Upon entering the search term ‘feminist good manners’ into google one day, one of the first papers to crop up was one entitled “No chivalry, thanks”.
The author of that article sought to differentiate between the notion of ‘good manners/politeness’ on the one hand and ‘chivalry’ on the other. Her position was that good manners are mostly OK, whilst ‘chivalry’ is bad. I agree with her that chivalry can be a negative factor … but not for the reason she states.
Let’s detour for a moment to visit www.thefreedictionary.com, where upon entering the term “good manners” we bring up the following related words:
personal manner, manner – a way of acting or behaving
niceness, politeness – a courteous manner that respects accepted social usage
urbanity – polished courtesy; elegance of manner
graciousness – excellence of manners or social conduct
chivalry, politesse, gallantry – courtesy towards women
respectfulness, deference, respect – courteous regard for people’s feelings; “in deference to your wishes”; “out of respect for his privacy”
civility – formal or perfunctory politeness
The definition of the term ‘chivalry’, on the other hand, includes “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women”, and “kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak”.
Back now to the ‘No chivalry, thanks‘ article where the author takes aim at two criticisms of feminism, which she describes as being:
The “cake and eat it too” complaint: “This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, or in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too”, and
The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: “Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary (sic) is actually an affront to good manners.”
The author indicates that she’d “like to dismantle these complaints”, but in fact her views only serve to reinforce the validity of those complaints whilst undermining the feminist perspective generally. Her comments include:
The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of (sic) my gender, even if that treatment is favourable.
(Mod: My emphasis added. LOL … I think we could readily find a plethora of exceptions to that with respect to feminist goals and achievements generally!)
“The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t make it any less sexist.”
“All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.”
So in short, many feminists abhor chivalry because they perceive it as a pattern of behaviour intended to subjugate and patronise women, and as a manifestation of what they term ‘benevolent sexism‘.
Ah, but it gets confusing. In yet another of their breathtaking displays of hypocrisy, feminists strongly rely upon and encourage chivalry to achieve their goals. Look at all the calls for men to mobilise against other men in stopping domestic abuse and rape. Consider the #HeForShe campaign and many other similar campaigns. In none of these examples do feminists call for, or support, corresponding campaign for women to support men or men’s rights.
In contrast, the core of my ambivalence in relation to chivalry is that:
I believe in gender equality, and chivalry cannot and should not exist where there is true equality
Chivalry stands in the way of objective reasoning. Chivalry causes men to conflate the often unreasonable assertions and demands of feminists, with the welfare of women generally. I see this happening in almost every mainstream media article that permits readers to contribute comments, wherein men attack one another in the mistaken belief that any progress on achieving mens rights is not just a set-back for women, but somehow akin to spitting in their face. If only such men would make an effort to familiarise themselves with not just the specific issue under consideration, but also both the nature of feminism and of men’s rights advocacy generally.
Here’s a recent newspaper item that features a prat-like whinge from a woman who would like men to leave her alone – after they perform whatever service she requires. Presumably men are meant to magically realise that she is a feminist and is not interested in social overtures. But on the other hand they are magically meant to know that although she is a feminist, she does appreciate men helping her by performing manual labour in relation to her overweight carry-on luggage. Perhaps if she held up a sign providing all this information, then men might be more co-operative/compliant. A subsequent online discussion can be found here.
Here is an article entitled ‘He also pays for his own dinners‘ that , in a patronising tone, sniffs at the notion of men displaying chivalry and their motivations for doing so. The best thing about the article was this readers comment:
“The most generous and helpful thing a man can do for a woman on an individual level is to hold her accountable – no letting her off because she’s female.
If traditional expressions of chivalry are important to women, let women do them. My girlfriend brought me flowers last night because I had a bad day. Fine. I’ll cook her dinner sometime.
Listen men, chivalry backfires. If you pay for the first date you’re losing a valuable opportunity to screen out the women who will see you as nothing but an ATM machine. And there’s no such thing as paying for a first date anyway. When you pay for a first date, you’re making it cheaper for her to go on another date with somebody else. You’re just subsidizing her search for the perfect man. Do yourself a favour and make women chip in for their quest for Mr. Right.
And men, while we’re on the subject of chivalry, remember you’re not a human punching bag. Make it very clear at the beginning of the relationship: if she ever hits you, screams at you, or calls you names, or tries to humiliate you in front of your friends, or destroys any of your property on purpose, or tries to use sex as a bargaining chip, that’s the end of the relationship, right then, right there. No questions asked. No looking back. Just walk away.
Don’t let your sense of chivalry turn you into a victim. You’re better than that.”
Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality (8 June 2016) We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.
“I just knew, they wouldn’t hit me … I was glad, right then, that I was a woman. I felt they wouldn’t hit me because of that, and that might mean I could slow things down a bit. I’m pretty sure if I was one of the guys I probably would have been hit as well.”
“The most despicable thing about the feminist movement is that it exploits male protective instincts and male virtues such as self-sacrifice for the “greater good” in order to expand female privilege. It doesn’t actually challenge these gender roles in any meaningful sense. But I agree it’s time to put an end to chivalry. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.” (Source)
And more recently, an article entitled ‘Equality is essential but so is chivalry‘ (Herald Sun 16 June 2014). This one very much in the all rights/no responsibility vein. It starts of bemoaning the fact that nobody stood up for a pregnant woman on a train and then goes on and on from there. The usual feminist theme of … there’s a problem, men caused it, and it’s mens responsibility to fix it … to our specifications. No readers comments were permitted – wonder why? Thank goodness that this MRA made the time to prepare a great rebuttal.
How to be a 21st Century ‘Gentleman’ (12 September 2014) I liked this reader’s comment: “Are there any classes teaching women some basic etiquette, too? Why are we just gripping on men when women need just as much a major make-over on behavior”. This theme is oft repeated – recent versions here and here, and with a rebuttal article here
Now for the background to this article you’ll need to take a look at this other blog post. In the article feminist author, Lauren Rosewarne, lashes out at those concerned about comments made by a federal parliamentarian. That politician told journalists that she wanted a male partner who was rich, well-endowed and who didn’t talk. Lauren haughtily admonishes us, “today the sane amongst us dismiss such notions as laughably repressive and egregiously controlling.”
The last twenty years in particular have seen men increasingly portrayed in a negative light, basically it’s now a choice between lazy, inept, evil, stupid, or creepy. Concerns raised about this trend are generally dismissed along the lines of “relax, it’s just a joke!”. Funny thing though, ‘jokes’ made about women elicit a very different reaction.
“Men have always made fun of themselves,” said New York Times best-selling author and social philosopher Michael Gurian. “The kind of things that are done with men in the media would never be done with women, and that’s just sort of a given. But men don’t mind. They live by joking and putting each other down and lifting each other up. But the negative is that they can only be OK if the rest of society has a basic understanding and respect for boys and men.” (Source)
I’m tired of Hollywood trying to sell me on the concept of “loveable idiots”, and I am disheartened by the ubiquitous content that tears men down. I love filling my life with laughter, however why are my current content choices trying to get me to laugh at a reduced version of men? Why is Hollywood trying to get me to focus on the broken-down, allegorical version of who they think my husband is? Obviously they don’t know my husband. (Source)
Now take a look at this article that appeared in that dreadful magazine ‘Cosmopolitan‘. It’s all about the ways that women are said to be better than men. Stomach-turning sexist tosh. Ah, but then treat yourself to this excellent rebuttal by Janet Bloomfield.
One wonders whether this ongoing negative portrayal of men reinforces hostility towards men, which may in turn influence the rate of partner violence towards men as addressed in this other blog post.
The various sources listed below discuss this issue in depth and/or provide specific examples of negative ways in which men are presented in the media and/or are subsequently perceived in the community-at-large:
The team working for McDonalds fast-food chain (Mumbrella) seem destined to produce a Gillette-style campaign, but targeting boys (3 February 2020) “Just a bit a fun say the advertisers, while boys get demonised for slamming doors in girls’ faces” observes Bettina Arndt.
Husbands Are Deadlier Than Terrorists (11 February 2017) USA. Wives are too, but saying that won’t get the author a tummy scratch from the feminist lobby. The thing is, even if the author had titled this piece ‘Spouses are deadlier that terrorists’, it would not have detracted from the main thrust of the article one iota … ie. completely superfluous sexism. (My readers comment is here)
Son, let me tell you all about how dadsplaining works (13 January 2017) Whether this piece was a weak & inappropriate attempt at humour, or a serious bid for a tummy-scratch from feminists, it undermines the role of men/fathers at a time when we need to be doing the very opposite.
“Although the participants didn’t personally endorse those stereotypes, it’s clear that they affected the participants’ unconscious thinking. Stereotypes can be like poison in the water we all swim in, and the brain, like a sponge, absorbs them, Freeman said, even when we don’t want it to.”
Heineken’s ‘Drink Responsibly’ TV ad (January 2016) Only men drink to excess. ‘Good men’ don’t drink to excess. ‘Good men’ get to go home with a hot girl. The subliminal message here being that men’s irresponsible behaviour is best addressed through a combination of shaming and dangling the carrot of sexual gratification. This not-so-flattering portrayal of men dreamt up in the (I’m guessing) feminist-sodden environment of some ad agency or another. Sure they score a point for making an effort to reduce over-consumption of a pernicious legal drug, but they lose two for lacking the courage & conviction to produce a companion ad for the ‘I’m so drunk!’ millennial female set.
Wet wipes blocking Sydney sewers as more men flush them down the toilet (7 December 2014) Yeah sure, and the sample size of the survey that determined that men were flushing wet-wipes, was how small? This article would have been worth writing if it had suggested promoting the use of Asian-style ‘bum-guns’ in Australia, but they chose to waste bandwidth with another hit-piece on men instead.
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review states that “Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
A while ago I came across a US state program that was designed to encourage males to have respect for women. The organisation ‘A Voice for Men’ responded with a provocative and graphic statement along the lines of “we’ll have respect for those people who are deserving of respect”. Read the comments that follow the pictures to capture the essence of the ensuing discussion.
David was one amongst the many feminists and camp followers to bite back. David’s article concluded with the statement:
“The logic here is airtight: because some women get drunk and urinate in public, women don’t deserve respect.
I guess men never get drunk and urinate in public, or ever do anything vaguely embarrassing that gets caught on camera?
Is it really asking too much to respect people as people, foibles and all?”
Well David, yes it is too much to ask of feminists apparently. Can you name even one single male “foible” that feminists are willing to accept?
Men do some gross things, and its usually no-one’s fault but our own. The difference is that we admit it instead of denying it to maintain a moral high ground above the opposite sex … or alternatively blaming our behaviour on someone else or some mythical matriarchy. Hell when some guys really go too far we even express pointed criticism of their behaviour, and urge them to lift their game. Another significant point of difference, yes?
If feminists were truly into equality then surely they would support a reciprocal program that urged girls and women to ‘Respect men’. No? What’s that I hear? Guffaws of laughter instead? Telling, isn’t it?
In fact on that point, a post that I recently contributed to an online discussion was zapped by a moderator because I concluded with the suggestion that women should respect men (in the same sentence I also said men should respect women). It wasn’t even a feminist site either. This is what things have come to … simply suggesting that women should respect men is just cause to be labelled a ‘redneck’ or similar.
I guess one gender must be more equal than the other, or something.
YouTuber promises to release sex tape (23 January 2017) Feminists can find the time to criticize men on the basis of just about anything, but criticise a woman for eroding respect for women? No way, well not unless they are conservative and/or anti-feminist.
“What happened to the modern man? I think he got left behind and died of starvation because I don’t see any around these days. I went on a date the other night, shocking right? But when the dinner came to an end and we were laughing away into the sunrise and the check came out- he slid it towards me. If you need to re-read that last sentence then please do so now.
Ahh yes, he slid the check to me and asked to split. The worst word in the English dictionary. Right next to debt and vegetarian. I mean, nobody wants to split their pants, their hair line, alcohol, or especially, a check. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some mega bitch, but guys will always make more money than girls.” (Source)
Why feminists hate debating anti-feminists (26 August 2016) Feminists feel entitled to not have their opinions challenged because only they can know their experience as a woman. Although they see no such contraint to understanding/explaining/judging men’s experiences.
White House meets with activists calling for gender equity in My Brother’s Keeper (15 July 2014) The current US administration shamelessly panders to the feminist hierarchy. They finally introduce one (1!) program aimed at helping males, and even then they had to exclude white males because of the anticipated backlash. Were feminists willing to make this one small concession? Oh no. Let’s not worry about the scores of pre-existing programs from which males are excluded. It’s pathetic, it really is. When are people going to wake up to what is going on?
Every year both men and women and girls and boys are raped. Rape is never OK. There is also a very significant and growing incidence of people falsely accusing others of rape. To knowingly falsely accuse someone of rape is also never OK.
Such false claims can destroy the lives of the accused, and more importantly diminish and demean the validity of those who have actually been victims of rape. To make matters worse, the US Government is now requiring university campuses to undertake hearings and pass judgement on those accused of sexual assault even before the police become involved. This matter is discussed here and in many other recent articles.
The coverage, by feminists, of the issue of rape is often both exaggerated and distorted, for example through the use of ridiculously broad definitions of what actions constitute ‘sexual assault’. The discussion of rape, by feminists, is also incredibly one-sided … addressing the rape of females is of paramount importance whilst the rape of males (by both men and women) is inconsequential.
The linked resources below explore a number of aspects of this important issue:
Firstly, let’s begin with details regarding all the men’s studies centres in Australia: <sound of crickets>
Now, picture this if you will … the University of South Australia considers establishing a number of new courses related to men’s health and well-being. Feminist writer gets wind of this and writes an article dumping on the idea (see articles listed below, and be sure to look at the readers comments). The University gets scared and back-pedals at 100 mph. Bye, bye, men’s studies course – which would have been an Australian first.
Conclusion? Clearly every university should have women’s studies courses because they are a wonderful and necessary initiative. Mens studies courses should, however, be opposed on the basis that they are redundant and wicked and can only serve to foment misogyny and advance the cause of the patriarchy. (Oh, and the same goes for student clubs/associations that focus on men’s issues.)
The solution? For feminists? Obstruct the creation of men’s studies courses, whilst (to avoid accusations of one-upmanship) rename women’s studies centres as gender studies centres. But there was no sudden move to jointly address male issues. No, they simply carried on exactly as before with an overwhelming gynocentric focus interspersed with the occasional message from some male feminist ally such as Michael Flood. Note the example here as to how well this new approach works out.
But back to what happened at the University of South Australia, a story which is told in the articles linked below and in accompanying readers comments:
And as for overseas examples of Men’s Studies Centres? Well these tend to feature the examination of men and masculinity through the feminist lens. This article talks about one such place, the Stony Brook University ‘Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities’.
Regarding women’s studies
Let’s now have a look at a listing of women’s studies centres in Australia that were in existence when I first uploaded this post*:
(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge–Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers–Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women)
News.com.au is a major online source of mainstream news in Australia, the CEO of which is David Penberthy who was mentioned in a reader’s post here. Some time ago a reader sent me a copy of an email that he had sent to the team at news.com.au after he had got fed-up with their ongoing sexist bias:
“As a frequent visitor to your site I am dismayed by the evident bias I see with regards to:
1. The types of articles that you choose to publish 2. The decision as to which articles you allow comments on and which you don’t 3. The decision of moderators as to whether comments are posted or excluded
In particular the type of bias that I find most annoying and which is particularly prevalent in your site is a stridently anti-male and pro-feminist bias.
I have read your FAQ page entries in relation to some of these points but I find that in practice your team makes decisions that are not necessarily in line with your guidelines. For example I myself on many occasions have sought to post comments that were in no way profane, etc etc but were not accepted.
Further some of the articles you publish, and also some of the comments, I (and I am sure many others) find to be in poor taste or offensive … it just seems that some positions are consistently deemed more acceptable than others … and lo and behold these seem to feature misandric themes that belittle and promote negative stereotypes concerning men. It’s tiresome and it’s wrong and you should improve your performance in this regard. If uncertain simply apply the test …. if this article or this comment was about women, would I publish it? If yes then go ahead. If not then don’t …”
News.com.au replied addressing a side-issue – but said nothing about the central issue of gender bias. This other blog post provides some examples of their biased journalism.
So how is sexist bias reflected in newspapers and web sites like news.com.au? It is done through a combination of the following measures:
Through the choice of which subjects are addressed in articles and which ones are ignored, and then whether the coverage of each subject is balanced or only provides a partial picture of the issue at hand
Through whether or not online public comments are enabled, and if so, for how long comments are accepted
Through the nature and degree of moderation of online public comments
Through the choice of loaded words within articles to reflect whether each particular view expressed, or person quoted is either good/valid or bad/invalid, as seen through the ideological filter imposed by the journalist or editor
Through the use of misleading or bogus statistics within articles to support a pro-feminist perspective
With regards to point 2 above, I have noted a recent trend towards not permitting readers comments in relation to topics for which there will likely be a reader backlash against the pro-feminist position being advanced by the author and/or editor. A ‘good’ example of this is an article entitled ‘Proof that men are bigger idiots than women‘. In this case not only were readers comments not permitted, but the article was also excluded from news.com.au’s Facebook page and Twitter feed. Thus those who objected to the obvious misandry of the article were effectively silenced, conveying an impression of reader acceptance.
This article is another example of how journalists change language depending on the gender of the victim. When a woman assaults a man (who doesn’t even try to defend himself) it is a “fight“, but if it was the other way around it would be reported as an “unprovoked attack“.
Ah, but news.com.au by no means has a monopoly on applying feminist bias and blocking material that portrays men and mens rights in a fair and balanced manner. No, Australia’s ABC is yet another citadel of femdom. This was amply demonstrated in the 2014 article entitled ‘A lesson for men’s rights activists on real oppression‘ by misandrist journalist Clementine Ford.
Despite the usual feminist moderator habit of binning the majority of posts contributed by those not supportive of feminism, there were still some interesting exchanges amongst the readers comments.
Still on the topic of Clementine Ford, perhaps have a look at this other paper. If you scroll through the readers comments, amongst the offerings of simpering sycophants you will note a contribution from another who stated:
“You lost any right to speak about equality when you attacked and demonise those who are attempting to act as a counterbalance to the feminist movement. The only thing this article resembles is propaganda. For every issue females suffer, and they were good points, you proceeded to ignore about a dozen which society is now suffering under because of feminism.
Like how masculinity is seen as a “problem to be removed” at the age of school children.
About how it is encouraged for females to become teachers now with no effort to do the same for males to balance the number of people from each gender tutoring students.
How abuse and sexual assault against males is often either ignored or used as a source of humour, especially in forms of media. To the point where the castration of a male is only laughed at and mocked by a female audience.
About how some laws in the US have changed for the worse. One in particular allowing females the right to charge a man with rape if they have consumed any amount of alcohol, even if it was consensual sex and she was the one who talked him into it.
About how university and college applications emphases upon getting more female students even long after they make up a considerable percentage of those entering each established teaching institute.
About how unemployment rates are far higher for males than they are for females; with “stay at home dads” being encouraged as a good thing while the very thought of a “housewife” staying at home and cleaning is regarded as offensive.
About how homeless the number of homeless men is staggeringly higher for males than it is for females, yet in many countries with this problem there are far more women’s shelters than there are those devoted to men.
About how divorce courts favour women over men, allowing them to leave with far more of their former husband’s possessions than the other way around. Similarly how unemployment is grounds for the divorce with a man while it is not for a woman.
About how any research which feminists deem “offensive” causes those who research it to be blacklisted. Such as one scientist who showed produced a paper showing findings and statistics which showed that for women, the hormone transfer from semen provides a number of health benefits, including anti-depressants.
Or how about how any attempts by masculinists to counterbalance and correct where feminism has gone too far and men’s rights are suffering is scorned as being “chauvinistic” or childish?
All that and far more you simply ignore and choose to portray MRA’s as acting irrationally and out of fear of equality? I’m not sure whether to laugh or weep.
Equality has not been achieved, that is something you got right, but it is not simply the female populations suffering. Some points you made were good, as I stated, but you seem blind to the idea that females might be dominating aspects to society and equality might come from them losing power as much as males.
Next time attempt to think about what you are talking about. Or better yet, why don’t you show some of that supposed interest in equality you kept mentioning and try to discuss the problems each gender is facing.”
And how did Ms. Ford respond to this thoughtful observation? By typing “TL;DR” (i.e. too long/didn’t read). Definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and clearly not the least bit interested in considering alternative perspectives.
“I think many feminists have unfortunately become as inflexible and unlistening as they say men are largely because of the media’s selective reporting.
When reporting on gender issues and the male-female dynamic, as on all other issues, the media are supposed to objectively reflect all views. But over the past four decades they have reflected ideological feminists’ views almost exclusively.
The effect of this long-running lack of objectivity is, I think, to create in our collective mind an entrenched and immutable perception that no other view is possible and that gender issues and the male-female dynamic as portrayed by these feminists are not foolhardy concepts but widely accepted fact that is completely beyond dispute.
Thus, the ordinary woman — even the woman who may disdain feminists — can hardly be blamed for believing she is taken advantage of by men and must endure such oppressions as poorer treatment by male doctors and lower pay than the men at her company doing the exact same work.
Many if not most women are subjected to these oppression stories virtually very day of the year in the still-unobjective (liberal) media. The stories are convincingly told by intelligent, sophisticated members of such groups as the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), which says in the very first sentence of its position statement on equal pay:
“American women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.”
If such educated, sophisticated groups as the NWLC — and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the subject of the following commentary — believe women are unfairly paid less, it must be true. Why would they lie?
This article informs us of an “alarming” (11.7%) increase in the number of women over 55 facing homelessness. It was based on a study by the University of Queensland’s Institute of Social Science Research. There is no mention that this demographic is a small percentage of homeless people generally, who are predominantly male. In fact there is no mention of men at all. Funny thing that.
“It is fairly annoying to constantly hear men make up the majority of x, therefore we need to help the female minority, but when the roles are reversed, the answer is still to aid women. Men are the problem when they comprise a majority that women want to be a part of, and men are ignored when they’re the minority or the majority of something women want no part of”
See this article for an example of how feminists don’t acknowledge gender when the story doesn’t fit their victim narrative (i.e. in this case six boys rather than six “students”). In this October 2014 BBC story note how no mention was made of the gender of the murdered students, guess they must have all been male (they were). This article addresses the same issue.
“Read the tone and language in this article about a man who threatens his female partner with a knife, then read the tone of these two articles one about a female stabbing her male partner the other of a female murdering her partner by stabbing him. Great examples of the sexism and bias in the media”:
Everyday sexism at the Australian State Broadcaster: When airmen die in training and combat they are labelled “crew” and “people”. When two thirds of the workforce making the aeroplanes are men, the article notes that “one third were women” (19 September 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
How many men are paedophiles? (29 July 2014) Coz everyone knows there’s no female paedophiles right? Now they couldn’t have written an article called “How many people are paedophiles?” could they? ah, because … misandry
Blogged down in polarities (7 July 2014) This article isn’t about pro-feminist bias, it is about a broader issue of media behaviour that see views deliberately (and irresponsibly) polarised to attract reader interest and involvement. This is sometimes known as “click-bait journalism”.