two outcomes listed above
  • The effect of ongoing misrepresentations made by ‘Our Watch‘ in relation to the allocation of resources towards research into female perpetration of violence, the level of support provided to male victims of domestic violence, and the availability of counselling/treatment options for violent women and couples

On the first point, I believe that it is appropriate that the government both participate, and support the participation of others, in combating domestic violence and in assisting its victims. But this should be done in a manner that is both impartial and cost-effective. There should also be complete transparency and accountability on the part of both those allocating and those receiving public monies.

In 2013/14 ‘Our Watch‘ received a whopping $4,675,550 in government funding whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations. These funds were sourced from the federal government ($1 million/year) and the governments of Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. A financial report for ‘Our Watch’ can be sourced from the web site of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (see the relevant ACNC registry entry here and a related blog post here).

As with the White Ribbon Campaign (another Australian feminist DV advocacy group),  ‘Our Watch‘ do not directly assist victims of domestic violence. Instead they rent office space, employ many feminists staff, and run various PR/’education’ campaigns. These campaigns are divisive and involve the dissemination of misinformation that demonises men whilst failing to deal with female perpetration of violence. I am dubious about the extent to which their campaigns reduce the incidence of domestic violence, and indeed this has yet to be demonstrated.

I note that former MP turned journalist Gary Johns was subjected to harsh criticism after querying the effectiveness of government funds being provided to advocacy groups like ‘Our Watch‘ in lieu of directly funding service provision by government agencies.

Our Watch‘ advocates for female victims of domestic violence, which in and of itself is a laudable goal. A problem arises however when ‘Our Watch’ justifies their focus by claiming that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men upon women, and then seeking to validate this assertion through the ongoing misrepresentation of information concerning patterns of DV perpetration (example).

I don’t think there is any doubt that statements by politically astute groups such as ‘Our Watch’ do have a significant influence on decisions by government in relation to policies, priorities and funding allocation related to the sphere of domestic violence. This has resulted in a situation whereby government agencies treat all men as potential (if not, actual) violent abusers, where there are almost no resources available to battered men (and their children), and violent women are essentially waved away until such time as they commit a serious felony.

Those who visit Our Watch‘s Facebook page and Twitter stream will note that surprisingly little of the communication emanating from that organisation is directly related to their purported area of primary concern – domestic violence.  What you will see instead is considerable self-promotion, and a preponderance of material that could only be described as feminist propaganda.

On a visit to their Facebook page on 26 October 2014 for example I noted the following:

Reader Kath Kerr: It is not fair and it is not right that privileged men who murder are consistently granted lenient sentences.

Our Watch: Too many young people in Australia have witnessed acts of physical domestic violence against a parent. (No mention that equal number of kids have seen their mum abuse their dad, as have seen their dad abuse their mum – Source)

Our Watch: It’s time to stop asking what about men (in relation to this article)

Our Watch: Congratulations to Liz Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Our Watch Ambassador, for winning the 2014 Women of Influence award. (Celebrating the work of a highly-paid femocrat who has demonstrated absolutely zero interest in the welfare of men & boys)

And finally …

Our Watch: Strong language Warning: Oh my! Language, ladies. *clutches pearls*
This is F*cking brilliant and quite possibly the best thing on the internet. Ask yourself, What is more offensive? A little girl saying ‘f*ck’ or the f*cking unequal and sexist way society treats girls and women?” http://vimeo.com/109573972 

Avril Mesh, Ben Lakos, Domestic Violence Resource Service Mackay and 63 others like this.

If any readers of my blog have yet to witness this video, and wish to see just how far feminism has fallen, then click on the above link (Strong language warning)

Ok, enough! And so I proceeded to raise my concerns with the ministers of those agencies that see fit to hand millions of our tax dollars over to ‘Our Watch‘ … namely the federal Government, the Northern Territory Government, and the Governments of Victoria and South Australia.

“Dear Minister 

I write to you today to voice my strong objection to material posted in the facebook page of the group known as ‘Our Watch’ (refer attached ‘screensave’). I do so as I am aware that they receive a substantial amount of ongoing gov’t funding, and thus should be at least somewhat accountable to broader public standards.

The disgusting video that they have promoted and ‘liked’ on their facebook page (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw&noredirect=1) is discussed in these articles: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-has-nothing-to-say-but-it-still-wont-shut-up/ and http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/barbara-kay-feminist-video-turns-to-child-abuse-to-send-distorted-message/

I believe that their support for such an ‘initiative’ is reprehensible and they should be required to remove both this and other radical feminist material from their web site, twitter account and facebook page. I don’t know if you look at the material that they promote in their facebook page, but it is almost entirely either pure self promotion for key personnel or strongly pro-feminist ideological material that has only cursory relevance to the subject that is meant to be their focus – domestic violence.

Please would you act on this matter as it is clear that ‘Our Watch’ require much greater oversight if they are to continue to receive large amounts of taxpayer-funded support. Thank you for your anticipated prompt intervention concerning this matter.”

I subsequently received a response to my complaint from John Elferink, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, with the Northern Territory Government:

“I write to you in response to your email dated 28 October 2014 in regards to a Facebook post ‘Potty-Mouthed Kids Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com’ shared by the group ‘Our Watch’.

As you are aware the role of Our Watch is to drive long term cultural and attitudinal change from the ground up through community engagement and advocacy and working in close partnership with the Second Action Plan to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.

The Northern Territory Government is committed to reducing domestic violence. The financial contribution to Our Watch is just one of the ways that this Government is supporting initiatives which seek to drive attitudinal and cultural change.

Whilst the initiative that was placed on their Facebook page was divisive, this should not detract from the important work that Our Watch does in the primary prevention of violence sphere. I thank you for your vigilance in monitoring the material placed on the Our Watch social media pages and bringing it to my attention. I believe the offending post has since been removed and I have instructed the Domestic Violence Directorate to monitor the site content regularly.”

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Federal Member for Menzies and Minister for Social Services sent the following reply dated 3 December 2014:

“I appreciate you raising your concerns regarding the link to a video Our Watch posted on 21 October 2014. Our Watch was established as an independent company by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in June 2013, as an initiative under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.

Our Watch will work to provide national leadership to prevent all forms of violence against women and their children. This will be done by changing attitudes, behaviours, social norms, and practices that create violence against women and children, including the promotion of gender equality. There is a growing body of evidence showing that people with a poor understanding of gender equality may also have attitudes and behaviours that support violence.

The long term outcome of Our Watch is to encourage public conversations in Australia to support gender equality and understand the links between gender inequality and violence against women. Content on the Our Watch Facebook page is chosen to engage people in the debate by raising awareness about the importance of gender equality, challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of women in our society.”

So there we have it … promoting a video of pre-teen girls swearing their heads off = providing “national leadership“, a further aspect of which involves Our Watch encouraging “public conversations” by removing dissenting Facebook posts and banning their authors from contributing further. Would the Minister be equally comfortable with a men’s rights group promoting a similar video “challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of (men) in our society.” Probably I guess, unless, of course that would involve facilitating just a little too much real gender equality.

The Hon Jay Weatherill MP, Premier of South Australia sent a very basic acknowledgement only, and the Hon Heidi Victoria,  Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women’s Affairs, Minister for Consumer Affairs,  has yet to provide me with a response. I will update this post should such a response be received.

See also:

Oh, but look what happens when videos are made using allegedly right-wing kids who employ bad language, e.g. Joe Bernstein’s coverage of ‘Soph’. Clearly not seen as cool & empowering in that situation, huh? And yet another feminist double-standard (May 2019)

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

Statement in relation to *some* of the funding that Our Watch receives from the federal government each year

A further example of the inappropriate use of children to help bang the feminist drum

Natasha Stott Despoja launches anti-violence campaign (10 November 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

ourwatch

ourwatchCEO

Other posts in this blog that are most relevant to this topic:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?
Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative
Just how heartless (or deeply in denial) can people be?
A busy few weeks for gender matters (Aug/Sept 2014)
Feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch’ seeks shield from public scrutiny

Australian taxpayer funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Firstly, and by way of background, the concept of institutional misandry has been described as:

“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their status as male. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and misandric stereotyping which disadvantage males.”

It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such misandry it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease.

— After section 6.34, page 49, Cm 4262-I, Lawrence. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. February 1999. (Source)

You might also be interested in viewing these videos about institutional misandry in the UK.

I regularly encounter the online footprints of Australian organisations whose interests encompass one or more gender-related issues, and who demonstrate a significant degree of anti-male bias. Many of these organisations:

  • provide minimal or no services or support for men, and often only reference men in the context of (for example) perpetrators of sexual assault or domestic violence
  • are strongly biased towards, or influenced by, feminist ideology
  • have weak oversight or disclosure mechanisms in place, for example annual reports, financial statements/independent auditing, and measures of performance which (if they exist) are not publicly available, and
  • have either no men working within them, or only very few (gender quotas anyone?)

I find this situation to be of considerable concern bearing in mind the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into just the domestic violence sector alone each year. What’s more, that amount continues to increase and in July 2014 it was announced that millions more were to be poured into agencies to protect “women and their children (whilst still assiduously ignoring male victims and violent women).

One should consider the current situation in the context of the relative paucity of funding to organisations that support men and boys, all whilst the government trumpets on about gender equality.

It also worries me that this list is not restricted to private lobby groups or not-for-profits that benefit from substantial government funding or contracts. Indeed, there are many government agencies and groups within the tertiary education sector that display almost as much gender bias.

I have already allocated blog posts to several such organisations:

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Annual budget = just over $33 million)

Australian Department of Social Services (Annual budget = $4.2 billion)

Australian Institute of Family Studies (Annual budget = $17.75 million)

WA Department of Child Protection and Family Support (Annual budget = just under $625 million)

Workplace Gender Equality Agency (Annual budget $5 million) $5 million a year to propagate a feminist myth and to shake a finger at companies that won’t buy into their delusion. Their contribution to the Australian community consists of burning public money on the altar of feminism. (Postscript November 2018: Budget doubled)

‘Our Watch’ (formerly known as the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children) (Receives government grants totalling between $1 million and $2 million per annum)

White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version) (Received government grants totalling $280,000 during 2013/14 financial year)

Domestic Violence NSW (Received more than $6 million in government funds in 2013-14)

DV Connect (Around $3 million during 2013/14 financial year, mainly from the Queensland Department of Communities)

The Australian Gender Equality Council (Budget unknown)

‘No to Violence’ (Income and expenditure of approx. $4.9 million in the 2017/18 financial year)

Diversity Council Australia (Total income in 2015 of approx. $1.5 million, mainly from membership fees. Many public agencies are listed as members, but the extent of public funding is not identified. All staff bar one are female … diversity … seriously?

Men’s Referral Service (Government funding was around $2million/annum but they are now to be the recipient of a further allocation of $13 million over four years)

In this blog post my intention is to eventually corral and list basic details of other similar organisations, and then subsequently do further research on each.

Who’ll be the next cab off the rank? We have oh so many contenders …

Emerge supports women and children who have experienced family violence, empowering them to rebuild their lives“. There would appear to be no male directors or staff. Their entry in the ACNC register, here, provides various details concerning the organisation. The most recent financial statement lists more than $1.2 million received in the financial year ending 30 June 2018 (from the Dept. of Health and Human Services), and approx. $620k in salary expenses.

Just out of curiosity I typed “male victims” into their web site search facility, and got “Oops, we are really sorry but no results were found“.

Or how about Women’s Community Shelters Ltd who came to my attention via their daily paid placement in my Twitter feed? Their ACNC register entry mentions a total annual income of almost $3.5m, of which just over 1/3 arrives by way of government funding. This mostly comes from the NSW Dept. of FaCS, who explain here the “facts” about domestic and family violence (no need to complicate things by mentioning male victims).

Or perhaps Relationships Australia? I understand that they don’t have many male counsellors nowadays, and one less after the departure of Rob Tiller.

Or perhaps the International Women’s Development Agency? It would appear that there are no male directors or staff. Indeed in October 2018 IWDA advertised for a non-executive director, but lads don’t get your hopes up:

“International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) has an EEO exemption (H298/2018) and requests applications from women only. IWDA has a Child Rights and Protection Policy and directors are required to undertake a National Police Check and endorse IWDA’s Child Rights and Protection Code of Conduct.”

I wonder why IWDA were granted an EEO exemption and whether an application from a MRA organisation would be treated similarly? See here and here. Oh and IWDA seem to get plenty of government financial support too:

“Grant income represents 81% of our total income and grew by 43% in 2016/17. This is based on a combined Grants total of $8.59mil, of which 29.81% is sourced directly from the Australian Government’s Aid Program.” (Source, p27)

Or how about ‘The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault‘? This is the page that I came across first. It reads like a grant application for a feminist spend-fest doesn’t it? I had a very quick look at their site and found nothing along the lines of guidelines to help female perpetrators, or anything about male victims. I searched on “sexual assault of men” and did come across a page entitled ‘Engaging men in sexual assault prevention‘ though. You know the sort of advice that helps us men curb the frothing rapist lurking within each and every one of us.

The ‘About us‘ page tells us that there are no male staff at the Centre, as well as providing the following information:

The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) was established in 2003 by the Commonwealth Office for Women. It is funded by the Department of Social Services and is hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

ACSSA is a central collection point for research, information and resources about sexual assault in Australia. Our key role is to facilitate access to the growing evidence-base on sexual assault and to support organisations, agencies and others use research and evidence in shaping policy, practice and research directions in responding to, and reducing, sexual assault.

We collect, synthesise and summarise developments in:

  • research and evaluation;
  • practice knowledge and resources;
  • law reform and legislation; and
  • policy initiatives.

OK, well there is no mention there of the agency being restricted to only dealing with the sexual assault of women by men. Given, however, that it’s an offshoot of the ‘Commonwealth Office for Women’, I think it would be a safe bet that that is in fact the case. Of course if there was a corresponding ‘Office for Men’, then I guess that they would deal with male victims and female perpetrators. But there isn’t, because … men can deal with it (?)

With regards to their budget, all I’ve found at the moment is this somewhat dated page for the Government’ entire ‘Womens Safety Agenda‘, which mentions a total budget of $75.7 million over four years. The 2014/15 budget shows an allocation of $3.5 million for the Office of Women this year (refer page 31), but there may well be further allocations under the Social Services budget (and elsewhere?). On 23 June 2014 I sent an email to Treasury seeking this information:

“I am aware that a womens budget statement is regularly prepared to identify expenditure that is expressly designed to support Australian women. I would like to know if there is a similar statement identifying expenditure designed to support men.
Alternatively, and assuming there is not … is there any source that you can either provide me with – or point me towards – that enables a side-by-side comparison of expenditure for men and women? I look forward to receiving your advice on this matter. Thank you”

… but no reply since. Hmm.

The Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner was opened on the 1 July 2015, with an initial budget allocation of $2.4 million. They describe themselves in the following manner:

“The Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner is a one-stop-shop for online safety. The Office provides Australians a range of up-to-date information and resources, coupled with a comprehensive complaints system to assist children who experience serious cyberbullying.”

eSafetyYet looking through their website and ‘educational’ material their focus appears to be almost wholly on protecting women and girls from, you guessed it, those horrible boys and men. They have just launched a new campaign called eSafety Women, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for the launch of eSafety Men.

What’s happening overseas?

Meanwhile over in the USA Barack Obama introduced one (1) federal program to assist men and boys (as against the dozens that assist women and girls), only to have the feminist backlash begin immediately (and see related reddit discussion here). Somehow, sadly, I can’t see Malcolm Turnbull stepping into the breech with anything similar here in Australia. Ooh, please don’t call me a misogynist, please, please! (See this blog post re: lack of political support for men/boys)

See the article at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/women-are-the-biggest-budget-losers-20140523-zrl4n.html (22 May 2014) It seems quite extraordinary to me that the journalist who wrote this piece felt justified in claiming that “women are the biggest losers” without providing any information whatsoever about what men received/lost in the budget. It’s moments like these I feel like a member of the forgotten gender!

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes (August 2016).

Further organisations slated for review

Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia Senior staff and Board members are all women. In the year ending 30 June 2015 the organisation was the recipient of $8,194,146 in government grant funding, out of a total annual income of $8,795,650. Their main expense was ‘Salaries and On-costs’ at $7,502,877 (Source)

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS). Oh, and look, 80% of Board members are women as are all of the staff listed in their web site. I guess that’s to be expected given that men bash women, lack the capacity for empathy, and are thus are clearly unconcerned about women’s safety so why would you want them working here? Oh, but wait, wouldn’t that be sexist stereotyping?

ANROWS does not appear to provide an annual report or income/expenditure disclosure statement provided in their web site. Ever wondered how much research you got for $3.5 million? Ever wondered how much of this will flow into the pockets of other feminists? And I wonder how much is budgeted for researching mens issues during the same period?

Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast Inc.

The Centre is listed in the ACNC register here. That’s just as well as there does not appear to be any financial details provided in their web site, and only vague information about who is running the organisation – and how. The Centre employs 12 f/t employees, 20 p/t employees, and three casuals.

The Centre is wholly supported by government funding, with no donations or bequests received in 2014/15. The consolidated income statement shows receipts of around $2.8 million per annum in goverment grants (refer page 5). The main costs for the Centre are “salaries and on costs” ($1.9 million per annum), “office and centre expenses” ($407,167), rent ($227,841), and superannuation ($174,128).

An article from May 2016 citing disparaging comments about male victims of DV made by Centre director Amy Compton-Keen can be accessed here (NB: Reader reaction to that article was illuminating).

Y-Gap/Polished man campaign (level of government support currently unknown). Y-Gap’s ACNC register entry is here. Related Reddit mensrights discussion thread here.

Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research based at CQ University, Mackay Campus. All female staff? tick Only consult with female-focussed groups with just a token male for appearance sake? tick Statistics within web site ignores male victimisation and resources for men assume they are perpetrators of violence? tick (see ‘Working with Men’).

“The Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research receives defined term funding from the Queensland Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to undertake research and develop educational resources pertaining to domestic and family violence in Queensland. In addition, CDFVR is supported by CQUniversity and receives grants from a range of other sources to conduct research and professional development activities.”

Queensland University of Technology, Crime and Justice Research Centre Perform research and teach in subject areas including sexual assault and domestic violence. They appear to have a strong pro-feminist bias and from what I have read of their work thus far, they routinely follow and promote the men perpetrators/women victims model. (More details here)

Domestic Violence Victoria All female staff? tick

The 2013 Annual Report here tells us that DVV’s total income in 2013 was $677,211 of which $609,361 arrived in the form of grants. Some of their major expenses included wages $489,783, super contributions $42,618, media awards $35,251, provision for holiday and long service leave $32,789, consultants $10,675, board fees $4,500 and staff training/welfare/amenities $3,261 (these items totalling $618,877)

Victoria_DV1

Canberra Men’s Centre Outwardly compassionate about men’s welfare but it’s been suggested that CMC are a feminist ‘Trojan horse’ that dances to the men bad/woman victim tune. Their annual report for the year ending 30 June 2013 (the most recent in their web site as of March 2015) informs us that they received around $2 million from the ACT Dept. of Disability, Housing and Community Services in both 2011/12 and 2012/13. Their main expenses were lease payments ($340,118 in 2012/13) and salaries ($277,799 in 2012/13).

Safe Steps Family Violence Resource Centre (web site and Facebook page)

This Victorian organisation first came to my attention when I heard about a function they were planning for 6 May 2015 at which they will be lighting candles for women and children. On 27 April 2015 I submitted a cordial post to their Facebook page just querying why men killed through domestic violence would not be similarly remembered. Well, that post was deleted faster than you can say ‘feminist censorship’.

One hundred per cent female directors and staff (Source, see p9)

Total income in both 2012/13 and 2013/14 exceeded $3 million – nature of source not disclosed. Salary costs and director remuneration not disclosed (p10)

Other similar organisations that are not believed to currently receive government support, but may do so in the future:

The Full Stop Foundation is a small NSW organisation discussed in this article by Corrine Barraclough. Their ACNC register entry can be found here. Their patron is feminist Tara Moss, and all seven board members are women.

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too