According to Wikipedia, “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”
Thus feminism has many tribes holding contrary views on a number of significant issues, as portrayed in the chart below. Further details regarding different forms of feminism can be found here.
The vast majority of feminists active in both social media and in lobbying government for policy change are at home on the right hand side of this chart. This group includes Jessica Valenti (pictured right) and Anita Sarkissian. These feminists are by far the most problematic in the context of the sorts of issues discussed in this blog.
Nevertheless, the feminist hierarchy has no qualms about claiming to be the font of wisdom with regards to what (all) women want and how they should live their lives. Indeed the feminist’s sense of superiority knows no bounds, and they believe themselves to be equally well-qualified to lecture on how men think, and should live their lives.
When challenged in public debate, feminists are often quick to state that feminism is not about hating men. When confronted with hate-filled statements by prominent feminist spokespersons they then shift to the NAFALT (‘not all feminists are like that’) strategy. Yet how often does one hear feminists directly engaging with, and you know … actually rebuking, these alleged outliers within their movement? Umm, rarely? never?
As various posts in this blog demonstrate, although feminists nominate equality as their primary goal they vigorously pursue policies which create or maintain inequality, even going so far as to obstruct the efforts of others seeking to foster equality. Feminists compound their duplicity by using all available means to stifle and silence those holding opposing views, rather than engaging in open and positive dialogue.
There can be little scope for mutual respect and co-operation given that the bulk of feminists choose to position the male half of the population on a spectrum the ends of which are marked by indifference and loathing.
“Aw, come on ladies! Fuck this “equality” bullshit. I don’t want equality. I want some fucking LIBERATION! … Equality with men implies men are the standard. Fuck that bullshit. Men are the fucking oppressors! I want liberation from male oppression!” (Source)
As with very many others interested in men’s issues, I was originally very sympathetic towards the feminist message. Have you ever asked a feminist what reading she has done about male rights and male issues? I have, and I can almost guarantee that they will look at you as if you asked them if they could speak dog language. Having uncovered a surfeit of lies, hypocrisy and double-standards by that stage, this was the last straw for me.
Thus it finally dawned on me that most feminists believe that the only role for men in ‘their’ cause is to submit and be silent. This is clear in much of the material written by feminists, for example this article and the readers comments that follow.
Men are required to educate themselves about feminist concepts in order to (partially) redeem ourselves, or at least to do as we are told. There is no corresponding expectation on women, presumably as the male perspective is deemed to be so barren that we have no useful insights to impart. And in just one of their many feats of breathtaking hypocrisy, whilst feminists exaggerate the flaws evident in some men they studiously ignore the weaknesses and/or transgressions of many women.
usually opt to attack their critics rather than deal with the actual issues that they raise
persistently and blatantly misrepresent the position of their detractors
wilfully misrepresent reality in order to support their position, for example through the use of bogus statistics
wilfully misrepresent themselves as the natural spokespeople for women although most women choose not to identify themselves as feminists and/or are opposed to feminist doctrine
are hypocrites in decrying bigotry and sexism whilst pursuing an agenda based around such policies
These are symptoms of a movement that now has big issues in terms of its relevancy and credibility. These are symptoms of a movement whose net effect is increasingly one which threatens social cohesion and exacerbates pressing social problems.
This 2015 article stated that only 18% of Americans consider themselves to be feminists, although 85% are in favour of equality for women.
Feminism has devolved into what is essentially a powerful fundamentalistcabal of privileged white western women. These people have manufactured an industry instilling a heady brew of victimhood and entitlement to generate substantial personal benefit for its main players, whilst offering perhaps the last remaining state-sanctioned outlet for bigoted self-expression. Indeed some would go further and assert that feminism displays many of the characteristics of a cult – see how many points of likeness you can tick off on this list. The ‘redstockings manifesto‘ is a piece of feminist history about which most current-day feminists would have no knowledge, yet its doctrine still lies at the heart of what empowered feminists are doing in the here and now.
“What I would like to add is that feminism, as a unique philosophy, does not do any favors to those that it claims to represent, for it puts women on the level of a vindictive battle, and a woman is much more than that,” the pope wrote. “The feminist campaign of the ’20s achieved what it wanted and it is over, but a constant feminist philosophy does not give women the dignity that they deserve. As a caricature, I would say that it runs the risk of becoming chauvinism with skirts.”
More from Pope Francis on the issue of gender differences here.
John the Other defined feminism thus: ”A doctrine built on the pre-supposition of victimhood of women by men as a foundation of female identity. In its goals is always the utilization of the state to forcibly redress this claimed victimization. In other words, the proxy use of violence and wealth appropriation. In whatever flavour, and variation, these two basic features are common to every doctrine using the label feminism. Feminism is therefore, a doctrine of class hatred, and violence.” (Source)
“In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.” ”
In 1913 a gentleman by the name of Ernest Bax wrote:
“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.”[From The Fraud of Feminism, p.1-2]
In this post I am using a broad definition of censorship that includes blocking or excluding or misrepresenting people/groups or opinions that are at odds with all or part of the feminist narrative.
I should mention that it is not only anti-feminist perspectives that are censored, but also sometimes perspectives offered by men who identify as feminists, or by women who identify as (for example) equity feminists rather than gender feminists.
An example of feminist men being excluded can be seen in this article about a pro-abortion rally in Ireland where men in the audience were told to “know your place” and to remember that “this is a women’s movement“.
Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”. Except that feminists often substitute the la la la with somewhat saltier language.
What is happening is that any view that runs contrary to feminist ideology is branded misogynistic and hateful, and thus automatically unworthy of consideration. In my eyes, alternative viewpoints are not necessarily hateful. Sure they might cause hurt feelings, but that is part and parcel of debate in intelligent adult society.
Feminists say they are addressing both mens and womens issues, and will make the world a better place if we just stay the F**K away and let them do what they need to do. This is a nonsense. Has there been even a single policy change initiated or achieved by feminists that has had a tangible benefit for men collectively? (Cue: sound of crickets)
Good quote about feminism: “That’s what gets me about them — for thirty years, they screamed that slogan [make the personal, political] at the top of their lungs. And then, once men start turning to politics to make the personal political, they start hemming and hawing about whether or not this issue or that one is really a ‘mens’ issue. But somehow, everything on earth is a women’s issue.” (Source)
Let’s be quite clear that we are talking about censorship based on ideology and personal preferences here. I have no problem with moderators taking action against posts that are threatening, incoherent, or peppered with profanity.
So what then are some of the techniques commonly employed by feminists/SJW to isolate those putting forward alternative positions?
Blocking and/or removal of posts or readers comments in online blogs and mainstream media web sites
A major factor in motivating me to create this blog was the annoyance I experience when I’m continually thwarted upon trying to post my views in online fora, for example in blogs, discussion forums, and mainstream news sites like news.com.au.
This blocking or removal of dissenting posts is extremely prevalent in sites related to discussions of gender and feminism. It generally occurs when I, and others like me, put forward perspectives that conflict with cherished notions held by the (usually female feminist) author or moderator. These are people who are, more often than not, singularly unwilling to accommodate alternative positions. I lost track long ago of the number of times this has happened to me … examples here, here, here, here, and here … courteous posts that were either not uploaded, or uploaded but subsequently removed.
This September 2016 article about domestic violence by Rebecca Poulson is an example where readers comments were overwhelmingly critical of the author’s perspective. The author complained on social media of her comments thread being “hijacked”, with many of those comments subsequently being removed by the moderator.
I don’t mean to be pedantic but the use of the term “hijack” demonstrates the sense of entitlement shown by many feminist writers. The definition of this word entails illegal seizure (of an aircraft, ship, or vehicle for e.g.) whilst in transit, and the use of force to make it travel to a different destination. Readers offering their views is neither illegal nor does it involve force, and others are free at any time to offer their own views.
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Let’s consider the experience of another who has had similar experiences:
M the Atheist wrote on 3 September 2013 “… I found a thread about rape and power and spent the time to read the post and all the comments, did not seem too hateful and had some reasonable stuff … I wrote a very reasonable and objective post about rape, power and rape culture (based on one of GWW’s videos). I included data, reason, personal experience and points from GWW’s video; and was surprised that it got posted …
I went back a few hours later to find that my post was removed; and I could not figure out why. I went through great pains to make it neuter, people inclusive, and posited GWW’s hypothesis in what I thought was a well mannered and calm, dispassionate way.
They had also posted and allowed to remain other males’ posts. So why not mine? I then realized that they only allow mens’ posts to remain if they can destroy them or if they are easily group-attacked.”
Something similar also happened to Australian TV personality David Koch when he sought to respond to an attack on him posted in a feminist web site. Another example here from the UK.
With the exception of reddit/r/mensrights and a few others, there is a high probability that any post made that challenges the leftist or feminist narrative will quickly be made to disappear. It will either be removed by a moderator on their own volition or on the basis of the post being reported by users of the forum. This is not ‘tin-foil hat’ stuff, it happened to me as recently as this morning.
Two other common occurrences on Reddit, involving those making posts that challenge or question the prevailing feminist/SJW commentary, are:
Posts being removed from view to due to down-voting. The speed at which this occurs, plus the large number of votes cast, suggest that this is an organised strategy employed by like-minded activists.
Reddit users being banned from posting in particular forums for posting often remarkably benign comments or questions. Examples of this are provided in reddit/r/mensrights on an almost daily basis.
Another common tactic employed by feminists on social media is to lodge reports, which may be exagerated or completely bogus, about Facebook pages maintained by others. They often do so in a co-ordinated manner with their friends/associates, with the aim of having the relevant pages suspended/removed. And in many cases they are successful.
It would be one thing if the administrators at Facebook were applying these rules and restrictions evenly across the board, but that is not the case. What is happening is that Facebook pages with a conservative or egalitarian or anti-feminist slant are being targetted. Meanwhile a blind eye is being turned to questionable content within pages with a leftist/liberal/SJW or feminist slant.
There are further examples and discussion of this trend in articles listed later, in addition to the following:
Developments on Facebook have helped drive many people, both those with anti-feminist/SJW views and trolls alike, across to Twitter where until recently there was a relatively unimpeded flow of ideas and information. Things are now also tightening up there also, both in terms of actions taken by Twitter staff and other users. For an example of the former, google search to see how Twitter have pursued MRA and anti-feminists such as Milo Yiannopoulos. More recently Twitter has introduced tools to enable greater censorship (see here and here).
Another Australian feminist, Van Badham, revels in her ability to block in this 2019 article.
This means that a Twitter user can find him/herself blocked from another user’s stream even when they have never had contact with that particular person or group. In some cases this may occur simply because your account was red-flagged due to others that you follow.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been blocked – Here are two examples:
In my first example a feminist journalist by the name of Lindy West blocked me. I don’t know Lindy from a bar of soap, but apparently she considers my views on anything/everything to be unacceptable. Really Lindy? As one cheeky reader commented in response to this article, perhaps you’d be better off blocking Twinkies instead.
At least in my second example I actually had some contact with the blocker (Tara Moss) before the hammer fell. That single solitary tweet is shown below:
Lobbying against planned events by anti-feminists or men’s rights advocates and/or disrupting events whilst they are underway
In what is becoming a popular strategy to prevent opposing views being heard, feminists are setting off fire alarms at venues hosting MHRA or anti-feminists speakers. If you want to get some idea of how widespread this form of nuisance ‘activism’ is becoming then google on the words ‘feminist protesters pull fire alarm’. Go ahead – you can start by reading this and this. And only recently feminist protestors disrupted a presentation by CAFE.
Christina Hoff Sommers debated Roxane Gay in Sydney & Melbourne in late March 2019. Refer this article and linked Twitter stream for now, whilst I try to locate a better review (oh and here’s a SMH offering with reader’s comments). Apparently Gay’s leftist supporters focussed on disrupting the event rather than letting an actual debate take place.
The term ‘anti-democratic’ is way too insipid to describe this pattern of behaviour. This is something more negative, much darker and more pervasive, and which all but precludes any meaningful dialogue. Indeed the direction in which this is already heading is that any comments that are deemed to be anti-feminist and/or sexist will be made illegal on the grounds of combating hate-speech (example). Opposing this trend, at least for those that have the means to take legal action, is legal precedent such as this.
A curious aspect of feminist censorship is that one of its key functions is to block open debate of their own issues. Even the noisiest feminists only want to be heard when they can control the ‘dialogue’. Otherwise … well this challenge by Milo Yiannopolous to Anita Sarkeesian (thus far) illustrates what shrinking violets even high-profile feminists can be when someone else seizes the initiative. Mike Buchanan’s web site features many examples of his own unacknowledged public challenges to feminists to debate significant issues.
Feminists don’t want to debate issues or engage with their opponents, they want to neutralise them by almost any means necessary. What follows is a brief extract fromRules for Radicals‘ as cited in a blog post by Anne Althouse:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Some articles on the general issue of the gradual death of free speech and/or the unwillingness of the liberal left to engage constructively
Two good articles in The Australian on 24/25 September 2016 (if you can get behind the paywall): ‘What more in the name of love?‘ by David Crowe, and ‘Straight-out hate in politics of identity‘ by Brendan O’Neill. Neither article specifically mentions feminists, yet very accurately describe their tactics.
“Labels are important tools in identifying socio-cultural problems. Privilege exists. Shaming exists. But when we adopt labels, project them onto others, or create new ones, we sometimes take broad social concepts and individualize them. We use labels to silence those who don’t agree with us, which keeps us from engaging in open, honest conversations. Many people with legitimate opinions and solid ideas are afraid to participate because they are afraid they might say the wrong thing, or say the right thing in the wrong way. When people are silenced, the conversation suffers.”
Articles/videos specifically about feminists, and their allies, stifling open discussion of gender issues
“The Google employee behind a ten-page viewpoint diversity manifesto that went viral online has been fired. James Damore, whose manifesto criticizing the politically correct corporate culture at Google prompted outrage from left-wing employees and social justice warriors online, revealed that he had been fired” (Source) More at:
To Milo or not to Milo? (21 February 2017) How the left neutralised a very annoying thorn in their side. A story rich in hypocrisy given what various feminists/SJW have previously said & done & walked away from without penalty.
Archetypal mangina David Futrelle seeks to undermine credibility of film-maker Cassie Jaye because she dared to produce a fair-minded representation of the men’s rights movement. See here, here and here for example
And now to close with something a little different, this April 2015 article in The Guardian claims that men post far more comments online (think news and current affairs web sites), and that this has the effect of “silencing” women. The author also claims, amongst other things, that many women are posting online using male names for “protection“. Firstly this begs the questions how could he know how many of those posting were men/women. Secondly it would be counter-productive to assume a male name for this reason when surveys show that men attract significantly more online abuse/harassment than do women. But the best bit is that the moderator removed my comment. They didn’t even leave the usual “Your comment was removed” message. They silenced me!
“The anarchist Bob Black predicted back in 1982 that feminism would eventually become a totalitarian movement to rival history’s most oppressive tyrannies. Most people find this idea absurd due to gynocentrism, “women are wonderful” and neoteny (and frankly, male vanity). However Black made the point that feminism — since its arguments are completely illogical and do not stand up to scrutiny — could not maintain power except through censorship.
Feminists are attempting to turn all of society into a “safe space” for feminists (not women, not children, certainly not men, just feminists). That includes cyberspace. As more and more people debunk feminist ideology online, calls will grow to “end online misogyny,” with predictable results. There is already a huge chilling effect underway.” (Source)
In this post I want to address two related issues. The first is the standard feminist cop-out when publicly confronted with some truly egregious comment or action by a self-identified feminist. That default response is to assert that the feminist in question is some sort of outlier or crank, and not representative of feminists generally, viz. “yes, but, not all feminists are like that!”.
Of course it is damning of feminism as a movement that the ‘real’ feminists never seem to criticize the ‘bad’ ones. In fact it seems to me that the only women or girls that feminists ever criticize are the ones who are openly critical of some or all aspects of feminism.
A related feminist concoction arises in the form of the term ‘straw feminist‘, as used to describe (what feminists claim to be) an evil and inaccurate caricature of a feminist invented and used by MRA to denigrate the feminist cause. What an insult to our intelligence … why would we need to invent such a person when we can see and hear them with our very own eyes?! Denial on a grand scale or simply ignorant of reality?
The second thing I want to do in this post is to profile some feminists who really ARE not like that. These are people who do support equality, and are on the same page with many of the issues of concern to MHRA. It must also be recognised that many of those now active in the Mens Human Rights movement were formerly feminists but crossed over upon realising the flaws and hypocrisy of both feminist doctrine and feminist activism. An excellent example of such a person is Warren Farrell, the author of the seminal work ‘The Myth of Male Power‘.
Another example of a feminist who saw value in the message of the Mens Human Rights Movement is provided in this video interview
Christina Hoff Sommers is an American author and former philosophy professor who is known for her critique of late 20th century feminism, and her writings about feminism in contemporary American culture. Her most widely discussed books are Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. Although her critics refer to her as anti-feminist, Sommers thinks of herself as an equity feminist who faults contemporary feminism for “its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and statistics, and its inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal – but different.”
“The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it’s full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it’s become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women’s studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement.”
Camille Paglia, who was recently asked “what’s wrong with American feminism today, and what can it do to improve?“, to which she replied:
“After the great victory won by my insurgent, pro-sex, pro-fashion wing of feminism in the 1990s, American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology. As in the hoary old days of Gloria Steinem and her Stalinist cohorts, we are endlessly subjected to the hackneyed scenario of history as a toxic wasteland of vicious male oppression and gruesome female suffering.
College campuses are hysterically portrayed as rape extravaganzas where women are helpless fluffs with no control over their own choices and behavior. I am an equal opportunity feminist: that is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women’s advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women, which I reject as demeaning and infantilizing.
My principal demand (as I have been repeating for nearly 25 years) is for colleges to confine themselves to education and to cease their tyrannical surveillance of students’ social lives. If a real crime is committed, it must be reported to the police. College officials and committees have neither the expertise nor the legal right to be conducting investigations into he said/she said campus dating fiascos. Too many of today’s young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois. The world can never be made totally safe for anyone, male or female: there will always be sociopaths and psychotics impervious to social controls. I call my system “street-smart feminism”: there is no substitute for wary vigilance and personal responsibility.” (Source)
The issue of traveller safety encompasses many topics such as sexual assault, robbery and scams, motor vehicle accidents, food poisoning, STD’s, animal bites, etc. Within the mainstream and online media however most attention is directed to sexual assault, and most media coverage of traveller safety focuses on threats to the personal safety of women. It’s as if males are immune from muggings, drink spiking, motor vehicle accidents, etc, or are deemed to be incapable of benefiting from advice.
Nevertheless, out in the real world, males are just as vulnerable to these threats as are females. No one questions that women are deserving of support and advice in relation to the issue of traveller safety. But it would appear that men being men, well you know, they should just suck it up. Or something.
Actually I just read a post in a feminist blog that informed me that men don’t need this sort of advice because men “can look after themselves“. Well to the extent that men *can* look after themselves whilst travelling, they do so chiefly by following the same sort of advice that they offer to women (and then get called victim-blamers!). Funny thing that.
Aside from feminist bias I can’t think of a logical reason why journalists persist in compartmentalising, along gender lines, their coverage of this issue … that is unless the goal is simply to perpetuate a myth of eternal victimhood.
And so it is that much of the online discussion of traveller safety is devoted to women railing against the injustice of being unable to dress like a hooker – according to local mores – without getting approached with offers of work. Oh, wait, perhaps the patriarchy made them do it? Just what is the big deal about briefly modifying one’s normal fashion style? Those people promulgating this crazy notion of polite compromise as being akin to outright capitulation, have a lot to answer for.
Guys, on the other hand, seem to be able to enjoy their holidays just fine without the need to show off their butt cheeks whilst shopping in the market.
No, no-one deserves to be harassed or raped. In an ideal world we could wear whatever we chose, and go where-ever we wanted at any time of the day or night, without attracting judgement or a violent response.
But it’s not an ideal world, and it is foolish to ignore patterns of behaviour correlated to higher levels of threat, in favour of feel-good public rituals and esoteric babbling about the need to “educate” men and boys. Sounds a lot like comfortable insulated upper middle-class delusion to me. The criminal underbelly of society, along with the mentally ill, naughty boys (and girls!) one and all. They just need a good talking to, and a couple of good Powerpoint presentations should do the trick.
Christian schools have been teaching the “do not steal” lesson for a couple of thousand years now, and we still seem to have a bit of a problem with theft. I am not saying that there is no place for education, but I sure wouldn’t be relying on it as the biggest stick in my armoury.
Oh, but heaven help any man who attempts to join the discussion and helpfully suggest tips like “don’t get drunk or take drugs”, “dress conservatively” or “don’t walk alone at night”, for they are immediately labelled victim-blamers and rape-apologists!
This theme, that the behaviour of women never causes nor contributes to the problems they encounter or anything bad that happens to them, is a feminist mainstay. And dare you suggest otherwise then you are the bad guy, even if you really don’t think you are … because your mind has been corrupted by “cognitive bias’ and ‘systemic sexism’. Move over Scientology!
And so in April 2014 a Australian feminist journalist by the name of Tracey Spicer wrote an article about how she didn’t want her children sat next to men on flights – see the article and related discussions here and here. This article in a feminist web site contributes nothing to the debate but there are some interesting points buried amongst the readers comments.
This blog post discusses an article by Wendy Tuohy on the same topic, but which in this case drips with hypocrisy bearing in mind the pronounced feminist bias of her prior repertoire of articles and offerings on social media.
This post mainly deals with false accusations or allegations by women in relation to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
False allegations in relation to online harassment are dealt with in this post. False allegations in relation to paternity fraud are dealt with in this post.
One of the common false claims made by feminists is that men’s rights activists assert that most women who claim to have been raped are lying. Personally I have never seen or heard this statement made by any MHRA. What is often stated however is that there are substantial and unacceptably high numbers of women making false rape accusations, and that this problem should be acknowledged and treated seriously (including charging the false accuser where appropriate).
Being the subject of a false accusation of sexual assault can be, and often is, a traumatic and life-changing experience for anyone. False rape allegations also minimise and demean the suffering and the credibility of victims of actual rape.
Let’s start with the Wikipedia entry for false rape allegations, which extracts data from many different studies. This highlights the practical difficulty in differentiating between false rape allegations, unproven allegations, and ‘not guilty’ verdicts for example. It does however refute the suggestion made by many feminists that false allegations are either non-existent or absolutely negligible.
Here in Australia I came across the following information:
“A Victorian study, which analysed 850 rapes reported to the police over the period 2000–03, found that only 2.1% of reports were designated as false by the police. In these cases, the alleged victim was either charged or told that she would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this only represents a fraction of the sample, there was a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false, but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.” (Source here and related reddit discussion thread here)
This article ‘How often do women falsely cry rape?’ gives quite a fair and balanced intro to the issue and can be read in conjunction with the Wiki entry cited above. Further recommended reading:
A further summary of the false abuse and rape allegation literature can be found in a 2013 book by Phillip Cook and Tammy Hodo titled ‘When Women Sexually Abuse Men‘. While statistics in this literature are problematic, Cook and Hodo report four studies that found false allegation rates of 62 percent, 41 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent.
How and why do women falsely claim to have been sexually assaulted? There are a number of factors underlying the false rape phenomenon, starting with the widespread and exaggerated picture of men as persistent and unrepentant aggressors.
This article mentions women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted after their drink was spiked, yet in almost all cases were not found to have any drugs in their system. (See also this discussion thread). This video provides a detailed analysis of the issue. I’s suggest that it’s highly likely however that there are in fact far more instances of drink-spiking by women – with the intention of theft (example here).
It might well be that many women are exercising bad judgement and then, rather than accepting accountability for what subsequently occurred, look about for someone or something to put the blame on. Were this be indicative of a broader trend re: women’s propensity to shift blame, clearly there is considerable potential for false rape allegations to occur.
The damage to young men who are falsely accused is further magnified via the growing number of university campuses that run kangaroo courts (quite separate from the judicial system) to punish those accused of rape.
Some of the wording used in this article caught my attention:
“We have concluded that we cannot go forward with prosecution because there is not a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial,” said Senior Charging Attorney Jane Nicoletti-Jones. “In (this case), the statements of a witness other than the suspect or alleged victim were an important part of our decision.” Although officials declined to comment on this case specifically, it illustrates some of the hurdles that accusers and their advocates face when filing sexual assault complaints.” (my emphasis added)
In this case a witness or witnesses cast doubt on the accuracy of the rape accusation, but in this feminist journalists eyes such eyewitness statements are merely “hurdles”. Who cares about the truth or justice anyway … we just need to get those rapists men in jail.
Whilst false accusations are only one of several factors contributing to false imprisonment, it’s worth mentioning that 99% of the prisoners exonerated due to the efforts of the Innocence Project were male, and that more than half of them were initially found guilty of rape.
The list of links below concern specific cases involving false allegations against men by women (and in some cases by women against other women). Such reports now appear in the media on virtually a daily basis. As a consequence many further cases can be readily sourced via online searches. Scroll down the page for sources providing a general discussion of this topic.
“This dishonest woman might exist – in fact, lots and lots of dishonest people exist – but there are thousands more victims for whom the stigma of reporting domestic violence, and not being believed, means they’ll never come forward.
When we see the front page story about a man falsely accused of rape, or framed for domestic violence, we’re allowed to feel sympathy for him. But we need to remember that his story is the exception, not the rule, and often the rule – in this case, countless honest victims – fades into obscurity.
Because when something is normal, it doesn’t make the news. And that’s the saddest part.”
“Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police … Judge Christopher Batty told her: “Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.”
Why do judges never make the point that false rape allegations are very damaging to men, in part due to their lack of anonymity, and offer them some sympathy?” (Source)
“… the court agreed with Joy’s arguments that the lender’s investigation was handled differently because he’s a man.
“The whole factual matrix on which the decision to dismiss was based was, in itself, infused with, and tainted by, discrimination,” Judge Graeme Hodgson said in the ruling. “The conclusions on the claimant’s behavior are founded on stereotyped assumptions of how a man behaves.””
“I’m sorry Kelly but 3 days is rubbish. My ex partner went straight to the Courts and just filled out a form 5 days before Christmas and alleged that I had stalked her, threatened her and abused her and our son. I had to wait three MONTHS before I had my day in court.
I went to court armed to the gills with evidence of her lies and after waiting 6hrs in the court rooms I had 5 mins in court where no body asked me anything, not a word. Her lawyer changed the story at the last minute and then the lovely magistrate decided to postpone the next determination hearing 6 weeks down the track.
I went close to 5 months without seeing my son all because of my ex partners lies. No evidence. Nothing. Never touched her, never threatened her. Ever.
But I was determined to be guilty until proven innocent, and all on the say so of one bitter, twisted person. No one cared about me or my side of the story. The only ones who cared were the lawyers (a prominient law firm) who asked for $10K up front before they would even represent me.
In the end she dropped her accusations after we had to go to court the second time. Her penalty for perjuring herself twice? Nothing. Her penalty for slandering me for 6 months? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my family access to their grandson over Christmas? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my son access to his father? None.
I came so close to topping myself on several occasions during those long dark months that I had to endure being treated like a criminal, like the worst of the worst, the dregs of society.
But I kept on saying to myself that I had to fight for the most important person in the world; my son. I am glad that I had immense support from my family and friends otherwise I probably wouldn’t be here to write you this note.
I am all for very harsh penalties for any person who assaults another but the changes to DV that were made several years ago make basically every possible argument or disagreement in a domestic environment grounds for DV, and all it takes is one person to accuse you and you’re nicked. Well you are if you are a bloke.
There were penalties for perjury in the DV legislation but they were removed. Penalties for knowingly making false statements to police and the courts should be treated just as harshly in my mind. If there are no penalties for lying in court then who can believe what people say in court?” (Source – See reader’s comments from Brett)
Albury sex assault: Investigation finalised (1 May 2015). Notice how no-one actually comes out and says the girl made a false allegation, presumably all too scared that the feminists would get even angrier. No repercussion for the girl making the claim because that would be ‘victim’ blaming. In this article the police even state that they “were adamant they didn’t want the outcome to dissuade people reporting similar incidents. “We encourage anyone who has been the victim of a crime to come forward,” police said. It appears unlikely the teenager who reported the incident will be charged.” Hello! The only crime here was the false allegation. Idiotic PC. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here
Two girls on a bus in India start beating some young men with their belts. The claim the men groped them. They became internet heros for defending themselves (and womanhood generally). Then the truth gradually leaked out (4 December 2014) And more videos surfaced of them beating men on other occasions.
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.”
Whilst most of them labour on in denial, the fact is that feminists can be particularly spiteful and relentless in the manner in which they attack those who question or criticise their jaundiced view of the world. Although not according to this feminist:
Feminists are also not averse to turning on allies, particularly the men who openly support them (for examples see 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/ 9). Wow, don’t they just love dishing it out?
And two more examples of women targeted by feminists are Erin Pizzey and Catherine Hakim:
Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey is an English family care activist and a novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first women’s refuges (called women’s shelters in the U.S.) in the modern world, Chiswick Women’s Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge. Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her stance that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men. Further details about Erin here and here
Catherine Hakim is a British sociologist who specializes in women’s employment and women’s issues. She has worked in British central government, and as a Senior Research Fellow in the London School of Economics. She is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies. She has published extensively on labour market topics, women’s employment, sex discrimination, social and family policy, as well as social statistics and research design. She has published over 100 articles in academic journals and edited collections, and over a dozen textbooks and research monographs. She is best known for developing preference theory and her criticism of many feminist assumptions about women’s employment.
The high-tide line of the spectrum of feminist outrage may well be Claire Khaw, a (partway serious and partway tongue-in-cheek) social commentator who maintains blogs called the ‘Battlefield of Love‘ and ‘The Voice of Reason‘. A little strong for the sensibilities of many, yet at the same time probably a fitting counterpoint to ghastly feminist commentators like Anita Sarkeesian or Amanda Marcotte. Here is one of Claire’s recent items.
And yet at the same time, feminists have a deeply unenviable propensity to quickly play the ‘frightened and oppressed victim’ card should the tables be turned (aka ‘cry bully’).
Perhaps the most common way in which feminists lash out is through employing what is known as shaming tactics. At other times, though their response can include tactics such as online bullying, stalking and threats, and/or the lodgement of false or exaggerated claims to Twitter/ISP’s/etc in order to have the accounts of their targets closed.
In another post I talk about a recent Australian example involving the ‘Sunrise’ TV show. In one of the media articles that ensued, Michael Lallo suggested that only feminist women posting online attracted threats of violence/death … with of course the threats being made by men.
Well Michael, time to open your eyes and wake up … and you can start by checking out these sources:
To Milo or not to Milo? (21 February 2017) How the left neutralised a very annoying thorn in their side. A story rich in hypocrisy given what various feminists/SJW have previously said & done & walked away from without penalty.
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.
Well the term ‘patriarchy’ gets thrown around a lot by feminists. Apparently it’s like hell for women. Sort of a catch-all for all the bad things that happen to women that can’t be (in their minds) blamed either on themselves or one particular guy.
“Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.”
Basically feminists claim that men have constructed, and continue to maintain, a social paradigm expressly designed for our own benefit. If that were the case then it’s hard to explain statistics like these and these, showing men at a disadvantage is so many areas. I figure that us guys could build a better paradigm than that.
Yes, there are ruling elites present within our society. And yes, well over 50% of their members are probably men. But a social system created by men for men? A fairy tale. And don’t anyone dare suggest that the ruling coven of contemporary feminists are in fact a ruling elite in their own right (and one that continues to grow in influence).
The following articles explore the concept of patriarchy in some detail:
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 matriachy. 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?