feminism – Page 3 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

My post today begins with a panel discussion entitled ‘Have men become second-class citizens’ that featured on the ‘Sunrise’ TV program in Australia.

“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”

Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.

Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.

Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle. And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.

So this is how strong independent women behave? No, but it’s how feminists behave.

This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.

Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.

But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:

“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”

Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.

Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …

Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!

And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:

I have sympathy for Mark Latham. He’s barking at a cloud that’s passed him by (4 May 2016)

Van Badham and Steve Price went head-to-head on Q&A (12 July 2016) See also this article in The Age. Response from Steve Price here.

Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.

Look what I found in a Reddit discussion thread about Van Badham’s stouch with Steve Price … apparently Van wanted to put Tony Abbott underwater. Wait, where have a heard a comment like that before? Oh yes, Eddie McGuire.

From The Spectator, ‘Van Badham and the ugly facts of an ugly matter‘ (15 July 2016)

Readers might care to seek out a tweet by @RitaPanahi on 12 July 2016 for further examples of what Ms Badham considers appropriate to dish out (but not receive). Gems such as:

And on a parting note, an item by Andrew Bolt entitled ‘How Van Badham attacks even children‘ (2 March 2017).

A dozen of western culture’s most historic documents (Feminism v Patriarchy)

It irritates me immensely when I read how, according to certain feminist ‘scholars’, men have supposedly crapped all over human history. The underlying theme is generally one featuring the systematic oppression of women set against a backdrop of endless testosterone-fuelled wars … and how much different and better the world would be were women calling all the shots.

I’m no historian, but I understand that there are more than a few holes in the feminist version of history, see for example, ‘European Queens waged more wars than kings‘.

Consider the documents listed below, as another example. Are they evidence of a disgraceful white male hedgemony? Hateful artifacts of toxic masculinity? Or high points of human civilisation of which we can all be proud?

The Holy Bible The bible that we know today is believed to represent the fruits of approximately forty male authors.

The Magna Carta (UK, 1215) The content of the Magna Carta was drafted by Archbishop Stephen Langton and the most powerful Barons of England.

The English Bill of Rights (UK, 1689) The Bill of Rights was a collectively authored document. Since it was based on the Declaration of Rights, authorship can be attributed to the Convention Parliament, which was the first parliament convened following the arrival of William of Orange in England. The Convention Parliament comprised members who had been in Charles II’s last Parliament, which he had dissolved in 1681.

The Declaration of Independence (USA, 1776) Although we know Thomas Jefferson as the true author, the Second Continental Congress initially appointed five people to draw up a declaration. The committee included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was then given the task of writing a draft for the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution (USA, 1788) The Constitution was written in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from 12 states. It created a federal system with a national government composed of 3 separated powers, and included both reserved and concurrent powers of states. The president of the Constitutional Convention, the body that framed the new government, was George Washington, though James Madison is known as the “Father of the Constitution” because of his great contributions to the formation of the new government. Gouverneur Morris wrote the Constitution’s final language.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (France, 1789) Passed by France’s National Constituent Assembly in August 1789, the Declaration is a fundamental document of the French Revolution and in the history of human and civil rights. The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson, working with General Lafayette, who introduced it. Influenced also by the doctrine of “natural right”, the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by law. The Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of freedom and democracy in Europe and worldwide.

The Bill of Rights (USA, 1791) Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln (USA, 1863). The Gettysburg Address is perhaps the most famous speech in American history. Given by President Lincoln at the dedication of the Gettysburg national cemetery on November 19, 1863, the speech initially met with a mixed reception (the anti-Lincoln Chicago Times wrote, “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dish-watery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States”), but it has since become universally acclaimed as distilling the essence of the Civil War into a handful of sentences.

The Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln (USA, 1863). The document proclaimed all slaves in Confederate-held areas “perpetually” free, and fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil War by making the abolition of slavery a primary Union war aim. The document, as it only applied to areas not under federal control, has been criticized for being a stop-gap or temporary measure, but recently — especially given the 150th anniversary of the Proclamation — it has enjoyed a renewed reputation as one of the most radical documents in American history.

The Marshall Plan speech by George Marshall (USA, 1947). When George Marshall gave the commencement address for Harvard University on June 5, 1947, he outlined a policy that would rebuild war-torn Europe. The Marshall Plan speech “set in motion a chain of events that resulted in the greatest foreign aid program in history,” wrote a reader, and for that alone it merits nomination, but, as another reader wrote, the result of that program would be to “usher in one of the greatest periods of prosperity in modern history.”

The ‘I have a dream’ speech by Martin Luther King (USA, 1963) The “I Have a Dream” speech, ranked by scholars as the greatest speech of the twentieth century remains iconic to this very day. The most famous part of the speech, where King describes his dream, was largely improvised on the spot.

And what literature might feminists hold up in return? Perhaps gems like:

The SCUM Manifesto (USA, 1967) “The SCUM Manifesto is a radical feminist manifesto by Valerie Solanas, published in 1967. It argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of SCUM, an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex.”

The term “SCUM” appeared on the cover of the first edition from Olympia Press as “S.C.U.M.” and was said to stand for “Society for Cutting Up Men”. Solanas objected, insisting that it was not an acronym, although the expanded term appeared in a Village Voice ad she had written in 1967. Solanas held a series of recruitment meetings for SCUM at the Chelsea Hotel where she lived, but a decade later insisted that the organization was “just a literary device” and never really existed. The Manifesto was little-known until Solanas attempted to kill Andy Warhol in 1968.

All I am saying here is how about we give credit where credit is due and build upon, rather than seek to diminish, the outstanding contributions made by our forebears.

Women can, and should, join with men in creating a better world for our children. By the same token it is in no way contradictory for me to state that I am not prepared to sit down and bear passive witness to feminists leading us into a glorious new age of … hmm … sexism, narcissism and profanity?

When banks divert from banking to social engineering

Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.

The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.

“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.

What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”

So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.

Since then various related ‘initiatives’ have emerged such as ideologically correct videos (below), and a decision to contribute an additional $500 into the superannuation accounts of female staff based on the feminist misinterpretation of the gender pay gap.

Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:

“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers.

ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.

Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors. However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.

ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.

ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.

Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).

ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”

I wrote back to the bank:

“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.

1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.

2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assets were accumulated prior to the marriage.

3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into women’s health and on the treatment of women’s health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)

In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.

The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/“

And the bank duly wrote back:

“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Whereupon I said:

“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”

It’s not just banks doing this … it’s not just about financial benefits … and the implications extend beyond staff of the relevant company

Since forever many companies have wanted to do good in their local communities, or at least be seen to do good. Until recently they were content to do things like sponsor a local football team or make a donation to a charity. Although the worthy causes were usually unrelated to the business of the company, these were small benign gestures that troubled no-one. How quickly that has changed in the space of just a few years.

Now were are seeing companies expend large amounts of money and time on causes that can be polarising and contentious. The implications of adopting (often judgmental) public positions on these issues or causes can flow through to staff, customers, shareholders and then out into the broader community.

With the superannuation issue there was a tangible benefit for staff, well, for some staff. As this trends builds, and with these other issues, there are both carrots and sticks being employed. The sticks can include shunning/shaming or even dismissal for staff who don’t embrace the company line and engage in wrong-think.

Workplace intimidation silences lawyers critical of same-sex marriage (30 August 2017)

“Solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces if they publicly criticise the endorsement of same-sex marriage by their professional association and law firms … He said it was wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Association to express any view on same-sex marriage because it was peripheral to the central concerns of both organisations.”

The market for virtue: why companies like Qantas are campaigning for marriage equality (28 August 2017)

How James Damore went from Google employee to right-wing Internet hero (12 August 2017)

See also:

Women and wealth, by Bettina Arndt (19 August 2024)

Does virtue signaling in advertising impress you or depress you? It’s time to take a look at ESG (6 September 2023)

‘Significant concerns’ in Downing Street as NatWest boss quits over Farage leak (26 July 2023)

Weaponising banks against men, by Bettina Arndt (6 July 2023)

NAB takes on financial abuse (26 June 2023)

NAB cracking down on financial abuse (26 June 2023)

Redesign banking products to protect women from financial abuse: Report (22 November 2022)

Bankwest Curtin Research Centre – take a look at their publications and media releases. See if you can find any gender-related topic that isn’t covered in a manner consistent with feminist ideology.

Inconvenient truths about impoverished women and privileged men, by Bettina Arndt (11 April 2021)

Commonwealth Bank launches anti-domestic violence and financial abuse initiative (20 July 2020) Such initiatives can be positive – should be positive – if not for what seems to be a compulsion to ‘white-out’ all trace of abusive women and male victims of abuse.

Young women drain their super accounts (18 June 2020) Australia

Raise women’s super to 15%: Victorian Labor (12 February 2020) The gynocracy warmly welcomes the assistance of fem-compliant governments. Yet another case of #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits

NAB promotes #EndToViolence (November 2017) with further details in their web site

Did Westpac just mansplain gender diversity to its competitors? (26 October 2017) Westpac learns, as have countless male feminists, that no matter how much you pander to feminist nonsense, you will still be subjected to harsh criticism.

Westpac under fire over same sex marriage email (5 October 2017)

“Westpac has been forced to defend an email from a staff networking group telling fellow employees to vote Yes in the same-sex marriage survey, erroneously claiming that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year”

What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men, by Corrine Barraclough (26 May 2017)

Why we’re backing women, by Lorraine Murphy, National Australia Bank (6 March 2017)

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey (14 February 2017) A very gynocentric article, but which does support the value of addressing financial literacy/skill to enhance post-retirement financial status.

Banks preaching about gender wage gap myth, by Rita Panahi (28 October 2016)

Female tech leadership to get $1m boost (4 October 2016)

Shareholders slam CBA’s ‘diversity’ bonus (27 September 2016) Australia

It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail

I see that both ANZ and NAB have directors on the board of Diversity Council Australia. DCA are, amongst other things, the organisers of this feminist talk-fest planned for November 2016.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Angus Aitken out at Bell Potter after ANZ Michelle Jablko email (26 May 2016) with further background to this episode in this interview with Kate Jenkins

Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”

The Superannuation Gender Gap (21 April 2016) Australia. Related reddit discussion thread here

Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.

Australian bank ANZs new ad. Pushing the wage gap myth on children (March 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Femvertising, it’s a hell of a good start (8 March 2016)

‘Blatant sexism’: ANZ’s #equalfuture campaign cleared of discriminating against men (4 September 2015)

ANZ pays women extra super (31 August 2015) A very long-running discussion in the Whirlpool online forum

ANZ bank giving female employees an extra $500 to correct gender pay gap (August 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees (29 July 2015)

ANZ pushes its new gender diversity measures in national campaign (29 July 2015)

This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.

Postscript (19 September 2018) Today Bill Shorten, Australian federal leader of the Opposition, announced a $400 million scheme to support women in relation to their retirement Super balances

My submission to the 2016 Federal Government Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality

Introduction

Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to contribute my thoughts in relation to the work of the Inquiry, and concerning the pressing issue of domestic violence generally.

I believe the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference to be ill-considered, inappropriate, and strongly indicative of ideological bias. In what appears to be akin to a ‘dorothy-dixer’[1] on the floor of parliament, the Terms of Reference appear to have been formulated with the intention of producing a report that simply justifies a continuation of the existing failed gender-biased approach to combatting domestic violence. In so doing it seems that remaining in lockstep with the feminist movement has been accorded a higher priority than actually addressing the problem via constructive debate about the full range of potential causes and solutions of/for DV.

I fully anticipate that the only new development to arise from the Inquiry will be leveraging the Committee’s ‘findings’ in order to be institute progressively higher levels of government funding for the Domestic Violence Industry[2]. Funding for which there will likely continue to be few, if any, controls or oversight in relation to performance monitoring and accountability.

The Committee has opted to pursue a biased, parochial and blinkered approach to a complex social issue about which there are many views but few certainties. It is an approach which, based on nothing more than the cherished belief of one particular lobby group, pre-empts consideration of other, quite likely more relevant, factors.

A strong consensus exists – beyond the confines of the feminist encampment – that several factors jointly bring about patterns of domestic violence. Gender inequality is but one of these. Parental abuse and neglect of children who subsequently grow up to become perpetrators being another. I would join others in suggesting that gender inequality is, in itself, generally a relatively minor factor. Indeed, I believe that in many cases it bears little or no influence at all.

In what has become an established tactic, however, anyone proposing that gender equality is not a pivotal factor underpinning domestic violence is shamed and threatened.[3] [4] [5] [6] The Terms of Reference of this Committee will clearly only strengthen the resolve of those who encourage and pursue such totalitarian and counter-productive behaviour.

Committee members, this is not the type of approach to adopt if you genuinely wish to identify and then win support for truly effective strategies to remedy complex social problems.

Might I suggest that the reference to ‘education’ (in the Terms of Reference) was intended to generate expressions of profuse support from the feminist faithful for further ‘public awareness campaigns’[7] and school programs[8]. This despite the fact that I am yet to learn of any conclusive proof with regard to the value of either of these strategies. Excepting of course their value to those pro-feminist advocacy groups and consultancies who will find themselves in receipt of generous allocations of public funds[9]. Additionally, in both cases I would suggest that a case could be made that such programs also have the potential to bring about certain negative outcomes.

As to diverting the discussion to examine the likely impact of toys and entertainment on the incidence of domestic violence? I feel that would likely constitute a poor investment of time and resources … these being inconsequential yet over-stated minutia in the overall scheme of things.

I reject the following positions in relation to gender equality and domestic violence:

That gender inequality is the primary contributing factor with respect to the incidence of domestic violence in Australia

That the overall picture of gender inequality in Australia is one that strongly favours men/boys

That in the overwhelming majority of cases, domestic violence manifests itself in the form of men abusing women

In contrast, individuals and organisations who ascribe to feminist ideology would count amongst the core supporters of those statements noted above. Bearing that in mind I would suggest that the Committee be mindful of the following:

The term ‘feminist’ is not inter-changeable with ‘woman’ or ‘women’ given that only a small minority of women identify as feminists [10]
Feminists do not hold any form of mandate to speak on behalf of Australian women
Feminists have a strongly vested interest in painting domestic violence as a gendered issue involving male violence towards women, including a substantial and growing pecuniary interest [11]
Feminists have a well-established ‘track record’ of engaging in biased and academically flawed research, and in misrepresenting research undertaken by others in order to support their position and/or to undermine the position of those holding alternate views.[12] [13]

These last two dot points imply a need to subject the statements and conduct of feminists and feminist organisations to some reasonable standard of scrutiny, rather than simply accepting them at face value.

Gender inequality as the primary contributing factor with respect to the incidence of domestic violence in Australia

The theoretical cornerstone of the feminist approach is the ‘Duluth Model’ which is discussed in this rather illuminating email exchange [14], this academic paper [15], and in various posts in my blog[16]. In a nutshell, applying this framework to most (let alone all) incidents of DV is highly misleading and inappropriate.

Further, if gender inequality is the single greatest determinant of domestic violence then:

Why is the incidence of domestic violence greater in lesbian couple than in heterosexual couples?[17]

How might one explain the already high and growing levels of female-perpetrated violence generally?[18]

How might one explain the significant geographical variations in the incidence of domestic violence? (refer chart which follows)

Why does there exist a very considerable number of male victims of domestic violence? [19] [20]

How might one explain the relatively high levels of child abuse and neglect involving single mothers? [21]

Why is the level of domestic violence so high in countries like Sweden that, even feminists would agree, have a higher than average level of gender equality?

These categories or situations of domestic violence are not the inconsequential anomalies that many propose them to be. On the contrary, they constitute very large and substantial pieces of the domestic violence jigsaw.

In an intimate partnership between two people of different genders, an unequal balance of power can be a factor contributing to DV. But what feminists refuse to concede is that the partner asserting most power need not be male, and often isn’t.

The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference are based on the premise that it is an established and undeniable fact that gender inequality is the predominant factor behind domestic violence. This is absolutely not the case. On the other hand, there are many others in the community who hold differing views – views similar to my own. In this submission I will introduce you to sources of information that very much counter the feminist position of domestic violence.

On the suggestion that the overall picture of gender inequality in Australia is one that strongly favours men/boys

Let’s assume for a moment that gender inequality is in fact the predominant trigger for the initiation of domestic violence. So just how much gender equality is present in Australian society? The feminist position is that there is a great deal of gender equality, and that it is strongly biased in favour of men/boys. I do not believe this to be the case. Feminists have a pronounced tendency to overstate or imagine disadvantages faced by women, whilst conveniently overlooking the many disadvantages faced by men/boys.

The indicator most commonly advanced by feminists to ‘prove’ the existence of gender equality is the gender wage gap. This use of the wage gap statistics for this purpose is misleading has been thoroughly debunked.[22] [23]

The next most commonly cited statistics are those concerning the number of male vs female politicians and CEO’s. Yes there is obviously an imbalance but again this need not be indicative of gender discrimination nor inequality.[24] Indeed if this were the case then surely there would be a Minister for Men’s Affairs, or at least men’s/boys divisions within government agencies – of which there are none. Not only is there no advocacy for men/boys whatsoever, there exists active discrimination against them in many agencies including for example the Australian Human Rights Commission.[25] [26]

In terms of various other indicators of equality I would draw the Committee’s attention to the material contained in these two overseas sources:

http://philosophyofmensissues.blogspot.ca/2014/10/evidence-re-gender-equality-and-feminism.html

http://www.avoiceformen.com/the-facts-about-men-and-boys/

On the suggestion that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, domestic violence manifests itself in the form of men abusing women

IF gender inequality was the primary cause of domestic violence, and IF there was rampant gender inequality in Australian, and IF that inequality favoured men/boys, then one would expect that almost all cases of domestic violence involved men abusing women. But is this the case? No, it is certainly not the case.

I would draw the Committee’s attention to the sources listed below, with many further sources available online[27]. These all demonstrate that at least one third of the victims of domestic violence are males.

References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An Annotated Bibliography by Martin S. Fiebert.[28] This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. Here is a link to an updated June 2013 version of Fiebert’s bibliography.[29]

Partner Abuse, Volume 1, No. 1, 2010 The new journal was created to showcase academic research into domestic violence without gender bias[30]

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project – Facts and Statistics on Domestic Violence at-a-Glance.[31] Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, November, 2012. This study is also discussed in this article:

Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States: An Examination of the Review of Literature through the Critical Theoretical Perspective, by Caroletta A. Shuler (2010)[32] and related reddit discussion thread [33]

Boys Victims of Dating Violence, Too [34] (29 January 2016) USA

Extensive listing of mainly North American research findings related to domestic violence [35] (29 April 2015)

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile [36] (27 January 2011) This study found an almost equal numbers of male and female victims of DV

Partner Violence as Female-specific in Aetiology [37]

Intimate partner violence: Facts and statistics [38] (1 September 2014) This paper includes some discussion of ‘Patriarchal Dominance’ theory

Domestic violence rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples [39] (18 November 2013)

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence [40] (2006), which includes this statement:

“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.”

The graphic that follows, for example, was sourced from a Canadian organisation (www.saveservices.org). Interestingly, broadly similar patterns of perpetration have been observed in the UK, USA, Australia and Canada (although Australian lags somewhat in terms of the information available on male victimisation/female perpetration).

In closing I would invite members of the Committee to take a few moments to also read my submission to the recently-released Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence[41], given that that document provides further relevant background information concerning certain matters that will also likely be addressed in this current Inquiry.

I wish the members of the Committee well in their endeavours, and I sincerely hope that the concerns I have expressed in this submission prove to be unfounded.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Dixer

[2] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/

[3] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/a-message-to-supporters-of-the-white-ribbon-campaign-feminist-version/

[4] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/sallee-mclaren-must-write-on-the-blackboard-i-must-not-challenge-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

[5] http://www.mamamia.com.au/miranda-devine-unsuitable-women-article/

[6] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/beware-the-ire-of-an-angry-feminist/

[7] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/two-awareness-campaigns-only-one-can-be-criticised-cowed-by-feminism/

[8] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/no-place-for-feminist-propaganda-in-our-schools/

[9] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/

[10] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/some-indicators-that-feminism-is-no-longer-worthy-of-trust-or-support/

[11] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/

[12] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/fudging-the-figures-to-support-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

[13] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-blocking-out-non-feminist-perspectives-and-opinions/

[14] http://www.naasca.org/2015-Articles/032915-TheDuluthModel-JasonDale.htm

[15] http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/DV/Gender%20Paradigm%20In%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

[16] http://www.fighting4fair.com/#Domestic Violence

[17] http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/07/attack-of-the-killer-dykes/

[18] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

[19] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

[20] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-experience-of-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/

[21] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/mostly-female-perpetrators-so-child-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime-then/

[22] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

[23] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/that-tired-old-feminist-chestnut-that-is-the-gender-wage-gap-resurrected-in-australia/

[24] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/less-than-5050-representation-does-not-automatically-imply-gender-bias/

[25] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

[26] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-taxpayer-funded-organisations-that-do-littlenothing-for-men/

[27] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

[28] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[29] https://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/140901-martin-s-fiebert-bibliography.pdf

[30] http://www.responsiblerecovery.org/PDF/PartnerAbuse.pdf

[31] http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm

[32] http://fathersunionaustralia.com/wp/partner-abuse-state-of-knowledge-project-the-gold-standard-of-domestic-violence-information/

[33] http://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/37t7cp/til_that_47_of_male_victims_of_domestic_abuse_are/

[34] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=193363

[35] http://www.mrarchivist.com/frm_display/explore/?item=&topic=Intimate%20Partner%20Violence&nation=United%20States

[36] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

[37] http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/149

[38] http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/resources/intimate-partner-violence-facts-and-statistics/

[39] https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/domestic-violence-rates-are-higher-for-homosexual-couples-than-for-heterosexual-couples/

[40] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

[41] http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/submission-to-the-victorian-royal-commission-on-family-violence-may-2015/

Examples of where the feminist lobby pushed to have gender inequality addressed in situations where the status quo favored women

<< Sound of crickets >>

Oh come on, someone throw me a bone … I’m serious … after several years and more than 2,000 hits on this page, not one person has come up with an example. For pity’s sake, there must be at least one example of feminists speaking up against gender equality favouring women that I can showcase here.

Please … otherwise people are going to think that feminists are more interested in female privilege than gender equality

Well until such time as an example is provided, how about we broaden things out? Let’s consider some issues that are/were claimed to promote gender inequality, but where feminists said/did nothing until such time that significant numbers of women were affected. Hmm, for example: alimony or spousal support, expulsion from university due to an allegation of sexual misconduct (example), the nature of enforcement for those not paying court-ordered child-support, retirement age, and pre-nuptial agreements.

Plight of the Waspi women: Labour calls for women’s retirement age to be lowered to 64 (24 September 2017)

Pension entitlement age: ‘Women march in Scotland because they’re being treated like men’ (17 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

I think part of the answer to this is that, to a feminist, an area where women are advantaged relative to men is not seem as inequitable (let alone, a privilege) but rather as reasonable compensation for all the other areas where they believe women are still disadvantaged.

See also:

For every 100 girls (2023 Update) by Prof. Mark J. Perry

Women lose state pension age appeal against government (15 September 2020) UK

Sturgeon mocks Tory MSP for raising ‘male pay gap’ (30 June 2017) UK

Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt’s pay gap (16 June 2016)

Would anyone like to suggest other issues to consider here?

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

If the central tenet of feminism is equality then what men’s/boys causes have feminists championed recently?

Gendered, gendered, gendered: The word that fuels the feminist machine

Few of those reading this would be unfamiliar with the feminist proclivity for labelling a plethora of issues as ‘gendered’. Like many terms it doesn’t mean much without considerable qualification. And even then it may not mean much. But if something can’t be portrayed as being gendered then feminists and their beloved narrative lose traction.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘gendered’ as “reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other.” The problem though is that in real life there are relatively few things that only (or even predominantly) affect one gender. In most situations both genders wield a significant influence and/or are significantly affected. We’re all in it together. One topical example would be online harassment.

Let’s now look at an even more contentious issue, child abuse. Most non-sexual child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women. Most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by men (although there are still plenty of sexual abusers of children who are female). So is child abuse gendered? And in terms of framing remedial action, is it more or less productive to attack child abuse as a gendered issue?

The straw that broke this camel’s back today was an article entitled ‘Australia’s most shocking statistic: Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women with disabilities‘ by Ginger Gorman. The tagline was the shocking announcement that 90% of disabled women have been sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Ginger’s article tells us that most abuse takes place in institutions, yet makes no mention of the abuse of disabled men/boys. She then provides some examples of incidents of abuse involving male perpetrators in non-institutional settings. The actual gender mix of perpetrators of abuse, in either institutional or non-institutional settings, is left unstated.

In the absence of further details it’s highly likely that readers would have assumed that most victims of abuse were female, and their abusers male. Such is the inevitable outcome of persistent gender bias in the media on top of decades of gynocentric conditioning.

This is despite that fact that there are certainly instances where research has found most perpetrators of abuse to be women. One such example can be found in the Adele Mercier incident, whereupon a feminist academic wrongly denied female perpetration of institutional abuse.

This selective presentation of statistics – only showing the extent to which women are affected, and in the absence of comparative statistics for men and boys – is extremely common in feminist literature. This problem is discussed further in a separate blog post about feminist research and their misleading use of statistics.

The source document for the 90% abuse claim was a submission by the Australian Cross Disability Alliance. I found the relevant reference in the section entitled ‘Incidence & prevalence data on gendered disability violence‘ (page 37). Despite asserting that the abuse was gendered, this section provided no comparative statistics whatsoever in relation to the abuse of men/boys.

How is that appropriate in terms of either compassion or academic rigour? I mean, is this a case of just ‘trust me, I’m a feminist’?

I then took the matter up with the author of the article in a series of exchanges on Twitter including the following:

Look, don’t get me wrong, the most important thing here is to effectively reduce the incidence of child abuse. The rest is second-order stuff. But I honestly don’t see that goal being significantly advanced via the blinkered and self-serving approach taken by feminists. As with domestic violence, framing a solution to half a problem translates into no solution at all.

Oh, and colour me surprised – see below for how this episode ended.

How could anyone take feminism seriously when one is constantly reminded how infantilised its followers have become?

How to make anything a gendered issue, by Blaise Wilson (30 April 2017) Video

The following are some of the other posts in my blog that are also relevant to this issue:

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
More assaults at aged care homes
The unbearable lameness of being
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

Advocating for men/boys online: Is there benefit to be had in one-on-one interaction with feminists online?

TLDR: I provide the following post for the interest of those sympathetic and/or active in promoting MRA, rather than to provide some kind of a ‘slap in the face’ to those opposed to it. So, based on my experiences to date, do I think that there is a net benefit in interacting with feminists and/or White Knights on social media? My answer to that is an unequivocal ‘no’.

I have noticed some MRA’s spend a great deal of time providing information and/or trading barbs with feminists online. My own online interactions with feminists and their allies have been singularly unproductive. They very rarely provide interesting alternative perspectives or leads to useful sources of information. Instead they offer a narrow and predictable range of ad hominem barbs and child-like taunts, often immediately followed by blocking you.

After these exchanges I get the feeling that I have achieved nothing more than diverting time and energy away from those other things that might have been tackled in the limited time available – for example, targeted lobbying, preparing submissions, etc. Occasionally I’ve also had to expend further time afterwards dealing with subsequent unfounded/exaggerated complaints to moderators, Facebook, etc.

It’s for this reason I prefer to contribute in public forums (e.g. online discussions of articles in MSM) where I try to raise awareness amongst the general public of specific men’s issues, and of related sources of information. Here you find many ‘fence sitters’, who are somewhat curious about gender issues and open to new ideas.

But perhaps if we look at a couple of case-studies:

In this first example what began with a little banter in relation to one of my blog posts, ended with a door slam.

Followed soon thereafter by:

This second example demonstrated pretty much the same pattern as you can see in these few screen grabs:

Anyway I thought I’d take this opportunity to put the question to far more seasoned campaigners than I … once you add up all the time and energy spent dealing with individual feminists, is there a net benefit to be had? Were they interested in your facts? Have you won over any hearts and minds?

Or have you just found yourself, time and time again, switching off your laptop late for dinner … tired and frustrated and thinking that there must be a better way?

If only feminists could play a banjo like this …

A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”

An article by Ruby Hamad has leapt to the front of the field in my ‘Foolish Feminist Articles of 2016’ competition. It’s entitled ‘Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?’. That’s the question, but we don’t have to read too much before we realise that Ruby already knows the answer … men don’t attend because they are disinterested or even contemptuous of women’s issues.

I beg to differ as I think that many men are keenly interested in women’s issues, if only because in most cases these are actually shared issues. It might surprise Ruby to learn that many advocate s for men’s rights were originally very supportive of feminist principles … prior to realising the chasm between dictionary feminism and feminist strategy/priorities IRL. In terms of showing contempt for the opinions of people of other genders, well with feminists I’d say that’s very clearly a case of ‘pot-kettle-black’.

The focus of Ruby’s article was a particular event, the All About Women Festival. “It’s a full day of talks and discussions about ideas that matter to women and provides an important platform for women’s voices … So, invite your friends, your colleagues, your best friend or your sisters.”

Ruby notes “It is astounding to me that men think they have little gain from an event such as this. Men need to hear first-hand what the world is like for women. Men need to listen while women speak.”

Anyhow let’s move on to consider the real reasons why men might have avoided this event, and other similar events in general. I’d also heartily recommend that readers consider the opinions of others as expressed in two related Reddit discussion threads here and here.

The first and most obvious answer is that men/men’s groups weren’t specifically invited to attend the event, a feminist event which is clearly presented as being about women and women’s voices. It’s hardly surprising that men might be disinclined to attend for fear of causing upset by intruding on a womens safe space. In other words some men may not have attended the event out of respect for women.

Secondly, feminist’s have a history of telling men who attend their events to keep their mouth’s shut, even in the case of men who identify as feminists. Why then would men wish to attend an event where they would be denied the opportunity of full and active participation, or perhaps even singled out for abuse?

Here’s one of countless examples of that occurring:

“Professor Tompkins praises Jill Johnston (author of the 1973 classic Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution) for being “what was then called a ‘ball-buster’: a take-no-prisoners, man-hating dyke”:

There’s even a key scene in the film when she gets really mad at a man in the audience and gives him an intense ball-busting dyke response to what simply seems to be his presence. She says: “Like, I feel a hostile male element in here and it’s bothering me…I don’t mind guys being here but I feel a hostile male element and, um, that’s making me, that’s making me agitated.”

When the young man attempts to engage her she explodes at him: “You better get the f–k out of here or I’m going to kick you right in the balls and get you out of here so fast man…. I don’t like your generalizations, man…. So sit down, shut up, or get out. I feel a hostile male vibe in here, and I don’t like it….You don’t feel it and I feel it. You feel something different than I feel!” (Source)

Thirdly, feminist’s themselves rarely attend events discussing mens issues unless to deliberately disrupt the proceedings, and usually after their earlier attempts to have the event cancelled failed (using lobbying and misinformation campaigns). Go ahead and google on ‘feminists disrupt mens event’ to rustle up some examples (here’s something to get you started). Clearly the notion that ‘women need to listen while men speak’ doesn’t fly. Can’t feminists just be grateful that men don’t stoop to reciprocating feminist’s own actions?

Fourthly, feminists, both individually and collectively, routinely use many and varied forms of censorship to block and silence men who endeavour to reach out to women to tell them what the world is like for men. Details in this blog post.

Does anyone else think the underlying message of this article is that feminists have ‘all rights and no responsibility’ when it comes to presenting their case?

And in case anyone thought that only Australian feminists would be sufficiently detached from reality to complain about men not wishing to attend feminist events, here is an example from the northern hemisphere:

SXSW’s Online Harassment Summit was just one more place for men to ignore women – Good solutions found a small audience (13 March 2016)

“Soraya Chemaly of Women’s Media Center remarked toward the end of a panel about women in the media: “It’s mainly women in this room. Probably we don’t need this information.”

Yes, I’m sure women know it all already. Gee, I bet that event would have been loads of fun if the other attendees were all as arrogant as Soraya.

In closing Ruby, maybe this article provides all the answers you need.

See also:

Football star calls out men for silence on abortion rights (25 June 2022) “American football star Megan Rapinoe has called out men’s silence following the US Supreme Court’s decision on abortion rights”. And thus suddenly men are criticised for *not* expressing their views on women’s issues.

From Sex War to Family Union: an interview with Neil Lyndon (6 January 2022)

AGAR: A man disagreeing with a woman isn’t always mansplaining | Toronto Sun (9 August 2021)

We should have the right not to like men (10 September 2020) and The Woman who hates men so much – she wrote a bestseller about it (11 September 2020)

Men, please stop hijacking women’s issues (18 October 2017)

The Feminist Far Left Is Making More Enemies Than Allies, by Claire Connelly (16 March 2017)

‘Sydney Girls High School prefects hit back after Sydney Boys’ viral video‘ (13 March 2017)

Dear men: Here is your engraved invitation to join the Women’s March on Washington‘ (14 January 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here

Munk Debates: The End of Men, by Leslie Loftus (21 November 2013)

How a feminist debate was derailed by asking all men to leave (4 December 2012)

On suicide

One of the defining features of the present-day feminist is their lack of compassion for the welfare of men/boys. This was again driven home to me this morning when I read an article ‘Suicide isn’t just an older man’s problem‘ (sub-titled ‘Suicide is increasing among young people, especially women‘).

The topic of men is dispensed with in a single paragraph (para 8):

“Historically, suicide in Australia has been largely seen as a male problem, with men, particularly middle-aged men, frequently identified as a high risk in our national strategies. Projects have focused on workplaces such as the construction industry, and men’s information resource centres. In men over the age of 25, rates are higher than those among younger women; however, with the exception of men aged between 55 and 64, these rates appear to be relatively stable.”

The bulk of the article is about women and young women, and how serious the problem of suicide is for them.

In this article today the authors only acknowledge the issue obliquely, by way of saying that ‘yes it’s a thing, but it’s not just about men’ … before proceeding to make it all about women. Seriously?

And so we have a serious social problem that disproportionately affects men, but which is largely ignored in feminist literature. On the odd occasion the male suicide issue is mentioned, the problem is essentially blamed on men, for e.g. masculinity, and the pressure imposed by gender roles.

A common theme is that the key to better means mental health is men opening up and talking to people. Oftentimes this is expressed in a simplistic and sometimes condescending way, viz. if only men would act more like women … problem solved.

Yes many, but not all, men might benefit from verbalising their concerns, but much more than that is needed. Systemic and cultural changes that acknowledge the value of men, and initiatives to address the myriad issues raised elsewhere in this blog. Measures that would act as a counterweight to the prevailing gynocentric bias. That’s the scale of action required to make substantial progress towards a remedy.

Oh, and take a look at this article in The Guardian … “Figures show more than one in 10 prison suicides are by women”. The other nine? Nothing to worry about.

See also:

The epidemic of male suicide in Australia, by Augusto Zimmermann (15 August 2024)

Rising number of domestic abuse victims taking their own lives, figures suggest (14 March 2024) Zero mention of the gender ratio of victims

Narrow escape for Lisa Wilkinson (25 November 2023) Scroll down to the section dealing with an ABS suicide chart

Lynching of men is our national sport, by Bettina Arndt (11 November 2023)

Australia is in the grips of a health epidemic we’re ignoring, despite the potentially fatal consequences (15 October 2023) No mention of gender differences in this article, which is now typical for the MSM. Unless the picture that would be portrayed supported feminist principles, then gender is rendered invisible.

Child abuse involving a female perpetrator is more likely to lead to suicide (30 May 2023) Twitter thread

A Researcher Studied The Most Common Last Words Of Suicidal Men (2 April 2023)

Man who jumped to death at Disneyland was principal accused of child endangerment (5 December 2022)

The true cause of male suicide (20 September 2022)

Only 16% of Washington’s Social Workers are Male – and It’s a Real Problem (15 July 2022)

Girlfriend told man to ‘kill himself’ before he committed suicide (8 April 2022)

Suicide by domestic violence: call to count the hidden toll of women’s lives (27 February 2022) Little mention of the fact that many men also die by suicide as a result of their victimisation. Indeed it’s claimed that 90% of suicides as a result of DV are female.

Why would you stand up for men and boys? Milgram’s message of hope to male psychology (2 December 2021)

If More Men Are Seeking Help for Mental Health, Why Are So Many Dropping Out of Therapy? — The Latch (15 June 2021)

Men’s Dropout From Mental Health Services: Results From a Survey of Australian Men Across the Life Span – Zac E. Seidler, Michael J. Wilson, David Kealy, John L. Oliffe, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Simon M. Rice, 2021 (sagepub.com) (27 May 2021)

Man cleared of rape killed himself fearing ‘rapist’ label would ‘never go away’ (17 February 2021) UK

If we’re serious about reducing male suicide, we need to stop blaming men for their own despair (10 September 2020) UK

Where is the honesty in the discussion around male suicide? (10 September 2020)

Suicide rate for men reaches its highest level in two decades (1 September 2020)

The difference between male and female suicide resulting from an accusation being made (17 February 2020) Re: Caroline Flack’s death

Middle-aged men make up the largest age-specific increase in suicides, but we can learn from history (13 February 2020) Australia

New suicide plan based on lived experience (29 January 2020) Australia. But more than half of this $64 million is to be spent on at-risk women … see comment from Australian Men’s Health Forum.

Suicides in the UK: 2018 registrations (3 September 2019)

White-washing the truth about why men kill themselves, by Bettina Arndt (10 July 2019) Recommended reading

Research confirms 5 uncomfortable facts about young male suicide (March 2019) Australia

Feminist, Chidera Eggerue, doesn’t have time to worry about male suicide (Tweet dated 14 March 2019) See also this tweet dated 13 March.

What makes a man suicide? Rambling on traditional expectations and suicide (9 March 2019)

Intimate partner problems and suicide: are we missing the violence? (January 2019)

University accused of hiding suicide data is UWE Bristol – the same Uni that last month blocked a men’s officer who wanted to campaign on male suicide. Draw your own conclusions (28 November 2018)

Regarding the suicide of Anthony Bourdain – most probably linked to his relationship with Asia Argento (13 September 2018)

Julia Gillard achieves the impossible (22 June 2018)

QLD Election FactCheck: are ‘up to 21 fathers’ dying by suicide every week? (15 November 2017) “Suicide is a complex phenomenon that has multiple causes and should never be attributed to one factor alone” and so is Domestic Violence, and yet feminists are content to blame that on gender inequality alone.

Note the readers comments incl. this one:

“It does not surprise me that suicide among men is increasing. Forty a week is a national disgrace and the Family Court of Australia is a big part of this problem.My divorce took all my capital and reduced my ability to pay maintenance. It took my super, used to pay off the mortgage, after saying I could keep my super if my wife could keep hers. I put her through university, typed all her assignments and even writing some so that she could become a lawyer and use the system to screw me. When my wife failed to allow access to my daughter for weekends and holidays, I was told by the Family Court of Australia that it did not enforce court orders, “and especially not for men”.

I have not even spoken on the telephone with my daughter for more than fifteen years because her mother hangs up when I ring. I have a court order specifying alternate weekends and weekly phone calls. My daughter is now in her twenties and until two months ago I was still paying maintenance. I was down south a few weeks ago and was roundly abused as an MCP by one virago because I stepped back and allowed her to enter the lift first. In a modern society where few people seem to have any knowledge of good manners, life is sometimes confusing and disadvantaged.”

Dozens of construction workers dying or facing serious injury each year because of suicide attempts (9 July 2017)

“Griffith University-based clinical psychologist Jacinta Hawgood said the macho culture of mining and construction was playing a key role in the stark statistics. “While women will talk to each other about difficulties, men often will not ask each other ‘are you OK?,’’ she said.”

Male suicide has nothing to do with politics. Apparently, by Corrine Barraclough (6 July 2017)

7 Truths Feminists Must Accept About Male Suicide, by Corrine Barraclough (26 June 2017)

Michelle Carter found guilty by judge in text message suicide case (16 June 2017) USA

Corrine Barraclough: Piecing together the pain of loss for men after abortion (3 June 2017)

Australian men aged over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, ABS data shows (30 May 2017)

The Truth About Custody Disputes, Suicide And Compassion, by Corrine Barraclough (22 May 2017)

The rise of the ‘sad dad’ is not a divorce trend, but a gendered one (21 May 2017) Feminists say men should be more like women and express their emotions, but when they do they are mocked and accused of playing to the audience.

Men, Prisons, Separation and Suicide (12 May 2017)

Deaths of despair stalk millennials in an unforgiving job market (19 April 2017)

Maine Democrats at ‘Values and Vision’ gathering erupt in laughter at white male suicide (14 April 2017) USA

Suicide, Ms Gillard? You can’t handle the truth, by Corrine Barraclough (4 April 2017)

Women’s Day Off, by Karen Mac Fly (March 2017)

“I do not think the high rates of suicide and depression in men can solely be attributed to unjust laws that put men into situations where they see no reason to go on living, or the general misandry spread in the media. These are but the tangible results of modern women’s callous attitudes towards men.”

We must not allow suicide to become normalised (16 February 2017) See readers comments, particularly in relation to author’s decision to focus on young women.

Time to Talk Day: the mental health statistics you need to know (2 February 2017)

Stop telling men to show their emotions (3 December 2016) Excellent Reddit discussion thread with more than 200 posts

In 2015, there were 3,027 people who died by suicide — 2,292 were men and 735 were women. Guess which of those two numbers the ABC finds more worrying (28 September 2016) Australia

Women’s mental health needs ‘not considered adequately’ (25 September 2016) UK

In Men, Depression is Different: Symptoms—and help—are unlike what women experience (19 September 2016)

The rules men live by are killing them: Here’s how we can help, by Shae Elise Allen (19 September 2016)

Let’s talk about male suicide, by Corrine Barraclough (10 September 2016) Australia

Why Our Suicide Prevention Strategies Are Failing To Stop Male Suicide (9 September 2016)

Making sense of male suicide in Australia (27 July 2016)

Does the NUS have a man problem? (31 May 2016) UK

Seven ways to understand male suicide in Australia (26 May 2016)

Facts and stats about suicide in Australia (March 2016)

What do we do now that suicide rates among young women are on the rise? (14 March 2016) It must have burned Jenna Price (‘Destroy the Joint’) to mention the word men (once) in a role other than as perpetrator of evil. Jenna thinks there needs to be more kindness shown, but presumably not the variety of kindness that radfem’s of her ilk shower on CIS-Het white men who constitute the bulk of suicides.

NewAccess can help Aussie men in pain (11 March 2016) Australia

Hard times: the suicide scourge among Australia’s tradies (5 March 2015)

No. of suicides in Japan drops below 25,000 for first time in 18 years (18 January 2016) Of those who killed themselves in 2015, 16,641 were men and 7,330 women.

International Men’s Day Debate in UK Parliament 2015 (23 November 2015)

Robert Whitley: Why men commit suicide (19 November 2015)

Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s Day After Pressure From Feminists (18 November 2015)

Tactical burying of men’s issues (16 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and here is a deleted comment from that thread

Male suicide now a national public health emergency, MPs warned (5 November 2015) UK

Gender, gender everywhere…but not in this study (3 November 2015) Reddit post pointing out yet another example of a MRM article where gender is not specified as men are the most detrimentally affected

Middle-aged male suicide rate rises by 40 per cent since 2008 (30 October 2015)

A record 564 people committed suicide in New Zealand in the past year (6 October 2015) Male suicides trending up, women down

TIL in the UK the most common cause of death for men under 50 is suicide, and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

True gender equality is when both women and men have a voice, by Deepika Bharadwaj at TEDxGatewayWomen (9 September 2015) Video presentation

Man shaming and victim blaming: The A-Z of male suicide in the UK (14 April 2015)

‘A silent issue’: Researchers say 1 in 3 teen boys attempt suicide after being sexually assaulted (13 April 2015)

Fatal silence: Why do so many fortysomething men kill themselves? (13 April 2015)

It’s society, not biology, that is making men more suicidal (24 February 2015)

Men and Suicide: The Silent Epidemic (21 February 2015)

Robin Williams one of many: More middle-aged men committing suicide, and experts don’t know why (15 August 2014)

If as many women killed themselves as men, we’d never hear the end of it (30 January 2015) Article and related Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Suicide surpassed war as the military’s leading cause of death (31 October 2014)

Suicide among men four times higher than women (2 December 2014)

Extreme family violence: trying to understand murder-suicide (7 November 2013)

“Murder-suicide is most often perpetrated by men – but this is hardly surprising. Men are generally the perpetrators of murder, and men make up the majority of suicides in Australia, too.” Only a feminist would hold up the fact that many men kill themselves as proof that men are inherently violent.

Male suicide rates and causes (19 April 2011)

Divorce and suicide risk (2003) (with details concerning an actual case of a divorce-related suicide here)

Eye of Woden – Addendum on male suicide

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

On men’s health: The statistics and the underlying factors

Is it my imagination or does media coverage of mens health initiatives usually focus on male shaming?

If the central tenet of feminism is equality then what mens/boys causes have feminists championed recently?

I thought women were meant to be more empathetic?

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.

Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their smashed avocado at this point, and reaching towards their IPhones ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.

That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.

The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.

We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.

I could divert at this point to talk about how the gender wage gap, in the context it’s presented to us by feminists, is complete hokum that has been de-bunked more times than I’ve had hot breakfasts. Here’s a recent effort courtesy of Forbes. But never mind, at least the ‘pay gap’ gives gender studies students and feminist journos something to write about other than their own angst-ridden lives.

There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)

I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …

Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?

Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.

Feminism. Hypocrisy. Got it

Closing gender pay gap about privilege, not equality (30 November 2021)

(Postscript January 2017: Philip Davies MP recounts his experience dealing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK)

(Postscript November 2018: An extra $8 million to encourage employers to report on gender equity)

A response (to Robert Brockway) from the WGEA (3 March 2019)

David Leyonhjelm, former Senator for the Liberal Democrats, asks WGEA staff about the workplace hours gap (20 February 2019) Video

Submissions to a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (December 2021) (See this separate post)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

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