Yes, don’t be shocked but it’s been claimed that many women mix with local men whilst enjoying their holidays. But relax, because it’s so so different to that nasty sex-tourism thing that men do. I mean it’s not like the boys are prostitutes or anything, and it does seem fair that if they take time off work to show you around then a lady would buy them a meal or small gift. Or two.
Still those MRA scumbags rubbish anything that women value. So how have other feminists explained these very special holiday experiences?
“When women pay men for sex, it doesn’t have the same social effect because there is no history of women enslaving men” (Source)
““female sex tourism” oversimplifies the motives of these women and that “romance tourism” explains the complex nature of what these women are engaging themselves in while involved in romance tours. They also explain that the expression “female sex tourism”, “serves to perpetuate gender roles and reinforce power relations of female subordination, romance tourism in Jamaica provides an arena for change” (Source)
“Once, sometimes twice, a month I meet up with Justin, a 36-year-old divorcé. We go out for a meal and maybe to a club before spending the night in a hotel … But what differentiates our dates from the norm is that I pay for Justin’s company, including having sex with him” (Source)
And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.
How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.
This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.
And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.
Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.
The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.
Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?
The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.
Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.
Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?
I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.
Diversity is another one of those buzzwords du jour – and apparently the cure for all that ails. Except there are a few problems.
Firstly, diversity is often not – in practice – extended to embrace many within the community. I’m thinking here, for example, of white men, non-feminists, and those with a conservative or right-of-centre political persuasion.
In this blog post for example I examined the example of a debate organised by the Diversity Council of Australia. In that example, diversity meant assembling two debating panels that represented or supported a range of feminist perspectives.
A couple of other examples are provided in these other blog posts:
Secondly, those who lobby for diversity tend to want to have it imposed by way of gender or racial quotas, selective recruitment, and the like. They do so despite the fact that such measures need not result in measurable improvements to organisational performance or community harmony, and may even be counter-productive in this regard. Indeed they are not averse to exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the benefits of diversity.
This aspect is discussed in these blog posts and others:
Thirdly, those who lobby for diversity fail to acknowledge, let alone analyse and debate, the negative outcomes that arise when achieving becomes the major determining factor when adopting government policy. Indeed, if we look at what is happening in some European countries now, such as greatly increased criminal activity, there is evidence of efforts being made to suppress such information.
“On the morning of June 14, 2016, I found myself surrounded by 5,000 women as part of the first day of the first United State of Women Summit convened by The White House at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. The #StateofWomen movement brought together activists from all 50 US states and from around the world.”
Firstly let’s just point out that no, there is no corresponding government-supported ‘United State of Men Summit’. Just as there is no corresponding ‘White House Council for Men and Boys’, etc etc. Because? Because? Patriarchy?
“I was honored to attend this historic assembly particularly as there were probably only a few dozen men invited, excluding the secret service detail and support services.”
So, only a small number of mostly elite men were allowed in, and by invitation only. And this muppet felt “honoured” to be at such a forum? What? In contrast I have yet to hear of a conference on men’s issues at which the entry of women was restricted on such a basis. And if there were one, can you imagine the select few female attendees – assuming you could convince them to attend in the first place – subsequently describing themselves as “honoured”? LOL
Oh, you’re the man, Leszek! And pray tell how much mutual respect and support have you had from your feminist colleagues in relation to that endeavour? Because the typical reaction I encounter is one of disgust and annoyance, along the lines of “oh, it’s men’s day every day of the year!”
“At the end of the summit, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey deliberated about what message the present men should leave with. They both decided, with total agreement from the audience: BE BETTER AT EVERTHING!Be better husbands, be better fathers, be better employers! They all agreed that involving boys and men is critical for the well-being of girls and women in the near and distant future.”
We should all be better at everything Leszek, but we find ourselves in a time where men are held responsible for all things bad whilst women are held accountable for very little indeed. ‘Demonise’ and ‘white-wash’ are the two respective terms that spring to mind.
I would have thought that ‘gender equality’, which is what feminism is mean to be all about, would assert an equal responsibility on women to be better wives, better mothers, better employers, etc. But I’m not seeing any pressure being brought to bear in that regard. And certainly not in your simpering offering.
Turning finally to the question posed in Leszek’s article, the answer is that men are delighted to have women attend conferences learning about and discussing men’s issues. The implied suggestion that men might react otherwise is both sexist and condescending. And indeed many women do attend such events, and their participation is warmly welcomed.
Unfortunately the situation with feminists is somewhat different. Leszek, I suggest you google search for accounts of what has happened when conferences or other forums have convened in Canada or the U.S to discuss men’s issues. As far as the involvement of feminists is concerned, this generally takes the form of disruptive protests including actions such as bomb threats and pulling fire alarms. And this often after attempts to have the function cancelled have failed.
Such is the level of interest in, and respect for, men’s issues shown by the feminist lobby. Society as a whole suffers as a result of their lingering ignorance and bias in relation to the relevant issues, such as are addressed elsewhere in this blog.
Here are some other posts in my blog that are relevant to this issue:
There have been, and there continues to be, many articles written about the topic of who should meet the costs of dating or courtship. Most articles appear to be written by women, with most mocking (to varying degrees) the alleged or implied cheapness of men who dare object to paying the entire cost of a night out. Or as is more often the case, a series of nights out.
Whilst hardly a ‘life or death’ matter, this topic has special significance in that it illustrates how some traditional gender roles are aggressively retained whilst others are forcefully discarded. With the former mostly appearing to benefit women.
A number of justifications are put forward as to why one partner should pay for the other. Perhaps the most common is the suggestion that the person who makes the approach, and issues the invitation, should pay for the date. That is clearly very convenient for women given that 99 times out of 100, they are the ones being invited out.
After that the rationalisations as to why men should pay get even more ‘out there’, especially when it is a feminist at the keyboard. Consider for example, ‘I Let Him Pay for Dinner – Am I a Bad Feminist?‘ by Suzanna Weiss (5 July 2016)
My own position is that if the costs of dates aren’t shared, or if partners aren’t treated on alternate dates, then it is free-loading no matter how you dress it up. And if the first date is such that you know there won’t be a second one, then you should definitely split the bill. Forget ideology, it’s just the decent thing to do.
Almost all of the articles on this subject in the mainstream media focus on heterosexual couples, and are set in the context of first world western countries.
The heterosexual focus is interesting as my initial impression is that courtship costs are approached in a somewhat more egalitarian manner in gay/lesbian relationships. I have listed some articles about splitting costs & gay/lesbian dating and courtship below. If readers can suggest more and/or better references then please leave a message.
Oh come on, someone throw me a bone … I’m serious … after several years and more than 2,000 hits on this page, not one person has come up with an example. For pity’s sake, there must be at least one example of feminists speaking up against gender equality favouring women that I can showcase here.
Please … otherwise people are going to think that feminists are more interested in female privilege than gender equality
Well until such time as an example is provided, how about we broaden things out? Let’s consider some issues that are/were claimed to promote gender inequality, but where feminists said/did nothing until such time that significant numbers of women were affected. Hmm, for example: alimony or spousal support, expulsion from university due to an allegation of sexual misconduct (example), the nature of enforcement for those not paying court-ordered child-support, retirement age, and pre-nuptial agreements.
Pension entitlement age: ‘Women march in Scotland because they’re being treated like men’ (17 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article
I think part of the answer to this is that, to a feminist, an area where women are advantaged relative to men is not seem as inequitable (let alone, a privilege) but rather as reasonable compensation for all the other areas where they believe women are still disadvantaged.
First up a little background about what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015/6 – see the relevant Wiki entry – not that Wikipedia is free from bias but on this occasion it’s probably as good a starting point as anywhere.
Whilst the focus of this post is what happened in Cologne, readers should be aware that similar issues have arisen (but on a thus far smaller scale) in many of the other European cities that accepted ‘refugees’. I won’t worry about providing a list of links here now – just google on ‘refugee rape sweden’ or similar and you will turn up dozens of sources.
Now let’s ask ourselves this question: ‘If left-leaning liberal progressives (and this category captures many if not most feminists/SJW) had not lobbied for/permitted unfettered entry by so-called refugees, would the events in Cologne have taken place?’ I’d say the clear answer to that is ‘no’.
In looking at this incident we can see that preserving the treating Muslims and the displaced has been accorded a higher priority than keeping women safe and preserving social order.
Why is this so? What motivates people to adopt such as attitude? Naivity? Wilful stupidity? A desire to irrevocably alter the nature of western society? Or a combination of such influences? Theories abound but I half suspect that it is, in part, a case of viewing Muslim ‘refugees’ as the reborn 21st Century version of the ‘noble savage’.
But whatever is the intent of media, politicans and lobby groups, the pivotal issue is the feminist cohort is standing mute whilst the welfare of thousands of their own (white western women/girls) in compromised. Government agencies and the media have been complicit in covering-up the extent of the problem and in diverting attention elsewhere, and the law enforcement bodies have been hamstrung with PC directives from above.
And I believe that what we have seen to date – widespread sexual harassment/assault/robbery – is only the start of what is going to happen in coming months, and possibly even years.
What is doubly sickening is that feminists have then fashioned this (their own duplicity in creating a rape culture in western society) into a stick with which to beat all men. They are using it as fuel to feed their men bad/women good mantra, and anyone dissenting with their view is dismissed as a racist and/or misogynist.
I feel only revulsion at seeing what is happening, and sympathy for the women/girls who have been, or who will be, terrorised. If only we could have them trade places with the feminists/SJW who manufactured this unfolding debacle.
Here is one of the hundreds of reader’s comments in response to *that* article in‘The Independant’:
This piece is such a shameless deflection of responsibility for the widespread criminal assaults against the women of Europe it actually frightens me. There were rapes. Young girls were brutally molested. Women who were disembarking from European train stations were forced to travel through a gauntlet of violent sexual abuse as the police stood back. Although Cologne had the highest number of reported incidents, they occurred across Germany and beyond. Stuttgart. Zurich. Helsinki. A small town in Sweden where a group of teenage girls were assaulted by a pack of Middle Eastern men. The attacks were vicious. The attacks were coordinated. The attacks were meant to test the resolve of free Western societies. Articles such as this demonstrate the mental gymnastics being applied in order to cling to an absurd political ideology. Sacrificing the safety of women in free societies in order to accommodate legions of foreign men who possess barbaric beliefs about women is not ‘tolerance’. It is lunacy.”
When Islam meets the West it’s a train wreck, by Miranda Devine (22 May 2016) This article took an interesting slant on the issue, looking at how increasing permissiveness (some might say, amorality) in Western countries has provided the fuel for radical Muslims.
The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.
The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.
There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.
What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research. (see 2017 updated here)
Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?
Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?
The findings of a survey by Norton painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.
So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?
There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.
Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.
At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.
More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable or even noble when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.
Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.
It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.
One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.
Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.
I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:
“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants. The planning and management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”
I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?
As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.
I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:
“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”
Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.
As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.
What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:
* small sample size with 2/3 of respondents being women, and who were possibly self-selected
* incorrect assumptions (by survey respondents) regarding the gender of trolls
* differing and possibly gender-based judgments as to what constitutes trolling
The media dangerously misuses the word ‘trolling’ (3 July 2017) This article conveniently neglects to mention that this ‘problem’ has been primarily brought about through misusing the term ‘trolling’ to describe reasonable dissent against the prevailing leftist/feminist narrative.
Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?
Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.
Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)
I first came across this proposal in a post within the Facebook page of the feminist advocacy group ‘Domestic Violence NSW’. I contributed a comment which they quickly removed (as recounted in another of my blog posts), and which I will now re-iterate and expand upon here.
“Women’s access to justice is the key thing and the key things that most women complain about is not being believed, not being heard, not having appropriate support or response.
“That’s one of the key findings of most research, and of course that puts police in the firing line, but one way of alleviating that is to have specially trained police who work in these police stations.”
(Professor Kerry Carrington is Head of the School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, and author of Feminism and Global Justice, Routledge, 2015. Her original blog post on this subject can be accessed here)
But Prof. Carrington doesn’t just want specially trained police, she wants specially trained female police. In fact Prof. Carrington’s idea goes even further than that, calling for women-only police stations, a proposal that carries with it more than a whiff of separatism or gender apartheid.
In terms of enhancing the battle against domestic violence, to what extent would Ms. Carrington’s idea contribute above and beyond that which is, or could be, achieved with the existing system of mixed-gender police stations?
It’s probably fair to assume that some women would be more comfortable reporting domestic abuse to female police officers. I certainly understand and support that with respect to (for example) having female officers assist traumatized female rape victims. As a consequence one tangible benefit of women-only police stations could be an increase in the percentage of female victims of domestic violence lodging reports of violence.
But even if that were the case, would these further reported crimes translate into more effective sanctions, and eventually a corresponding reduction in rates of perpetration? I’m not convinced.
And given that the percentage of male victims of domestic violence currently lodging reports is substantially lower than for female victims (7% vs 21%), then perhaps addressing that segment should be accorded a higher priority?
I think we can assume that it is not Ms. Carrington’s intention to press for one male-only police station for every two female-only stations (to reflect the fact that one in three victims of domestic violence are male). Thus the proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it provides a publicly-funded service for women in the absence of a similar service for men
Another point to consider is that domestic violence is only one of many crimes dealt with by local police stations. Even if women-only police stations were more effective at addressing domestic violence, would it be practical and cost-effective to establish special police stations to tackle one particular crime?
In the broader scheme of things, additional reports of domestic violence might well result in incremental increases in government funding for the domestic violence industry. But one has to ask just how effective has that consortium’s efforts been in reducing the incidence of domestic violence over recent decades? Hardly inspiring, I would suggest.
And what of other potential negative aspects of Ms. Carrington’s suggestion?
It reinforces the false view that women are more empathetic and/or that male police officers are incapable of displaying empathy (even specially trained ones)
It reinforces the false view that domestic violence is limited to men’s violence towards women (and ignores the reality of male victims and female perpetrators)
It reinforces the notion that it is appropriate to have differing systems of justice for men and women, rather than one uniform and consistent justice system for all Australians
It may be the case that some citizens would be subject to inconvenience, or even additional danger, as a result of finding themselves further removed from a traditional mixed-gender police station. There would be some additional cost associated with the proposal, and thus there would be a corresponding ‘opportunity cost’ in that funds would be unavailable for alternative and perhaps more effective measures aimed at curbing domestic violence