Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone. Dodgy research helps no-one

Why slave away crafting a serious academic research paper when you can knock out an under-graduate quality effort that will still be published provided it pushes the appropriate PC buttons? One gets to bang the feminist drum to one’s heart’s content, virtue-signal across the chattering class, and pad out one’s resume all at the same time.

Anyway, accuracy, objectivity and academic rigor are so last century!

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey’ (14 February 2017)

This unexceptional article merits its own post only by virtue of the way it exemplifies several of my concerns regarding pro-feminist research:

  • presents a non-gendered issue as gendered
  • only surveys women yet uses the results to argue a case of relative female disadvantage
  • features lamentably weak research methodology
  • only identifies contributing factors consistent with a predetermined conclusion based on feminist dogma
  • infers that men are primarily responsible for both causing and resolving the alleged situation of female disadvantage

My comments are inserted within the body of the article, and shown in blue font.

The main premise of the article is that women are significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving financial security, and warrant special assistance in this regard. This disadvantage is said to stem mainly from a lack of awareness of investment options and strategies. In supporting this position the paper grasps at various feminist chestnuts such as the gender wage gap, the superannuation gap, and gender bias within schools and specific employment sectors.

“Our investigation into the financial literacy of young women finds they are confident in implementing budgeting and savings strategies, but lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies.”

The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘Why focus solely on young women?’, especially if the intention is to assert gender-based disadvantage. What exactly was the goal of this research project? Better understanding a problem that affects many PEOPLE with a view to identifying strategies to help those in need? Or simply opportunistically seizing on the issue of savings and investment in order to add to the chorus of ‘women have it tougher’? 

The justification for excluding men from the study is hardly compelling:

  • the average level of retirement savings for men is greater than the average for women
  • men are claimed to be, again on average, more financially literate than women.

What of the fact that many men fall below the male average, and quite likely also the female average? There would certainly be no shortage of men who “lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies“. Consider too that some women would exceed male average savings, and that this segment is sure to increase in coming years. 

Bear in mind too that men’s savings are not necessarily their own, and will more often be used to support dependents. For example, many women are financially supported in later life by current or previous male partners, whilst relatively few men are supported in such a manner. And indeed, far more men than women will have some or all of their savings confiscated via court-ordered settlements following separation or divorce.

“This is surprising given that financial literacy usually refers to not only an understanding of how money actually works and how to make and manage money for day-to-day affairs but also how to use this in preparation for the future.

While our results are preliminary, based on social media users and require more detailed research, our results begin to draw links between social, institutional and personal attitudes towards financial knowledge.

A survey we distributed across social media found that 91% of 175 respondents had confidence in their ability to implement savings strategies (varying from simple to complex), and 89% were confident in their ability to budget. Strategies included everything from planning for a holiday to managing credit cards. Participants also considered budgeting and saving to be the most important aspects of their finances.”

It appears that all the survey respondents were female – a major oversight – and were likely self-selected from within the ranks of the researchers’ friends/associates. What likely degree of survey bias did this entail? In other words, to what extent are the results meaningful even in a purely statistical sense?

However, our survey participants expressed a distinct lack of appreciation for longer-term financial goals. While 72% of respondents felt that savings were extremely relevant to them, only 38% said the same about superannuation, and they showed even less interest in other long-term investment (23%).

Knowledge and confidence in implementing long-term investment strategies were even more concerning. Only 17% of respondents said they had a “medium” knowledge of superannuation and only 1% (or two of 175 respondents) felt that they had an in-depth understanding. In contrast, 55% indicated having little or no knowledge whatsoever.

The numbers look even bleaker for responses about investments. A low 12% of survey participants had medium levels of knowledge in this area, while again only 1% felt their knowledge was in-depth.

When asked about why they lacked financial knowledge, the barrier most commonly acknowledged by participants was lack of financial information taught at school (91%). Also 55% of participants reported feeling discouraged from learning about finance because they were women. This is consistent with reports of female students being discouraged from studying subjects such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).”

Oh please! That’s a reach isn’t it? Did male students receive additional education regarding financial information at school? With no corresponding results for young men, the value of the stats provided above – in terms of supporting a gendered agenda – are dubious.

And as for the validity of measuring how people “feel” about things, I would refer you to this paper.

Why financial literacy matters for women

Women working full-time currently earn 84% of a man’s pay – at a 20 year average. The impact is this: women will earn around [A$650,000 less than men across their lifetimes].

While the pay gap is considerable, the “super gap” is even greater. On average women will accumulate 46.6% less in superannuation than men, and one in three women retire with no super at all. Superannuation is the second largest asset for most Australian households, (second only to housing) and contributes significantly to economic security and savings at retirement.

The pay gap is based on the average for all men and all women, and when analysed it becomes clear that there a significant variations in the extent of the gap (even with respect to which gender is favoured). 

Insufficient superannuation and savings at retirement have also been linked to high rates of homelessness experience by older women – a point that has been emphasised by Homelessness Australia. While there are many factors that contribute to homelessness, from drug and alcohol abuse, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence, a 2013 study by Adam Steen and David MacKenzie suggests that the little research done is this area indicates poor financial literacy is also a contributing factor.

Difference in superannuation savings between women and men are driven by interrelated factors including: the gender pay gap, more frequent participation of women in lower paid industries and jobs, disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual positions. Also influencing this trend are the fragmented work patterns as a result of time taken off for unpaid care and pregnancy related workplace discrimination. Women also typically retire earlier and live longer than men – up to 4.4 years longer for a female born today.

These are mainly issues of personal choice. Choose different options, for example taking a job in a higher paid sectors, and the situation changes regardless of gender – as stated in the following paper (and countless others).

“A Department of Labor study released in 2009, which reviewed upwards of 50 peer-reviewed papers, concluded the wage gap, “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

“Women, more than men, show a demonstrated preference for lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety and comfort, and they are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the greater safety and reduced probability of work-related injury or death”” (Source)

In addition to these structural and social factors, our data suggests that women are ill-equipped to manage long-term financial investments.

That sounds almost sexist doesn’t it? … whilst readers can only speculate how much better-equipped men in the same cohort are, as the relevant information is omitted from the “data”.

And then there are the other factors that might have a bearing on women’s relative unwillingness or inability to commit to long-term financial plans. One of these is female hypergamy, and one of the authors responded to this suggestion in the following manner:

Do you, dear reader, consider the author’s response to be a) Objective b) Scholarly or c) Butthurt (Circle correct answer/s)

Some other possible factors are mentioned in the readers comments that follow the article, for example the relative confidence of men v women (as distinct from actual knowledge or skill). Willingness to take risk was also mentioned.

Reduced financial literacy amongst women in comparison to men was acknowledged by the Australian government in 2008 and again by the NSW Council of Social Services in 2016. Likewise it has been acknowledged in the United States and further afield. Our data suggests little has changed.

But the authors earlier asserted that homelessness was highly correlated with financial literacy, and yet there are far more homeless men than women. Would someone please explain?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that financial literacy is a significant factor, for both men and women, in achieving financial security later in life. And yes, this should be a major focus in terms of designing appropriate remedial action.

What I am not willing to accept however is:

  • Designing and providing educational programs for financial literacy that are not available to both men/boys and women/girls
  • Extending financial support or other incentives to women, but not men (as in the case, for example, of the ANZ staff Super payment mentioned in this blog post).

And more publicly-funded ‘research’ like this!

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

  • Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
  • Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
  • Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

  1. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
  2. Variety; multiformity
  3. The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
  4. A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

benlawDoes the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Now let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

  1. To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
  2. To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
  3. To attract and hold fast
  4. To attract or please
  5. To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
  6. To betroth
  7. To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ is not the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick and chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program.

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when men dare mention issues that detrimentally affect them, is to tell them to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could care less about helping men, excepting perhaps a few exceptions where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women.

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

dcadebate

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? There was one other thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems currently being experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as either an adjunct to the debate, or as a subsequent event. What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

Female privilege checklist

Consider those organisations that demonstrate a strong bias towards supporting women/girls when they should provide equal support for people regardless of gender (or at least based on *actual* need measured in an open and objective manner). The Australian Human Rights Commission is just one of very many such examples.

I wonder how the senior staff of these organisations rationalise their biased priorities. I assume they feel that it is justified as (in their minds) ‘women have it so much worse’/’men have it so much better’. Indeed feminists loudly proclaim the overwhelming privilege of being male. But what about female privilege?

I have seen lists such as the one below on a number of previous occasions, but this one is particularly detailed. I obtained it from the web site of Anti-feminism Australia, although clearly it originated in the U.S of A. You will note for example some references to ‘selective service’, which don’t apply in Australia.

Allow me at the outset to put forward a couple of disclaimers:

  • Not all of these points apply equally, or at all, in all countries. I have already mentioned the example of mandatory registration for ‘selective service’ which does not apply in Australia.
  • While all of the points of privilege apply to and/or would be asserted by most feminists, the same could not be said to be true of all women.

A recurrent theme in this list is that of the rampant double-standards that are now applied in relation to men and women, a factor that is part and parcel of gender feminism.

I intend to ‘tweak’ the list with my own thoughts over coming days/weeks. I am interested to hear the views of others so please feel free to provide a comment to add further points to the list, or to dispute or amend anything already listed.

Oh and just to keep things ‘equal’, here is a Male Privilege Checklist that was apparently distributed at the University of Western Australia’s Orientation Day.

See also ‘I love my female privilege!‘ by JudgyBitch (10 January 2017)

List of female privileges

1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.

3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.

4. Regardless of my mate value society has organised fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.

5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.

6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.

7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.

8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.

9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.

10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.

11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.

12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.

13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.

14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.

15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing discount because of my gender, or may avoid incarceration entirely. If I am very pretty and/or pregnant it will increase my discount.

16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.

17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behaviour is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defence for murdering that same husband.

18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalised for failing to do so.

19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.

20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly 100% of workplace fatalities.

21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.

22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.

23. Seven times as much jewellery will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.

24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.

25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.

26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes. (See this paper for example)

27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.

28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.

29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.

30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localised. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.

31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.

32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.

33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.

34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshalled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.

35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control 80% of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.

36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.

37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.

38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.

39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.

40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behaviour I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.

41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.

42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organisations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalised 30% of the time.

43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.

44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.

45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.

46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.

47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.

48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.

49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.

50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.

51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.

52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.

53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.

54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.

55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.

56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)

57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.

58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.

59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.

60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.

61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.

62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.

63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.

64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.

65. My gender makes up 53% of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.

66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.

67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.

68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).

69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.

70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.

71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.

72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.

73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.

74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.

75. Anytime I find an organisation just for men I can denounce it as sexism.

76. I believe that women should have organisations just for women.

77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an asshole.

78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.

79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.

80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.

81. I think that organisations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.

82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.

83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.

84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.

85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offence against all women.

86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.

87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.

88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.

89. I can criticise the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticise me or other women.

90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.

91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.

92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.

93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.

94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.

95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.

96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.

97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

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

On privilege, respect, and entitlement

Len & The Lamprey: The other side to the issue of financial abuse

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 not unusual in this regard, given that most articles on financial abuse ignore financial abuse perpetrated by women. Another Australian example is ‘Gloves off as the abused take control‘ (18 August 2015), whilst this one is from the U.K.

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).

Lamprey-09-Doug-Owen

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.

Is this not financial abuse? Damn right it is. Am I saying that most divorces are like this? No, but Len’s situation is far from being a rare occurrence in my experience. In fact I don’t think I would know anyone in my network of friends/family/acquaintances who has not seen this pattern play out several times within their own circles. Can it be any wonder that more and more men are reconsidering the wisdom of getting married?

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
  • 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.

As for me, I cannot and will not respect narcissistic scroungers of either gender.

See also:

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.

‘My wife didn’t tell me she was trying to get pregnant’ (22 July 2017)

Family finances and family violence: the conversation we need to start, by Moo Baulch (27 June 2017) Hard-line feminist and key figure in Domestic Violence Industry acknowledges male victims – will wonders never cease?

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.

Bell v Landry: paying your wife an ‘allowance’ is an insult (10 May 2017) One-sided wisdom from misandrist journalist, Jenna Price.

Karl Stefanovic and Cassandra Thorburn complete carving-up of assets six months after announcement (6 May 2017) Gee, it costs a guy a lot to keep in touch with his kids nowadays, huh? Another divorce-rape

Man killed himself after being conned out of his life savings by fake girlfriend he met on dating site (5 May 2017) UK

Prostitute allegedly conspired with two male friends to rob cashed-up miner, but inadvertently killed him (4 May 2017)

Millionaire tycoon loses legal fight to stop wife who cheated on him walking away with half of his £150 million fortune (12 April 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread here

When having separate bank accounts is the opposite of independence, by Polly Dunning (21 March 2017) Australia. And again, because only men financially abuse and humiliate their partners.

The biggest financial risk for women today? Embarking on a relationship (19 March 2017) One can always rely on The Guardian to provide an alternative and suitably distorted view of reality.

Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill: court (4 March 2017)

Now it’s men who are the victims of lonely hearts fraudsters (8 March 2017) UK

Revealed: the hidden problem of economic abuse in Australia (2 March 2017) This article provides corresponding figures for abuse of men, although the definition employed excludes many of the variations of abuse noted in this post.

Economic abuse a relatively unknown form of domestic violence (2 March 2017)

‘Getting divorced? Go after his pension’ (25 February 2017)

Men outraged over paying child support for kids who are not theirs (23 February 2017) USA

Conwoman Sanaa Derbas jailed for dating scam targeting lonely men (23 February 2017)

A website dedicated to trapping men with falsified pregnancy documents, sonograms, test results, etc. is ruthlessly investigated … many male victims interviewed (13 February 2017) Reddit discussion thread with linked video.

‘Reliable honest’ husband who handed his wife, 51, all of his ready cash in a divorce 15 years ago is told he must up her maintenance after she blows the lot on ‘unwise property investments’ (7 February 2017) UK

Chilling confession of ‘Sextortion Queen’ in Philippines (24 January 2017)

‘He took away my money and my freedom’: Financial abuse is just as destructive as physical abuse but often goes unnoticed (22 January 2017) UK

Very much focused on the abuse of women, but at least this article notes that 40% of victims (in the cited study) were male.

When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) Why bother surveying men when financial abuse only happens to women, right?

Nearly a third of parents unwilling to leave estate to their children for fear they will lose it in divorce (4 January 2017)

Nearly half of men who take paternity test are not the real father (3 January 2017) UK

The boss and the secretary: Five reasons powerful men get beautiful girls (20 December 2016) Australia. And another article promoting the notion that only men exploit women.

Woman Claims She’s Paying College Bills With Positive Pregnancy Tests (19 December 2016) USA

This year the most attractive men in the world will lose hundreds of millions to their divorcing wives: Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and now George Clooney too: his wife is ready to get at least $ 300 million dollars from him (11 December 2016) Reddit men’s rights discussion thread

Mum charged with faking DNA tests to con ex into thinking he was baby’s dad (8 December 2016) UK

Teacher who started a £30m-a-year fashion empire from his garage fights to stop his ex-wife getting £2.7m of his fortune – more than a decade after they split (29 November 2016)

Domestic violence also has an economic penalty – we need to tackle it (29 November 2016) and Financial abuse: The hidden form of domestic violence affecting millions (25 November 2016) Two more articles re: financial abuse that doesn’t even hint that men can also be victimised in this manner

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.

Woman asks her 20 boyfriends to buy her a new iPhone, then sells them all for house deposit (2 November 2016)

Mariah Carey and James Packer split gets nasty with name calling, $50M demand (29 October 2016)

Doctor sues gay friend for child support, 16 years after he first donated sperm to her (27 October 2016)

Sumner Redstone Sues Ex-Companions for Elder Abuse to Reclaim $150M in Gifts (25 October 2016)

Jets, vacation homes, Botox all factors in cancer center founder’s divorce (21 October 2016) USA

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.

Marital wallet rape is bad, m’kay? (6 October 2016)

Fake pregnancy: MGTOW (2 October 2016) Video

Blame the Patriarchy! (29 September 2016)

James tells Mariah: ‘Stop spending all my money!’ (26 September 2016)

Man wins fight against paying support for another man’s child (23 September 2016)

ShowerThought about paternity fraud (11 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread

‘I’m not paying for that’: Financial abuse is awfully common (6 September 2016)

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?

Eddie the Eagle’s fallen flat on his face: Divorce reduces to ski-jump hero to living on egg sandwiches in his shed because his wife has taken £180,000 Hollywood windfall (5 September 2016)

Mum convinces husband to pay for £6,000 boob job then becomes glamour model and dumps him (1 September 2016) UK

“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.”

[Parental rights] This is what we’re up against (BURIED in a legal advice sub) (30  August 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Berlin to Require Mums to Come Clean on ‘Milkmen’s Kids’ (29 August 2016) Then read how an Australian feminist thinks this is all about slut-shaming (no mention of the notion of fraud or men being due some modicum of respect.

Comedian Aries Spears: ‘Women … Rape men financially’ through child support demands (24 August 2016)

Sydney mum defrauded lonely men of $2 million (23 August 2016)

American Slavery: Man Paying Child Support for Another Man’s Kid (1 August 2016) USA

US man forced to pay support for a child that’s not his (30 July 2016)

And in a cruel twist, it ‘Turns Out That the Husband’s Job Is Probably the Best Predictor of Divorce‘ (28 July 2016) So those men get hammered twice

In Defense Of Gold Diggers: It’s Not Always What It Seems (17 January 2015) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Nurse faked DNA test and pretended friend’s baby was her own to trick one-night stand walks free from prison (1 December 2014)

Relationship problems and money: Women talk about financial abuse by Prue Cameron (2014) Australia

“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.

National Organisation of Women (USA) opposes measures that would help protect men from paternity fraud (6 July 2014)

Meet the woman who’s dating her way into meals at top Toronto restaurants (25 October 2013)

How to snag a rich man: Confessions of a gold digger (31 July 2013)

Rape victim in the USA (a boy) is sued for child support (2004) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Should paternity tests at birth be mandatory (12 February 2013) Video

Should we be doing more to expose paternity fraud? (4 September 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-may-jailed-not-paying-203459828.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/35rlw6/a_paternity_test_will_be_available_to_buy_over/

Can you make a male baby sitter pay child support?

bludge

Other posts in this blog of relevance to this issue include:

The ‘Marriage Strike’ and MGTOW
On Spousal Maintenance / Alimony
We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?
Who pays on dates?
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Who pays on dates?

There have been, and there continues to be, many articles written about the topic of who should meet the costs of dating or courtship. Most articles appear to be written by women, with most mocking (to varying degrees) the alleged or implied cheapness of men who dare object to paying the entire cost of a night out. Or as is more often the case, a series of nights out.

Whilst hardly a ‘life or death’ matter, this topic has special significance in that it illustrates how some traditional gender roles are aggressively retained whilst others are forcefully discarded. With the former mostly appearing to benefit women.

A number of justifications are put forward as to why one partner should pay for the other. Perhaps the most common is the suggestion that the person who makes the approach, and issues the invitation, should pay for the date. That is clearly very convenient for women given that 99 times out of 100, they are the ones being invited out.

After that the rationalisations as to why men should pay get even more ‘out there’, especially when it is a feminist at the keyboard. Consider for example, ‘I Let Him Pay for Dinner – Am I a Bad Feminist?‘ by Suzanna Weiss (5 July 2016)

My own position is that if the costs of dates aren’t shared, or if partners aren’t treated on alternate dates, then it is free-loading no matter how you dress it up. And if the first date is such that you know there won’t be a second one, then you should definitely split the bill. Forget ideology, it’s just the decent thing to do.

Further relevant articles include:

Women forced to pay for dates (9 March 2017) Video

How is it okay for a stranger to pay for your first-date dinner because he’s a man? (27 January 2017)

6 Things a Feminist Woman Who Dates Men Should Look For on a First Date: Validate his every political and social view conforms to those you require. Offer to pay and think of him as cheap if he accepts (27 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and linked article.

A Women’s Advantage (2016) Concerns research into OKCupid users, not just regarding who pays on dates but also courtship protocols generally.

Guy texts girl demanding she pay him back after he bought her a drink at a bar (12 September 2016)

“I’ll be more cautious who I take free drinks from in the future!” Free?

Woman Says She Was Left With $163 Tab After Man She Met On Dating Site Dined, Then Dashed (3 August 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

“Operation: No Pay May”: A Houston Woman Attempts 31 Dates in 31 Days (31 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

The new economics of dating: Do men still need to pay? (24 May 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

For men, finding love is still more costly (16 May 2016)

I said no to a second date so he asked for a $40 refund (11 May 2016)

That’s rich… women decline to date men who earn less – however good looking (3 February 2016) UK

Shock horror! A man feels I should pay my own way on dates. “I feel this is a dealbreaker.” Welcome to feminism (9 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Attention, straight men dating women: Here’s why they still — yes, still — expect you to pick up the check (28 August 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Paying while dating: meet the men who pick up the check (and those who don’t) (28 August 2015) and being in The Guardian we just know which team they’ll be rooting for.

valentines-spend-ecommerce

Two Strong INDEPENDENT Feminists demand men pay for dates (18 August 2015) Video and related reddit discussion thread (Quote: “I understand most women don’t want to be used as sex objects. Maybe they should stop looking at men as success objects“)

Ladies, It’s Now Your Turn to Pay On the First Date (9 January 2015)

Cha-Ching! Guess who spends the most in love? (February 2015)

Valentine’s Day spending driven by single men in search for love (12 February 2015)

Why women should never go halves on a date (27 November 2014)

Why I’d never be with a man who always pays the bill‘ (28 September 2014) Article unconvincing but see readers comments

It’s 2014: Why are men still paying for first dates? (18 September 2014) and here’s the feminist perspective on that issue (though note that not all readers agreed with her assessment)

Helena Andrews explains why men should always pay for dinner by Janet Bloomfield (9 September 2013)

Should I Pay for a Date Simply Because I Am the Stud? (6 September 2013)

I just made a woman pay for her own food, her reactions were interesting (19 November 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Valentines Day, by the numbers (14 February 2013)

Almost all of the articles on this subject in the mainstream media focus on heterosexual couples, and are set in the context of first world western countries.

The heterosexual focus is interesting as my initial impression is that courtship costs are approached in a somewhat more egalitarian manner in gay/lesbian relationships. I have listed some articles about splitting costs & gay/lesbian dating and courtship below. If readers can suggest more and/or better references then please leave a message.

Who Should Be Paying on a Same Sex Date? (11 May 2016)

Who picks up the tab on a date between two gay people?

When two gay men (or ladies) go on a date who pays?

Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes

Some time ago I came across the following item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication focusing on men’s issues:

Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women (25 September 2014)

The article tells us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.

I have included a link to this article in quite a few tweets I have sent to organisations such as Plan International, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they have promoted online.

One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.

There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.

Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?

And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:

Did many men lose their lives due to discriminatory policies? (26 May 2016)

“Most international charities discriminate against men at least since 1995. In 2010 Haiti Earthquake men were denied food. Do you think such policies are responsible for many excess men’s deaths?”

It’s worth taking a moment to look at the readers comments (30 of them as at the time I uploaded this post).

The Australian Government not only provides far more more funding for women/girls with regards to its domestic programs, but now its foreign aid programs are increasingly gender-targeted. This January 2017 article, for example, discusses the Australian Government contribution towards UN Women. In November 2016 Prime Minister Turnbull advised that the resettlement scheme for those in detention centres would prioritise women, children and families. Because #genderequality

See also Australia urged to put women and girls at centre of foreign policy (17 April 2017)

A selection of foreign aid organisations that fail to address the welfare needs of men

List of human rights issues as identified/pursued by the United Nations … men are apparently missing in action. The UN doesn’t even bother to list International men’s Day (19 November) in its online calendar of events.

globalgoalsSee globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs

See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same

See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)

Upon first arriving at the web site of Project Futures the organisation appears gender-neutral. Sadly the more you read the clearer their blindness to trafficked or enslaved men becomes, despite the size of that problem in the Asian region. They also appear to be supportive of disgraced activist Somaly Mam (refer wiki entry).

Further sources illustrating and/or discussing gender bias in foreign aid:

Canada commits $97-million to Congo under feminist foreign-aid policy (6 July 2017)

How to spend foreign aid like a feminist (4 July 2017)

Ottawa unveils new feminist foreign-aid policy (9 June 2017) Canada

“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”

Secret aid worker: Men have as many issues as women, we just don’t know what they are (14 February 2017)

“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”

The U.N.’s Shocking Gender/Feminist Bias: Masterpost with Links (17 September 2016)

Gender Equality in Humanitarian Assistance (March 2015) Sweden

“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:

•  Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently;
•  Existing power inequalities  between women and men exacerbates during crisis;
•  Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms;
•  Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and
•  Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”

Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.

Thai Team Receives World Bank Award for Innovations to Prevent Gender-Based Violence, with more details in a blog post entitled Ending the invisible violence against Thai female sex workers (June 2016) I submitted a comment to the blog post  which was not uploaded … par for the course when feminist author meets dissenting view.

“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being.   
 
We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”

Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why?  Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?

Zika and Ebola had a much worse effect on women: we need more research to address this in future (20 October 2016)

Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”

Take five with Joy Chebet Bii: Why does digital literacy matter for women and girls? (4 October 2016) Girls get taught to code, boys can watch on

Defining, Demonstrating, & Understanding Male Disposability (30 September 2016)

Iconic Australian charity changes its name to ‘Ourtown’ in 2016 after 55 years as ‘Boystown’, as explained by them and as announced in a media article

Unheard Voices: Men and Youth in Thailand’s Conflict-Affected Deep South (21 September 2016) An oh-so-rare example of consideration being given to the welfare of men/boys in a humanitarian program

Meteor hits earth: Women most affected (19 September 2016) Video

How Clean Cookstoves Create Gender Equality (15 September 2016) Apparent over-reach to promote this as a gender issue given lack of evidence in either this article nor the linked source article.

Commonwealth Ministers pledge four-point plan to empower women (9 September 2016)

Take a look at how fear of sounding politically incorrect forces the U.N into hypocrisy and inaction, ignoring the male education crisis in East Asia (23 June 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Teaching slum girls and female refugees to believe in themselves (17 June 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

5 Ways to End Poverty by Focusing on Women and Girls (14 June 2016)

Canada to turn away single men as part of Syrian refugee resettlement plan (24 November 2015) So Muslims OK, but men not OK, right?

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape (28 July 2011)

Haitian Men starve while “Women Only” get food (1 February 2010)

Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations (2006)

I will add further references and discussion to this post as time permits and as I come across relevant items.

See also my blog post entitled ‘Human trafficking of men and boys + other hidden sexual violence against males

A couple of queries concerning ‘Balancing the future: The Australian Public Service gender equality strategy 2016-19’

The Australian Government recently launched ‘Balancing the Future: Australian Public Service Gender Equality Strategy 2016–19‘.

The Strategy “sets out actions for driving high performance and boosting productivity in the Australian Public Service (APS). It is a strategy for harnessing the best talent, changing cultures, and challenging assumptions that hold us back.”

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 I sent the following email to diversity@apsc.gov.au:

“The statement below extracted from your report only provides one supporting reference, a dead hyperlink to a WGEA paper. The WGEA is notable as an organisation that employs almost no men (despite espousing the need for gender balance), and for its strong feminist bias.

“A growing body of research shows that:

  1. organisations with the most gender equality outperform those with the least,
  2. increasing the proportion of women in leadership roles is associated with better financial performance, and
  3. gender equality in teams promotes an environment where innovation can flourish.”

Are you able to provide any concrete examples of this “growing body of research” you speak of? I am not aware of any studies that show anything more than some correlation between, for example, business performance and the presence of senior female managers. Refer http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/companies-with-women-at-the-helm-perform-better-afeministsaidso/

The other factor that I would appreciate some feedback about is the practical meaning of “gender equality” in the report. It seems that the meaning used only considers the female side of the equation, that is gender equality exists at any point beyond 50% female participation.

Therefore, for example, an organisation comprising 75% female staff is portrayed as gender equal, despite the fact that from a male perspective the situation is not equal at all. Moreover it would seem that even when more than 50% staff overall are female, unless the most well-remunerated ranks of the organisation are also 50%+ female, then there is still not gender equality. This certainly does give the impression that the report itself suffers from a significant degree of gender bias.

I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience. Thank you”

Now, dear readers, let’s sit back with a cup of tea and see what (if anything) they come back with.

Check back later as I’ll post any response here.

On 17 May 2016 I received the following response:

“Thank you for your email and interest in the APS Gender Equality Strategy. The link you referred to has been updated and further links added.

In relation to your other query, the Strategy seeks to address gender imbalance across the APS, at all classifications and in all agencies—no matter the direction of any current imbalance. Agencies are expected to set stretch targets for gender equality across all leadership levels and business areas in the context of their existing gender distribution. The Strategy also emphasises increased access to flexible work arrangements for all employees, regardless of gender.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Diversity Policy – Employment policy Group
Australian Public Service Commission”

A number of the additional references cited are already listed in my blog post referred to earlier, and are not considered as providing conclusive evidence that female management was the *cause* of improved organisational performance. I look forward to reviewing the additional references provided, of which I was previously unaware.

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?

Release of the Final Report of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children

The final report of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children was provided to COAG on Friday, 1 April 2016. See this page for a link to download the report, and this page for background information concerning the work of the panel.

Yes, add this to the already long list of Australian government inquiries into domestic violence. The mind boggles at the combined costs of these reports. It would surely be enough to pay for – oh, let’s see – behaviour management programs for female offenders in each state plus a network of refuges for men and *their* children.

It would be one thing if these inquiries were reaching out to different groups and generating new and different ideas – but in the case of gender issues like DV the reverse is true. It’s always the same faces on the panels, consulting the same groups, bringing forward the same ideas based on the same ideology. And all the while with no concrete progress being made save for a succession of costly PR-value-only campaigns farmed out to the same ‘old girls club’ consultancies.

The Panel delivered its preliminary advice to COAG in July 2015. The Australian Government adopted all of the Panel’s recommendations through the $100 million Women’s Safety Package.

The Panel delivered its second report in December 2015 and recommended priority actions which were all endorsed by COAG. This included a national domestic violence order scheme, the development of national outcome standards for perpetrator interventions, and a national approach to dealing with technology-facilitated abuse.

The members of the Advisory Panel are Ken Lay (Chairman), Rosie Batty (Deputy Chair), Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Maria Hagias, Darren Hine, Dr Victoria Hovane, Ms Tracy Howe, Mr Edward Mosby, Ms Julie Oberin, The Hon Bess Price MLA, and Ms Sue Salthouse.

“The Panel recommends that a new approach be adopted by all governments to achieve generational and lasting change:

  • Men must be held to account for their actions and supported to change
  • Responses must focus on empowering women and their children to make informed choices
  • Political leaders, businesses, industry and the broader community all need to commit to collective, long-term action to improve gender equality and change violence supportive attitudes
  • Children and young people must be recognised as victims of violence against women
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities need trauma informed responses, and
  • Integrated responses are required to keep women and their children safe.

The Panel’s Final Report includes 28 recommendations for COAG’s consideration, with innovative, practical and deliverable options for further joint Commonwealth, state and territory work to reduce violence against women and their children.”

This is the first I had heard of this report, and even then I only became aware of it via reading the Twitter stream of a feminist politician. So much for publicising the exercise beyond the feminist encampment.

“In developing its advice, Panel members undertook over 120 separate consultations with stakeholders and experts in primary prevention, victim support services, perpetrator treatment, technology, law enforcement, research and education, and the business community.

Targeted consultations were also undertaken to discuss specific issues in relation to children, women with disabilities, women from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children.”

How many such consultations were with father’s or mens rights groups or advocates? I have scrolled through the list in the report, and I can’t recognise any. Of those groups and individuals who were approached for input, were there many that did not subscribe to the dominant feminist view of domestic violence? Was there even one?

Based on my first glance at the report it appears to ignore male victims entirely. In fact I just word-searched the report using the term ‘male victims’ and got not one hit. Not an encouraging sign, yet not unexpected. The report also clearly implies that all perpetrators of domestic violence are male. And irony of ironies, there is a section on gender bias amongst people working with DV victims which only acknowledges gender bias against women.

Just to remind readers, if it were even necessary, that at least one in three victims of domestic violence are male.

I honestly cannot fathom how the panel members, all of whom would probably have fathers/brothers/sons, can sleep at night knowing they were complicit in an exercise wherein the basic human rights of so many were so cruelly disregarded.

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

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?

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

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 paygap.

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 assests 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 womens health and on the treatment of womens 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”

(… to be continued)

See also:

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

nab

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

‘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.