Whilst that paper was the final trigger that led to me writing this post, the primary motivation was the seemingly endless stream of articles about sex and relationships by (invariably female) media columnists that preceded it.
At the outset let me state that I am not any kind of expert on the subject. Not at all. My only qualifications are being a male who’s had a reasonable amount of life experience, and being the father of a teenage boy about whose future welfare I’m deeply concerned.
Hands up who has read those articles about sex-related matters like consent, relationships, pornography and men’s (alleged) ignorance and many (alleged) psychological and physical failings in the bedroom. Just to provide an Australian example, think Nadia Bokody. And there is another one, but I can’t think of her name. [Several hours later: Oh, I remember, it’s Jana Hocking]. Both of whom, as an aside, have blocked me on Twitter – although that’s par for the course.
The annoying thing about these columns is their multitude of false statements and false assumptions, and their persistently negative views on men and masculinity.
That, and the fact that:
there is never a corresponding male perspective – other than a ‘white knight’ or male feminist perspective – presented to readers, and
the many real and potential negatives for males – of partaking in anything along the hook-up – courtship – marriage continuum are conveniently overlooked. Things like the threat of false accusations, revenge porn, paternity fraud and financial exploitation, bullying/abuse, rape, and so on and so forth.
In my experience at least, the current crop of female columnists tend to be extremely one-sided … to the point of either being deliberately misleading and/or being woefully ignorant of real-world relationship matters outside their own particular clique. They also rarely – and I think I’d almost go as far as to say, never – identify corresponding failings on the part of women. Well, other than in getting physical with all those wretched, exploitative and ungrateful men.
The fact that most of their social media posts now (deliberately) do not permit readers to post comments, suggests that many others are also fed up with their offerings.
Just a few points or examples … such columnists invariably state, assume and/or infer that:
All women/girls like or dislike or expect the same things as per other women/girls (and that individuals are consistent with respect to the nature of their own likes/expectations)
When men cheat (allegedly that’s relatively often) they are pigs whereas women rarely cheat, and when they do it’s usually their partners fault
Women/girls are knowledgeable about not just their own bodies, but also about men’s bodies and their sexuality
Women/girls express their views clearly and often, but they are deliberately ignored or disregarded by their male partners
Women clearly and truthfully express their views with regards to providing consent for sexual activity, and don’t often change their minds during the ensuing hours (if not minutes)
Women don’t just expect, but like, men to ask them for their consent at each stage of engaging in sexual activity
All of which I would place in the ‘Easter Bunny is real’ category … aka, nonsense.
Further, these online messengers of the matriarchy send a clear message that men are *lucky* to be chosen as sexual partners. And that if only they were better at doing whatever they are meant to be doing, then heaven awaits. And their ‘proof’ that women have their ‘act together’ in the bedroom? That’s because significantly more men orgasm than do women. Wow. I always thought that was simply reflective of men’s greater ability to close their eyes and imagine that they were with someone desirable.
Oh please! Hands up guys, putting aside the brief and very temporary relief of sexual hunger, how lucky do you feel when *it* occurs? Is sex that great for you? How many times, at the end of the day, do your sexual encounters – all factors considered – rate as even a net positive experience? And if you could travel back in time, how many encounters would you readily opt to excise … and simply skip to good coffee and hot shower?
One of the things that the matriarchal mouth-pieces conveniently neglect to mention is (for example) the proportion of women who won’t not have sex unless they are drunk. And it’s not unusual for women to readily admit this to their suitor. This might be their response to a buffet of hang-ups, and/or them being so awash with guilt/shame about just the thought of it.
I suspect that a primary reason for drinking is that, if/when their post-coital mood changes, they feel not merely justified – but comforted – in thinking (or even telling others) that they only did ‘it’ because they were drunk. Or more often, because ‘the guy got me drunk’. Or they can up-size their night out and call it drink-spiking. And then not only is shame/blame hoovered away, but sympathy is almost certain to be on-tap.
And those fellows who happily oblige the ladies, get to share a bed with a drunk – with all that that often entails (think: up-ended klutzy turtle that’s prone to vomit). But more importantly, those *lucky* men are then wading into quicksand with regards to the possibility of facing false accusations of abuse and/or rape – as well as their own feelings of concern and/or regret.
Am I alone in this regard, with views such as these? Feel free to let me know what you think. I could delve into considerable further detail in this post but currently at least, find myself shyly reluctant to do so.
Some other related internet articles/papers:
Nadia Bokody: Lie men tell about ‘kinky’ sex (24 April 2022) Because women with a penchant for violence don’t exist, right? Any apparent exceptions to be explained with ‘the men made them do it’ or ‘they only did it to please a man’ lines.
“And because I know someone is going to protest, “Why are you demonising men?! Women can be creeps, too!” it should be noted I’m not suggesting otherwise. However, it would be folly to treat these as comparable issues”.
Damn right it’s not comparable. Police/friends/whoever are not going to believe the male if he (or she) claims sexual assault!
Nadia Bokody: Hilarious sex post angering men (11 December 2021) Hands up how many men found this piece hilarious? And don’t even think about the response you would get from female readers were you able to publish something poking fun at women.
The brutal truth about women and cheating (12 July 2019) Women suggesting ways to change & spice up the sex? Sure that occurs occasionally, but I’d suggest that usually it’s a matter of silence & negative/defensive reaction when such a suggestion is made by the guy.
Well dear readers, my family was eating lunch at a cafe today. At a nearby table was a large group of teen girls with a couple of totem male friends (unsurprisingly, placed on the end of the table). As is now so often the case, they were inclined towards the noisy, vulgar and skimpily-dressed end of the spectrum.
My wife said to our son something along the lines of ‘don’t even think about bringing one of them home … we’re not sharing our stuff with the likes of them. If you want to be exploited, don’t get us involved.’ She’s only a small ‘f’ feminist, you see.
We briefly spoke about the need for him to exercise careful judgement in this regard, drawing on a couple of personal examples we know of.
Oh, and there was also a bird doing the rounds at the cafe too. An ibis. A waitress stopped and asked me if it was bothering me. ‘No’, I said. ‘I’m used to them by now’. My son mentioned that the popular name for these birds was ‘bin chickens’. They seem to be a bit like feathered rats, poking around much of the the time to get a free feed.
Which brings me to the point of this post. It’s a worrying time to have a teenage son. If you’re in the same situation, what are you doing to get him ready for the coming onslaught? And sex is only part of it.
Are you putting a book or books on his pillow? If so, which ones? One possibility might be Jordan B Peterson, for example.
What are you telling your son/s, and what are you leaving for him/them to discover for themselves?
In May 2017 media attention was given to a practice labelled as ‘stealthing’, whereby men remove their condom during sex without their partners consent (example). Few articles even made passing reference to the fact that women perpetrate a similar act when they falsely claim to be using contraceptives in order to ‘trap’ a man in a relationship and/or secure an income stream via child support payments. This issue was addressed in this article, and then in a follow-up article by Martin Daubney. See also this Reddit discussion thread.
‘Spurgling’ or ‘Sperm-jacking’ are terms that have been used to describe the use of a man’s sperm to cause pregnancy, undertaken without his knowledge or approval. Paternity theft has been defined as something which occurs:
“when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father; Or, She intentionally does not state the name of the child’s biological father on the birth certificate in order to either to begrudge the father, or to claim benefit” (Source)
Up until now I included references to these issues in another post, one that deals with financial abuse. I have now created this new post to address these matters, as they represent more than simply the financial abuse of men. One such aspect is the likely adverse impact on small children born either by, or into, such arrangements. This post will also address the growing problem of women stealing infants to raise as their own children.
Today the Australian media reported on a High Court case involving a pre-nuptial agreement (‘pre-nup’) between a wealthy property developer and his younger bride, who he met via a “web site for potential brides”:
Pre-nuptial agreements have never been a magic bullet to prevent financial exploitation where one spouse (usually the man) takes far more assets into a marriage than the other. It has always been a case of it being better to have a pre-nup than nothing at all, in order to reduce the likelihood of subsequent divorce-rape.
In Australia, and elsewhere, even competently and ethically prepared pre-nups are subject to legal challenge. In the case cited above, the nature of the agreement was found to constitute ‘unconscionable conduct’. This was said to be on the basis of both a demand that the agreement be signed or the marriage would not go ahead, and with respect of the terms of the financial settlement set out in the agreement.
One alternative that might be considered would involve relatively minor changes to relevant Australian law. What is proposed here is by no means a complete fix, but it would represent at least a step in the right direction.
In Thailand, as in various other countries, the law differentiates between assets accumulated prior to marriage, and assets accumulated during the marriage:
Sin Somros is/are the marital assets or property of the marriage jointly owned by husband and wife, in general all properties acquired after the marriage (except those listed in section 1471 under 3) (Source)
Sin suan tua is property which is exclusively owned by only one of the spouses. The owner of the sin suan tua property is free to dispose of it without having to account to the other spouse. Under the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), property comprising the sin suan tua of a spouse consists of: (i) property belonging to the spouse before marriage; (ii) property for personal use, dress or ornaments suitable for the spouse’s station in life, or tools necessary for carrying on the profession of the spouse; (iii) property acquired by the spouse during marriage through a will or gift if that property was intended to be sin suan tua; and (iv) the khongman (a betrothal gift). (Source)
Thai law also allows for couples to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement, the details of which are as set out here.
The reality is that the current divorce laws in western countries favour the interests of women and were written at a time when society was a very different place, for example pre-advent of no-fault divorce and at a time when most women were house-wives.
Read this other blog post to see what happens in a situation where the husband still typically brings far more assets into the marriage than the wife (indeed the wife is more likely to be in debt at the time of marriage), where most divorces are initiated by women, and where the court system is dominated by white knights and older gents guided more by chivalry than a genuine commitment to justice.
A situation where pre-marriage assets are quarantined from seizure seems to be eminently fairer to me, but which politician/s in Australia would publicly support it? Sadly, very few or none at the present time – and certainly no-one in the ranks of the major parties.
Failure to consider and introduce legal reforms such as this will only accelerate the trend of men avoiding marriage and de-facto relationships, and the deleterious social impacts arising from that.
It will be interesting to see if a positive outcome of same-sex marriage in Australia will be greater enthusiasm for law reform related to the distribution of assets in the event of divorce. When straight men are the only ones impacted then such reform is anything but urgent (think, ‘glacial’). Indeed we have already seen heightened interest in the reform of laws related to alimony and spousal support brought on by the increasing numbers of cases involving divorces involving female spouses as primary bread-winners.
Firstly, you may have noticed an abundance of articles in the mainstream media in recent times concerning personal commercial arrangements known as a sugar-daddy relationship. Indeed some media outlets such as news.com.au run stories on this subject, or similar themes, every couple of weeks … see recent examples here and here and here and here, here and here. Oh, and this one’s a classic (13 April 2021).
Today however I was prompted to create a post addressing this topic after reading a feminist journalist’s interpretation of the sugar-daddy phenomenon:
Kasey Edwards doesn’t think that sugar-daddy arrangements are a bad idea because they are, you know, wrong. It’s not because they involve women debasing themselves via voluntarily entering into a parasite/host relationship. And it’s not because these women aren’t walking out into the world standing on their own two, empowered, feet.
No, such arrangements are a bad idea because the women involved might be held in some way (shudder) accountable if exposed. It was suggested that former sugar-daddies would blackmail their babies as “there’s seemingly no downside for powerful men who have sexual arrangements with less powerful women“. (Gee, I bet there would be more than a few ‘powerful’ men who would disagree with that assessment of where most of the risk lies. Prince Andrew … hello?)
The cost of exposure could be either tangible (reduced employment opportunity), or more intangible (slut-shaming). Of course, both of these forms of chastisement might be imposed by other women – especially in the latter case.
Oh, and sugar-baby arrangements are also a bad idea because Kasey sees them as a “cynical abuse of male power“.
Nevertheless, the likely feminist defence there would be that that doesn’t count, a ‘rare aberration’ yada yada, borne from ‘internalised misogyny’ yada yada, and being a ‘justifiable push-back against male oppression’ yada yada.
What follows now is a selection of articles and perspectives on this topic. There are also a couple of sources dealing with a somewhat related practice known as ‘rinsing‘.
“I’m always getting slut-shamed and discriminated against because of how I look, she said. Honestly, most of the hate is coming from women, which is always so disappointing. Women need to be supporting each other no matter what, not pulling each other down”.
I have been thinking of writing a post on this issue for some time, but was finally spurred into action after reading an article entitled ‘The financial abuse that affects 2 million Australian women‘, by Bianca Hartge-Hazelman. Bianca is the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Financy, a finance publication for women. Bianca informs us that:
“Research indicates that financial abuse, at the hands of one partner over another in intimate relationships, is widespread and common in Australia.”
“Financial abuse is a form of domestic violence which each year costs the economy $15.6 billion, according to the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (NCRVWC).”
So how many men are also subject to financial abuse at the hands of their partners? We don’t know as Bianca says nothing whatsoever about *that* side of the equation. Bianca’s article is by no means unusual in this regard, given that most articles on financial abuse completely ignore financial abuse perpetrated by women and/or cases where men are targeted for abuse.
I could spend hours hunting for relevant statistics, but what’s the point when feminists are invariably nonplussed when confronted with facts anyway. Instead I thought I would take a different tack and recount to you the experiences of a male friend of mine. Let’s call him ‘Len’, and let’s call his ex-wife ‘The Lamprey‘ (or TL for short).
Len is one of the countless men who have been – and still are being – subjected to financial abuse by women they love, or once loved. His financial exploitation remains ongoing, although the worst is certainly over. He loves his kids, and with a shared custody arrangement in place Len has no choice but to remain in fairly close contact with his ex.
And no, I can assure you that I am not Len, but I do know him well enough to guarantee the accuracy of this account.
Len worked hard and accumulated assets. Although only in his thirties at the time he met his future wife, he was on the way to securing the ability to retire in his 40’s. Anyway they met and fell in love, and moved in together. A little later they married and were subsequently blessed with two youngsters.
The Lamprey had already trained as a teacher and worked in that profession for about six months before latching onto Len. I think she had also done a very limited amount of modeling work. To my knowledge she hasn’t worked another day since the time she moved in with Len.
Whilst living with Len, TL *chose* not to work. AFAIK there was no pressure from Len either way. Len paid for domestic help (i.e. cleaner, nanny, etc), which was just as well given her aversion to grocery shopping and housework. She also sent the kids out to child care at the first opportunity. How lucky that TL had chosen a husband who didn’t mind cooking. So, you might be asking, what did she do with her time?
The Lamprey loved to spend Len’s money. She went out for long lunches with friends at expensive cafes, she went shopping for clothes, and sometimes she took herself to stay at (you guessed it) expensive health spa resorts.
One of TL’s less endearing habits was waiting for Len to come home from work and then – as he began cooking/helping kids with homework/etc, she would say “Oh, I might go and have a shower now“, not to be seen again until dinner was on the table.
All the time Len doted on his wife and kids. He didn’t fool around with other women despite having ample opportunity to do so. They occasionally quarrelled on the few occasions when Len raised the issue of TL’s selfishness and profligate spending, but he certainly was never abusive towards her. Mostly he just let it pass.
Len bought some land in a prestige location and set about building the house of his dreams. It was a long, tiring and costly process. When it was finally finished (after about 2 years) he then, with the now enthusiastic help of TL, set about furnishing it.
By some strange quirk or coincidence, soon after they moved into the new house, TL announced that she no longer loved Len and asked when he could move out. TL had already briefed a lawyer and went straight into ‘attack mode’ to get the most generous settlement achievable. Len was completely blind-sided. He refused to move out so TL rented an apartment – at Len’s expense of course.
As reality set in Len was heartbroken. He tried hard to get TL to attend counselling etc, but she was lukewarm on that idea. Upon realising she had little or no intention of continuing their marriage, and with the added stress of parenting, work and legal proceedings, Len descended into depression and required counselling and medication. His friends and family were worried about both his physical health and state of mind, and incredibly angry about TL’s behaviour.
Allow me to illustrate. On one occasion TL came to collect the children from Len’s house. Len was so ill that he had called an ambulance. TL could not even be bothered to wait with Len to ensure he was OK until the ambulance arrived.
Let’s halt at this point to consider what TL added and subtracted from their 6-7 years of marriage. On the plus side TL contributed two children and companionship for Len.
On the negative side, TL contributed not one dollar to the household budget, did the barest minimum of housework, and when-ever possible farmed the kids out to commercial childcare providers, or to the care of her husband or extended family.
The Lamprey extracted all her very considerable living expenses, 5 star holidays, her divorce-related legal expenses, a large proportion of Len’s assets, and spousal support for 12 months. Len asked TL if he could delay payment of her ‘share’ of the marital home (his dream house) as the real estate market had crashed, and he would have to sell it at a fire-sale price. No, she didn’t care, she wanted ‘her’ money immediately.
I wonder how much of Len’s money, obtained by TL thanks to our outdated and gynocentric legal system, will be preserved for their childrens’ future and how much has already been squandered?
And you know what? Just before her spousal support payments were due to terminate TL had the temerity to ask Len if he could keep the payments going for a while longer. She needed to finish her yoga course before she could earn an income – she said she planned to make a career as an instructor. Thank goodness Len trod on that fabulous idea.
Not long after that, TL moved in with another guy. She married him but wouldn’t give him the kids that he wanted so they divorced not long after. Then she moved in with some retired sugar-daddy type character. So from one sponsor to the next as the fun and/or funds started running out.
Since the divorce TL has failed to meet her responsibilities to provide for 50% child support with respect to both the time she devotes to the children, and to her financial contribution to their support. Len has let her off the hook for the sake of the children, in order to preserve some degree of harmony. He rationalises the situation by saying that if they were still married he would be paying 100% of the kids expenses anyway. Throughout the process Len has been patient and gracious to a fault.
Does TL feel in any way guilty about her behaviour? I haven’t asked her, but I don’t believe so. Hell no. Her attitude, which I suspect is quite common, is that she only took what she had a right to take under the law. So that’s gotta be fair, right? Of course, nil consideration given as to whether the law/family court itself is actually fair. Well, TL et al, it’s not.
Anyway that’s what can happen when couples divorce (or simply separate in the case of de-facto couples). But the extent of financial abuse of men by women goes well beyond divorce. Consider:
‘Sperm-jacking’, where a woman impregnates herself with sperm recovered from a condom, etc, and then demands child support (refer for example to this item and/or this item)
Intentional pregnancy in the hope of trapping a man in marriage and/or having a child who is financially supported by another (thanks to mandatory child support till age 18) that occurs after a woman falsely tells a man that she is using contraception
False claims of pregnancy from women seeking ‘payment’ of claimed abortion expenses and/or alleged child support (where for example they live in another country and are less likely to be trapped in a lie).
Situations where a man or boy is raped by a woman, again resulting in mandatory child support (one legal precedent).
Paternity fraud where a man is falsely told he is the father and pays child support. There are many instances where men have become suspicious and arranged DNA testing, found they were not the parent, but the court still subsequently ordered that they continue paying child support nonetheless.
In a growing number of cases we shall also see men subject to the same type of financial abuse traditionally experienced by some women. This is the result of the growing number of couples where the man assumes the role of house-husband. This decision may be voluntary or it may result from his inability to secure employment in a work environment that is increasingly favouring women. In such cases the male partner may have either a much lower income than his wife, or no income at all.
I am not surprised that these issues were not addressed in an article on domestic financial abuse by a feminist, for none of them are even blips on the feminist radar screen. And this despite the fact that they can be life-changing events in a man’s life, and in some cases life-ending events. Let that sink in, and ponder on it the next time you hear a feminist crowing about how men should respect women and do more to support them and their causes.
Family trusts often cause more harm than good (26 July 2017) Author tut-tuts at men who establish legal structures to protect assets in the event of divorce, or in his words “to avoid the fair division of property after a relationship breakdown”. Because the law is always fair, right? And if someone has to be harmed then it might was well be the husband.
In May 2017 much media attention was given to a practice labelled as ‘stealthing’, whereby men remove their condom during sex without their partners consent (example). Few articles even made passing reference to the fact that women perpetrate a similar act when they falsely claim to be using contraceptives in order to ‘trap’ a man in a relationship and/or secure an income stream via child support payments. This issue was addressed in this article, and then in a follow-up article by Martin Daubney. See also this Reddit discussion thread.
Banks enhance support for family and domestic violence victims (22 November 2016) Australia. The guidelines seem to be reasonably gender-neutral, although I wonder to what extent they will be as applied in real-life. There is also no mention made of the reality of false accusations being made as a form of abuse.
Males Out of Work – NYT Does Not Get It (18 October 2016) It’s worth considering that whilst there exists this backdrop of financial abuse, the financial well-being of many men is declining considerably rendering them less able to rebound after losses are incurred.
Well at least this article acknowledges that some financial abuse of men does occur … only to minimise it by saying “While men are also affected by financial abuse, the majority of cases are women”. Hmm, sounds like so many domestic violence article doesn’t it?
“I pleaded with him to lend me the money and knew it would give me a new lease of life” … “I didn’t really have any desire to pay him back. If I had to choose between the boobs and him, it was an easy choice.”
“Financial abuse in a family violence context involves behaviours that ‘control a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency’” (p13)
Financial abuse of men not even recognised in the definition used for this research project, which subsequently surveyed only women and made recommendations that only applied to women. This despite the fact that most or even all of the specific forms of abuse discussed, such as being dragged into and out of family court, also clearly are also experiences that also apply to men.
Both the terminology and nature of spousal maintenance/alimony varies from one country to the next, and even within the same country there may be significant variation from one state to the next. The primary focus on this post is the situation in the UK, Australia and the USA.
“The family law researcher observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in 2010, which are ordinarily held in private. But she couldn’t find a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse, and had only seen the courts order joint custody in two cases.”
I just love how a “prominent family lawyer” recently emerged from the woodwork to call for new pre-nuptial laws in Britain: “Lady Deech said on Radio 4’s Sunday Programme: ‘Lots of young women these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young man who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with him a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for.”
Oh, extremely Baroness! Presumably you’ve silently observed countless men get fleeced over past decades, but now that some women have moved into the position of primary bread-winner in the family, it’s suddenly time to act. Oh and have a read about what happened to Ms Luckwell.
And now for a bit of male-shaming:
“Bristol’s rep David Martin slammed Meyer for seeking child support despite being a decorated member of the Marine Corps that has received the Congressional Medal of Honor. “My values are such that a real American hero doesn’t ask for child support,” said Martin.” (Source)
“Law reforms, including harsh criminal penalties, may be needed for elder abuse to be taken seriously in Australia, delegates at a national elder abuse conference have been told.
Brisbane-based elder law specialist Brian Herd joined Canadian gerontologist Dr Gloria Gutman in likening the significance of elder abuse today to that of domestic violence 30 years ago: unacknowledged, unspoken and kept behind closed doors.” (Source)
As with other forms of domestic violence, elder abuse includes both physical violence and emotional abuse.
In America, the National Center on Elder Abuse, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014, provides us with the following snapshot:
Average number of elderly abuse cases each year 2,150,000. Percent of female elder abuse victims 67.3 %. Median age of elder abuse victims 77.9. Breakdown of Reported Elder Abuse Cases: Neglect 58.5 %. Physical Abuse 15.7 %. Financial Exploitation 12.3 %. Emotional Abuse 7.3 %. Sexual Abuse 0.04 %. All other types 5.1 %. Unknown 0.06 %. (Source)
The results of a West Australian study also found that more elderly women than men were abused.
On the other hand, it has not been so easy, thus far, to identify the gender balance with regards to those perpetrating abuse. I wrote to the agency that released the report on aged care in Australia (referred to later in this blog post) seeking available data on this matter. They responded in the following manner:
What is the gender balance in the aged care workforce? How many male staff are there vs female staff, and is the gender balance fairly consistent across job roles?
“The most current available national data relating to the gender balance in the aged care workforce shows that in 2012 in both residential and community aged care, males comprised just over 10 per cent of the direct care workforce. The proportion of men working in residential aged care is slightly higher than in community aged care at 11 per cent or about 16,000 male care workers while in community aged care there are about 9,000 male care workers. In 2012 the female direct care workforce in both residential and community aged care comprised approximately 215,000 people.”
Firstly, considering all allegations or complaints of misconduct … Of the complaints made how many were made specifically in relation to the conduct of male staff? female staff?
Next, of those complaints that actually resulted in some form of counselling/punishment, how many of those complaints were made specifically in relation to the conduct of male staff? female staff?
“In relation to your request, the Department of Social Services does not collect information about staff disciplinary action taken by aged care facilities. The management of misconduct of staff is a matter for the provider of the aged care service. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) manages investigations into the professional conduct, performance or health of registered health practitioners. As you may be aware the Aged Care Complaints Scheme (the Scheme) is a national programme managed by the Department. The Scheme’s primary role is to respond to concerns raised by care recipients or clients, their representatives and others regarding the quality of care or services provided through Australian Government subsidised aged care services. The Scheme assesses the information received and determines whether the approved provider has met their obligations and responsibilities under the Aged Care Act 1997.”
Thus the lack of data is partly attributable to the very low number of abusers who are actually sanctioned or convicted. It is, however, generally recognised that most of those who abuse older people in an institutional setting are women. (Source)
Why am I not surprised that the feminist movement has been silent on this issue? Just as in the case of child neglect/abuse, women perpetrating partner violence (or any violence for that matter!), female teachers preying on students, and so on.
Elder abuse typically occurs either in the victims own home or in an aged care facility, with the perpetrators usually being caregivers. In the home the primary caregiver is typically an adult daughter. In aged care facilities the perpetrators are usually staff of the facility, most of whom are also female.
I couldn’t help but notice the clear element of ‘victim-blaming’ that features at the end of the article:
“RESPONDING to the report, Aged and Community Services Australia chief executive John G Kelly highlighted behavioural problems as a concern.
“It is a sad reality that there are now more people in aged care and a greater proportion of those have dementia, leading to behaviours the person would never have even considered before they had dementia,” he said.”
I certainly can’t imagine anyone making a similar statement about victims of domestic violence involving intimate partners, i.e. blaming the incidence of violence on annoying behaviour displayed by those who are assaulted.
Further, it’s interesting to note the number of cases where women are said to be over-represented amongst the ranks of elder-abusers because they are more often the ones who shoulder the responsibility for providing care and support to the victim.
Yet were someone to offer the same justification for a male perpetrator involved in partner violence situation, well that would certainly be met with the utmost degree of scorn, viz. ‘The poor man had all the pressure to meet the financial needs of the household, and he just couldn’t manage to hold it together’.
Perhaps yet another case of one gender being held to a certain standard, and the other being held to a quite separate one.
Firstly, what do I mean by the term “fudging” in the context of this blog post?
to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead and/or
to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.
So how do feminists and their allies, go about fudging statistics? Well the most common technique used, so prevalent that it’s virtually a hallmark of feminist literature, is to report statistics in relation to female victimhood in the absence of comparative figures for men and boys. Such information is (or at least, was) generated in surveys but usually went unreported, unless doing so would support the feminist perspective.
Thus subsequently, and in a worrying trend, more and more research projects undertaken by pro-feminist organisations don’t include male subjects in surveys. Nor do they investigate impacts on males or attitudes towards men (examples here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Clearly with corresponding data in relation to males unavailable then rapporteurs can easily deflect requests for contextual information. Information which would, in many cases, otherwise weaken their claims of gendered victimhood.
Thus biased researchers can represent a social problem as being gendered when it is not. And so the next researcher builds on existing incomplete research and concludes and/or implies in their report … this problem rarely affects men, or affects men in different & lesser ways, etc (but we can’t be sure because no data). And the cycle of gender bias in research, and subsequently in policy formulation, rolls on.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believe the reverse to be true, and that there is a ‘gender data gap’ with “male-biased surveys that fail to capture women’s perspectives, their needs and their economic value”. They provide a 3rd world example upon which I am not qualified to comment, but with regards to 1st world countries their proposition is laughable. This Australian feminist writer, Kristine Ziwica, is pushing the same line (12 March 2019).
A paper by Dr. Murray Straus addressed the issue of feminists distorting domestic violence data. He identified the seven primary methods they used as being:
To suppress Evidence
To avoid obtaining data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
To cite only studies that show Male Perpetration
To conclude that results support Feminist beliefs when they do not
To create “evidence” by citation
To obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict the idea that male dominance is the cause of PV (see this post)
To harass, threaten, and penalize researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs (see this post)
I was studying the readers comments in relation to a rather biased article about domestic violence. One comment was from a respected spokesperson on men’s health issues, Adam Blanch. Adam was talking about the latest ‘Personal Safety Survey‘ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is what Adam had to say:
“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.
The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.
PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.
The 2012 report sampled less than 20% the number of women than men, down from 25% in the 2005 survey. though overall they increased the numbers for both genders for 2012, the male sample size is so small that many of the findings are unreliable again.
They were criticised for only using female interviewers in 2005, so in 2012 they trained a few male interviewers to be available on request. However, they don’t appear to have told the interviewees that they were available. This was based don ‘expert advice’ that both men and women would be more comfortable with female interviewers, these experts are unnamed. Who are they. Are they male? have they worked with male victims of abuse? What qualifies them as experts. I’ve worked with thousands of men, and I can assure you that most men will not reveal the same information to a woman that they will to a man.
This lack of transparency and sample balance is unacceptable for research conducted at this level.”
The Bureau shrugged-off this criticism and in September 2016 successfully obtained AHRC approval to only employ female interviewers in relation to a survey that encompasses the issue of domestic violence.
“Professor Triggs granted the ABS the exemption, accepting their submission, which included studies from not-for-profit groups, stating men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women” And so disregarding the flipside … that male victims would be more likely to tell THEIR story to other men.
This is hardly the first time I have encountered concerns raised by authoritative sources regarding the credibility of domestic violence research, and in fact it appears to be an ongoing issue.
Australia’s ABC has a reputation for pushing the feminist agenda, with one example being the article ‘Domestic violence of epidemic proportions a ‘national emergency’: campaign groups‘ by Ursula Malone and Juanita Phillips. Nothing like turning up the rhetoric to keep that government funding flowing through to feminists and their organisations during these difficult economic times. And all based on fudged statistics, in particular that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45“.
“The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Given for example that only 17 percent of women who experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator (in their most recent incident of violence) reported it to the police (ABS 2012), the actual percentage of false cases is likely to be tiny. By one estimate, the actual percentage of false cases as a proportion of all rapes (reported and unreported) may be closer to 0.005 percent.” (Flood, M, 2014)
An Australian MRA by the name of Paul Rogers brought this error to their attention stating (in part) that:
“Even Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that false rape allegations are as low as you claim, which is saying something. I have provided an excerpt below from Wikipedia to highlight that your claim is many orders of magnitude lower than even the lowest value claimed by most authorities … I urge you to state the truth rather than continue to cherry-pick outlier claims because they support your misandry.”
I should also point out that it’s not only feminist groups that engage is this sort of misrepresentation. In this media release, the advocacy group SAVE denounces the use of misleading information on domestic violence by none other than (then) President Obama himself.
Demonstrating the remarkably one-sided manner in which feminists view the world, in the following article a feminist journo criticizes a men’s rights group on their use of statistics:
The references listed below alternately discuss or exemplify bias against men, as perpetrated by journalists and others (often working in the sphere of domestic violence, sexual violence and related fields):
Elite journal under fire over racism (13 April 2021) Article by Stephen Rice which is currently behind a paywall at ‘The Australian’. I’ll try to provide a link as soon as one is available. Not directly related to misandry, but an example of how social problems are massaged to satisfy the fears or preferences of woke folk.
Not the full story (30 March 2021) Media Watch video. Yet another example of what happen when you start with a pre-determined narrative and then have to make everything fit around it.
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*. Here is a link to the web page of the agency that produced this research.
Domestic Abuse: The latest lie (19 July 2019) Most men who are victims of partner violence are in homosexual relationships, right? Wrong. But it doesn’t stop feminists from claiming it is true.
Whose research got us a picture of a ‘black hole’ in 2019? It was a girl right? See this tweet from Tom Golden with linked video that tells the story that the media didn’t.
Articles like the linked one now tell us how horrible the “trolls” are for “targeting” the female scientist, but funny how they don’t address the facts of the case – did she only produce 6% of the coding or not? See also this paper from ‘A Voice for Men’.
‘Blatant spin’: SBS accused of sifting data to show ‘sexist’ Australia, and SBS’s ‘sexism’ doco is just blatant propaganda (21 November 2018) Both of these articles appeared in The Australian newspaper, and are behind a ‘paywall’. Watch this Bettina Arndt video for some good background on this issue.
La Trobe bans my talk on the fake rape crisis, by Bettina Arndt (2 August 2018) This article concerns the exaggeration of the incidence of sexual assault in Australian universities by the Australian Human Rights Commission and others.
When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) As I state in this post, most papers on financial abuse ignore the reality of male victimisation, and this is yet another example. In the absence of conclusive proof that only women were victimised one would expect a researcher to survey men and women. Failure to do so, as in this and many other cases, is evidence of gender bias to support a particular ideological narrative.
Cutting to numb the pain of sex abuse: interviews with young women in drug treatment (12 August 2016) Australia. Although this article focuses on the needs of young women, the underlying research surveyed both genders. Whilst I have yet to review the findings in detail, my default position is one of disquiet regarding the merit of applying different fixes to men and women. Without a very thorough understanding of all contributing factors, esp. in relation to cause/effect, there is a real danger that we may misinterpret the true situation. Also, from what has happened in the field of domestic violence for example, there is a real danger of a monopolisation of all available resources for the treatment of women.
Anti-abuse campaign targets university students (22 February 2016) Australia. Typical of Our Watch research this survey appears designed to deliver a pre-determined finding of gendered female victimhood. The article reports one part of the picture, but where are the responses to (for example) how many boys were pressured “to do sexual things”? Whether girls respect the ability to consent in relation to boys who are drunk, etc.
(I believe there to be a question mark over the extent to which the Australian Research Council is itself free of gender bias. I say this not in terms of funds provided to male versus female researchers, but in terms of social research projects with a feminist orientation being strongly favoured. Consider the examples provided of feminist research mentioned in this other blog post, as well as this article which will be discussed in a future post. The author of this article presenting a feminist-concordant perspective on the gender pay gap was also ARC-funded. These spreadsheets look at the nature of projects funded by the ARC)
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. This conveniently neglects to mention that as many Aussie kids have seen their mum hit their dad as vice versa (See footnote 7)
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.”
Are domestic violence figures bogus? (22 February 2014) Includes discussion of the notorious ‘intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45’ statistic myth
I spoke to hundreds of men about rape and domestic violence (24 September 2014) Note that this is a different survey to that discussed by Adam Blanch earlier. It is certainly feasible that interviewers might influence survey respondents. It hardly fills one with confidence about the reliability of the results when interviewers are prepared to go on record with such strong views on the matter being investigated.
If manipulating and misrepresenting statistics to suit an agenda was a crime then the feminist authors of this “fact-sheet” should be in jail. Many of these so-called facts are debunked in papers listed in this other post about domestic violence, whilst others demand the smallest measure of common-sense to confirm just how misleading they are.
“A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15% of killers, and in murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers” (Source)
The paragraph above was extracted from a 1994 publication, not because patterns of gender perpetration have changed greatly but because the feminist filter has been imposed so completely now, that we only see articles like this one that present statistics in a manner suggesting that women are the perpetual victims of oppressive male malevolence. (Refer to Reddit discussion thread here)
Regarding the table below … hardly an ‘epidemic’. The only increase is in male victimisation. It’s no wonder that, in pushing its ‘epidemic’ barrow, the Domestic Violence Industry increasingly relies on statistics generated by help-line call centres instead. And of course we can trust the integrity of those sources.
“Advocacy research consists of collating available evidence or producing new information to support a pre-determined policy position. Advocacy research is commonly carried out by pressure groups, lobby groups and interest groups (such as trade unions) and, occasionally, by political parties, journalists and academics – especially those working in the social policy field.”
“It is difﬁcult to criticize advocacy research without giving an impression of caring less about the problem under consideration than do those who are engaged in magnifying its size. But one may be deeply concerned about problems such as rape, child abuse, and homelessness yet still wish to see a rigorous and objective analysis of their dimensions. Advocacy research that uncovers a problem, measures it with reasonable accuracy, and brings it to public attention performs a valuable service by raising public consciousness. The current trend in advocacy research is to inﬂate problems and redeﬁne them in line with the advocates’ ideological preferences. The few impose their deﬁnition of social ills on the many – seeking to incite moral panics. This type of advocacy research invites social policies that are likely to be neither effective nor fair.”
With regards to the Latrobe Uni study noted above, why not include people of any gender who are concerned about any form of harassment or assault on public transport? In other words get the big picture of what’s occurring. Ditto for all the studies/article regarding workplace harassment that restrict themselves to considering ‘sexual harassment’, knowing full well that this is likely to focus attention on the female perspective.
My initial post about domestic violence within this blog can be found here, whilst other DV-related posts can be located by clicking on the ‘domestic violence’ tag at the bottom of this page. It is suggested that this post also be read in conjunction with:
Oh, if only I could get a dollar each time I heard a woman say “where have all the nice guys gone!?” (here’s a recent offering). One may not, however, mention the corresponding query “where have all the nice girls gone” because that would be so terribly misogynistic.
Well, some clever guys made their way to Asia or to other parts of the world where the influence of feminism is less pervasive. Many others are waking up and smelling the coffee with respect to what a bad deal marriage can be for men. As a consequence a large and steadily increasing number of men are choosing not to get married, a phenomenon some have labelled ‘The Marriage Strike’.
Other men are taking it a step further and opting not to enter into ANY significant ongoing relationships with women. This latter group are referred to as ‘Men going their own way’ or MGTOW, which is discussed in this video.
A google search on the term ‘marriage strike’ produced many results, including these:
Many would have you believe that this phenomenon reflects men’s unwillingness to commit and accept responsibility to a union of equals. In fact the thread running through all feminists articles on the subject (and most MSM articles too) is that women are dateless or single wholly because of one or more named deficiencies on the part of men (example). There is rarely even the glimmer of a suggestion that some responsibility rests with women themselves.
Of course there are some men who have issues, but for most the decision not to marry is one of pragmatism. It is the outcome of a rational cost/benefit analysis by men that weighs up all the things they might (or will) lose through marriage, versus those things that they will (or are likely to) gain. The institution of marriage has now swung so far, in terms of the respective rights and responsibilities of men and women, that for men there is unfortunately now only one logical choice.
My own mother is in her 90’s and remains fiercely independent, and still very much sound of mind. Just in her circle of friends and family she has heard plenty of horror stories about guys being divorce-raped by selfish manipulative women. And her take on it? She says that if she was a young guy nowadays then there would be no way to get her to the altar as the odds are so very much stacked against them.
Read the articles below and see if you can seriously blame men for walking away from the institution of marriage. I despair at the number of women that I encounter whose primary, if not sole, focus is on what they can get from a relationship. I strain to see evidence of any serious thought being given to the question of “what I can contribute to this union to ensure it remains strong and fairly balanced?” It’s almost as if their sense of entitlement is so overwhelming that they believe that merely the pleasure of their company should suffice (refer this tweet for example).
Want to get yourself a man? Then shut up (20 January 2016) Strong women can’t get a man because of the unrealistic/unreasonable/inappropriate expectations/behaviour of men (and definitely not because “strong” is fem-speak for ill-mannered, controlling and selfish)
Leaving aside remnant neanderthals, most men today understand and readily concur with the idea of ‘give and take’ within a relationship. But we do have a problem with partners who take, take, take.
Of course once upon a time married men were accorded a higher social status than unmarried men, and marriage was once the only way decent men experienced a viable sex life. But not now.
Ok, so what tangible benefits does marriage confer on a man today?
A family? Assuming a man can afford a family AND marries a woman young enough to conceive, many resist having children. And at the end of the day, most men are all-too-aware that the prevailing legal system can and does remove a husband’s access to his kids with frightening ease and frequency.
A carer and housekeeper? Well this one is no deal-breaker as most guys are willing to pitch in and do their share. Indeed, am I alone in having encountered more than a few households where the husband does most of the house-work, as well as holding down a full-time job? Indeed many women now not only lack domestic skills (thanks to all those progressive mummies and daddies) but are also unwilling to countenance such tasks (example re: cooking).
Consider also the many households where a wife chooses not to engage in paid work, does little or no housework, whilst profligately spending her husband’s income … only to then later financially destroy him upon initiating her no-fault divorce. Remember that men still generally take significantly more assets into a marriage than do women. Women are more likely to bring debt to the table – ‘student debt‘ for example. Oh, and remember that most divorces are initiated by women.
He said ‘yes’! Why aren’t more women proposing to their boyfriends? (27 December 2019) “Benevolent sexism” is the magic ingredient that’s apparently holding men back from offering the ring. Of course it had to involve some kind of failing on the part of men. Of course it did. That many people take such a narrow view of the issue continues to astound me.
Step up so they don’t have to (Part 1), by Dalrock (10 May 2017) An interesting Christian perspective on the contemporary male’s choice to avoid marriage. And whilst we consider the Christian perspective, perhaps view this video entitled ‘Young Women shouldn’t settle’, about what men versus women expect from their marriage partner.
No, I’m not afraid to be single in my 40s (4 June 2016) I wonder if the author and female readers would view a man writing an article (in which he expressed similar thoughts) in the same light? If yes, then great. I somehow suspect however that there would be comments along the lines of the man being selfish, a man-boy, unable to shoulder responsibility, etc
Young women increasingly anxious about their finances (7 March 2016) Australia. Two things here. Note increasing unhappiness of women despite feminist ‘advances’. Second I wonder how much of that stress is due to the realisation that they are increasingly unlikely to find a Mr. Right (or Mr. Anybody) who will step in and clear their debts and then keep them in the manner … So no Plan B after years of casual mooching of boyfriends & living day to day.
Minnesota nears slipping below 50 percent married rate (3 December 2015) USA. Why do most of these articles only provide a part of the picture and studiously ignore the rest? For e.g. they all mention that the marriage rate is dipping due to women delaying marriage, but neglect to mention that one reason they do is because many men don’t want to marry them!
Where are all the smart men? (3 May 2015) New Zealand with related reddit mensrights discussion threads here and here. A separate, and even more ignorant editorial here concludes with “The failure of men to foot it with them educationally in equal numbers is no reason to change the education system or promote men undeservedly. The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.”