Whilst that paper was the final trigger that led to me writing this post, the primary motivation was the seemingly endless stream of articles about sex and relationships by (invariably female) media columnists that preceded it.
At the outset let me state that I am not any kind of expert on the subject. Not at all. My only qualifications are being a male who’s had a reasonable amount of life experience, and being the father of a teenage boy about whose future welfare I’m deeply concerned.
Hands up who has read those articles about sex-related matters like consent, relationships, pornography and men’s (alleged) ignorance and many (alleged) psychological and physical failings in the bedroom. Just to provide an Australian example, think Nadia Bokody. And there is another one, but I can’t think of her name. [Several hours later: Oh, I remember, it’s Jana Hocking]. Both of whom, as an aside, have blocked me on Twitter – although that’s par for the course.
The annoying thing about these columns is their multitude of false statements and false assumptions, and their persistently negative views on men and masculinity.
That, and the fact that:
there is never a corresponding male perspective – other than a ‘white knight’ or male feminist perspective – presented to readers, and
the many real and potential negatives for males – of partaking in anything along the hook-up – courtship – marriage continuum are conveniently overlooked. Things like the threat of false accusations, revenge porn, paternity fraud and financial exploitation, bullying/abuse, rape, and so on and so forth.
In my experience at least, the current crop of female columnists tend to be extremely one-sided … to the point of either being deliberately misleading and/or being woefully ignorant of real-world relationship matters outside their own particular clique. They also rarely – and I think I’d almost go as far as to say, never – identify corresponding failings on the part of women. Well, other than in getting physical with all those wretched, exploitative and ungrateful men.
The fact that most of their social media posts now (deliberately) do not permit readers to post comments, suggests that many others are also fed up with their offerings.
Just a few points or examples … such columnists invariably state, assume and/or infer that:
All women/girls like or dislike or expect the same things as per other women/girls (and that individuals are consistent with respect to the nature of their own likes/expectations)
When men cheat (allegedly that’s relatively often) they are pigs whereas women rarely cheat, and when they do it’s usually their partners fault
Women/girls are knowledgeable about not just their own bodies, but also about men’s bodies and their sexuality
Women/girls express their views clearly and often, but they are deliberately ignored or disregarded by their male partners
Women clearly and truthfully express their views with regards to providing consent for sexual activity, and don’t often change their minds during the ensuing hours (if not minutes)
Women don’t just expect, but like, men to ask them for their consent at each stage of engaging in sexual activity
All of which I would place in the ‘Easter Bunny is real’ category … aka, nonsense.
Further, these online messengers of the matriarchy send a clear message that men are *lucky* to be chosen as sexual partners. And that if only they were better at doing whatever they are meant to be doing, then heaven awaits. And their ‘proof’ that women have their ‘act together’ in the bedroom? That’s because significantly more men orgasm than do women. Wow. I always thought that was simply reflective of men’s greater ability to close their eyes and imagine that they were with someone desirable.
Oh please! Hands up guys, putting aside the brief and very temporary relief of sexual hunger, how lucky do you feel when *it* occurs? Is sex that great for you? How many times, at the end of the day, do your sexual encounters – all factors considered – rate as even a net positive experience? And if you could travel back in time, how many encounters would you readily opt to excise … and simply skip to good coffee and hot shower?
One of the things that the matriarchal mouth-pieces conveniently neglect to mention is (for example) the proportion of women who won’t not have sex unless they are drunk. And it’s not unusual for women to readily admit this to their suitor. This might be their response to a buffet of hang-ups, and/or them being so awash with guilt/shame about just the thought of it.
I suspect that a primary reason for drinking is that, if/when their post-coital mood changes, they feel not merely justified – but comforted – in thinking (or even telling others) that they only did ‘it’ because they were drunk. Or more often, because ‘the guy got me drunk’. Or they can up-size their night out and call it drink-spiking. And then not only is shame/blame hoovered away, but sympathy is almost certain to be on-tap.
And those fellows who happily oblige the ladies, get to share a bed with a drunk – with all that that often entails (think: up-ended klutzy turtle that’s prone to vomit). But more importantly, those *lucky* men are then wading into quicksand with regards to the possibility of facing false accusations of abuse and/or rape – as well as their own feelings of concern and/or regret.
Am I alone in this regard, with views such as these? Feel free to let me know what you think. I could delve into considerable further detail in this post but currently at least, find myself shyly reluctant to do so.
Nadia Bokody: Lie men tell about ‘kinky’ sex (24 April 2022) Because women with a penchant for violence don’t exist, right? Any apparent exceptions to be explained with ‘the men made them do it’ or ‘they only did it to please a man’ lines.
“And because I know someone is going to protest, “Why are you demonising men?! Women can be creeps, too!” it should be noted I’m not suggesting otherwise. However, it would be folly to treat these as comparable issues”.
Damn right it’s not comparable. Police/friends/whoever are not going to believe the male if he (or she) claims sexual assault!
Nadia Bokody: Hilarious sex post angering men (11 December 2021) Hands up how many men found this piece hilarious? And don’t even think about the response you would get from female readers were you able to publish something poking fun at women.
The brutal truth about women and cheating (12 July 2019) Women suggesting ways to change & spice up the sex? Sure that occurs occasionally, but I’d suggest that usually it’s a matter of silence & negative/defensive reaction when such a suggestion is made by the guy.
What finally prompted me to write this post was a tweet issued by the Australian Human Rights Commission yesterday about ‘Scam Awareness Week’, with an associated forum apparently being run by a group called the eSafety office.
I mean to say, imagine an agency heavily funded by tax-payers (predominantly male) to support and protect all Australians, but which devotes the overwhelming majority of its efforts on services for women/girls … sounds like a potentially scam-rich environment to me. And who better qualified to champion such a model than the #AHRC?
“The Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner is a one-stop-shop for online safety. The Office provides Australians a range of up-to-date information and resources, coupled with a comprehensive complaints system to assist children who experience serious cyberbullying.” Sounds good so far.
“The eSafety Commissioner (eSafety) is Australia’s national independent regulator for online safety” (Source). Their mission is to “safeguard Australians at risk from online harms“. Not ‘women’ mind you, but ‘Australians’. The key legislation that it operates under is the Enhancing Online Safety Act, 2015, but in its Plan it’s noted that its “remit has been broadened since our establishment four years ago” (p3). I’d suggest that perhaps it’s narrowed, in fact.
eSafety is an independent statutory office supported by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). It’s budget, courtesy of Australian tax-payers, is considerable. This year, for example, their allocation includes $21 million for “a women’s online package” (Source).
ACMA/eSafety currently reports to the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts.
The e-Safety Strategy doesn’t seem to hammer home a strong bias towards barracking for women/girls versus men and boys – just a few mentions re: gender – in fact. Under ‘Programs’ for example it mentions the provision of support for “those who are most susceptible to online harm. These include women experiencing domestic violence …” (p8). And men experiencing domestic violence aren’t harassed online? Oh, sorry, I digress. The Plan also notes that “in 2017 parliament expanded our remit to all Australians” (p12).
Now let’s briefly look, mainly with reference to their web site and primary Twitter account (@eSafetyOffice), at what the Commission actually does nowadays. And how it interprets the term “all Australians“. A good place to start is the e-Safety women’s page … because “all women have a right to be safe online“. And no, there isn’t an e-Safety men’s page. I’d suggest browsing the women’s page now, before continuing with this post.
See, for example, the paper entitled ‘Lifeline or weapon? How technology is used to control and silence women‘ (7 September 2021) which is one of the listed papers and media releases with a gender focus. Nowhere is mention made of women as perpetrators and/or males as victims, and that’s not because such folk constitute rare aberrations. It’s essentially because of the pervasive , and largely unchallenged, influence of feminist ideology. Minister, are you awake?
Next you might perhaps take a look at ‘Understanding the attitudes and motivations of adults who engage in image-based abuse‘ (12 September 2019). More than 50 mentions of the term ‘men’ here, but all such references relate to portraying men as perpetrators of abusive behaviour and/or as attendees of behaviour change programs. No women are presented in this manner – not one. And yet – reverting to real life now – look at the significant number of court appearances of women for ‘revenge porn’ – targeting both men and other women (examples here).
The word ‘women’ appears 62 times in the report whilst ‘men’ appears 0 times.
The gender ratio of Authority members who are male/female is 2:7, and the gender ratio of Executive Management members who are male/female is 1:6.
The annual base salary of the (female) CEO = $344,631, and the annual base salary for nominated ‘Key Management Personnel’ = $2,656,056 (this group includes seven females and one male).
The budgeted revenue from government for ACMA/eSafety in 2020/21 was $100,615,000 (p161 of Annual Report)
In the ‘Commissioner’s Foreword’, the number of references to men/boys was 0 (p201 of Annual Report), whereas in ‘Our year at a glance’, the number of references to men/boys was 0 (p204 of Annual Report)
Finally, I’ll now run through the corresponding programs and consultancies that the Office thoughtfully provided specifically for the assistance of men and boys …
<the sound of crickets chirping>
Oh, and news just to hand, the eSafety Commissioner’s contract has just been extended for a further five years.
Thank goodness, presumably that means there’ll be more time to reach out and help women like this:
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the feminist lobby has claimed that there has been a surge* in domestic violence. (*Note that the term ‘surge’ has been well and truly overtaken by now, more recently by ‘staggering increase‘ or ‘driving a spike‘). This trend has manifested itself across several countries, with the UN Women agency being a significant player. UN Women has produced guidelines in relation to gathering data about domestic violence against women.
The feminist lobby has linked this alleged increase in violence to, in particular, the common practice of governments requiring people to quarantine in their own homes. The proof offered to support the feminist position has primarily been claimed to be significant increases in call volume to DV help-lines (largely operated by feminist NGO’s). There have also been similar claims made in relation to alleged increases in traffic to web sites dealing with the welfare of victims of DV.
In only one of the media articles I read, prior to uploading this post, was reference made to an increase in the number of calls to police. This did not relate to increases in the number of charges laid, nor punishments meted out, but rather to queries made by people concerned about a perceived threat of DV.
I would suggest, as have others, that domestic violence is the feminist lobby’s primary cash-cow. Consider too, for example, the salary of DV agency bosses such as Sandra Horley, who is reported to receive a remuneration package of more than £210,000. The British Prime Minister is currently paid approx. £155,000.
To base government policy, even just one-off hand-outs of public money, on unverified allegations, is at best naïve. And when such claims are being provided by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a public view of a problem that they assert to be large & growing. Well, one might label such vested interest ‘ideological bias’, ‘pecuniary interest’, or worse as per the flow-chart below (Source). But whatever you call it, it is by no means competent, objective, unbiased research.
It is particularly annoying that whilst the feminist-saturated domestic violence industry is loudly proclaiming a jump in violence in the home, they are maintaining their silence with respect to the reality of female-perpetrated assaults/abuse of men and children.
The other galling issue, although unrelated to Covid-19, is that I have belatedly learnt that, in the UK, the rate of women being killed by their partner was now at a 40 year low (Source). You would think that this would be shouted from the rooftops, wouldn’t you? Well, unless people sought to maintain perception of a growing epidemic. One that desperately demands further public funding. More please, sir!
Sickeningly, the feminist lobby have recently, begrudgingly, admitted this fall in the number of female victims. But, wait for it, they say it’s only occurred as a result of women being unable to flee due to Covid lockdowns – and hence male partners don’t become enraged and kill them (Source).
Finally, “William Collins’ recently showed in his Illustrated Empathy Gap website that, contrary to claims by some domestic violence agencies, there was no tsunami of domestic violence during the first covid-19 lockdown, even though that claim had been supported by UK governments to the tune of about £150 million of extra money given to domestic violence agencies.
William Collins did something that I also had actually done: we both separately made Freedom of Information applications to the police forces in the UK, analysed the data, and found that there was no such tsunami of incidents of domestic violence. It didn’t happen. The claim was fraudulent.
This is a very important line of inquiry and it should have generated headlines all over the national media, instead of which it got no coverage at all. I found it impossible to place those findings in national media. I got no reply at all from newspapers like The Mail, The Telegraph, or from Unheard or Spiked. They simply did not even reply“, (Source)
What follows now are a series of media releases or articles dealing with the issue, presented in reverse chronological order:
“The Andrews government has announced an extra $20m for family violence prevention, citing an increase in demand for “perpetrator services” during the coronavirus pandemic. Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence Gabrielle Williams cited an 11 per cent increase since last year in calls to the Men’s Referral Service.”
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*
No spike in home violence, police say (10 June 2020) ‘The Australian’ newspaper tells us that NSW authorities “almost doubled domestic violence checks” but found “no increase in abuse rates“.
“Professor Wendt says women are experiencing violence at a more “intense level” as they try to survive the restrictions and plan their escape as measures lift”. Needless to say, what constitutes a “more intense level” is left to the imagination, and no supporting statistics are provided to quantify intensity.
” … I have just had 50 front-line workers on a statewide forum on the phone and all of them are saying how much busier it is… and now the stats come back to prove it”. “Stats” that agency staff themselves generated … what could go wrong?
“Ms Foster said the figures were concerning because they conflicted with a recent report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found “domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020, despite social distancing measures commencing … But Ms Foster said the report had sent a “dangerous message” to victims and policymakers. She said it was “irresponsible to put out a report drawing a conclusion that fears that domestic violence would increase hadn’t been realised.”
“The Queensland Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Di Farmer, said authorities across the country were grappling with an “amplification” of abuse caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and tough health restrictions.
Domestic violence crisis centres in the state have experienced a 40 per cent spike in calls for help since the start of the pandemic …”
“The most concerning statistic came from Google data, with the Federal Government seeing a 75 per cent increase in searches about family and domestic violence compared to the average number of searches over the previous five years.”
“Alison Macdonald, acting chief executive of Domestic Violence Victoria, said there was clear evidence a surge in demand was coming. “We know from international evidence that there are spikes in family violence in post emergency and post crisis situations,” she said. “We know from Australian experience with bushfires, with floods and with cyclones.”
“To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on efforts to end gender-based violence, Avenir Health modelled a delay in the scale-up of prevention efforts as attention and resources are devoted to COVID-19, and an increase in violence during the period of lockdown. Assuming a slow start to the scale-up of prevention programmes (i.e., a 2-year delay in 2020 and 2021), followed by a rapid expansion of prevention programs in the middle of the decade, an estimated 2 million additional instances of intimate partner violence in 2020-2021 are expected.”
“COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in progress towards ending gender-based violence by 2030”
“For every 3 months the lockdown continues, an additional 15 million additional cases of gender-based violence are expected”
That’s right, no police reports were used to generate predictions. It was all based on modelling. Remarkable. And of course, no mention anywhere of female perpetration.
I queried whether (in the UK) more children were killed by their mother or father, and I included a link to an earlier post I prepared regarding filicide that shows, amongst other things, that in Australia the biological mother kills more children.
Another poster then provided a link to a 2013 University of Manchester article entitled ‘Findings from most in-depth study into UK parents who kill their children‘. The study relied upon a 10-year consecutive case series of convicted homicides and homicide-suicides (01/01/97-31/12/06) in England and Wales. That paper defined ‘filicide’ as “a homicide committed by a parent or adult in-loco parentis, with the victim aged under 18.”
The article noted that:
“Overall, fathers were significantly more likely to kill their children than mothers, and were more likely to use violent methods of killing, have previous convictions for violent offences, perpetrate multiple killings, and have a history of substance misuse or dependence.”
I sought to verify the statistical source and compare this with other sources or studies available online, for which I then went hunting. So what did I find? Well it was interesting (though I note that my research is to be continued as time permits and as I receive responses to both my Twitter posts and this blog post).
Soon afterwards another poster assured me that fathers killed more children, and added “if you factor in that there are only 2% of males who are stay-at-home parents, the vast majority of single parents are women and women do the vast majority of child-rearing, if you considered hours by capita on childcare then the stats would be vastly skewed against men.” He/she then provided a link to a 2017 article in The Conversation entitled ‘Understanding the triggers for filicide will help prevent it‘. If you can spare the time be sure to note the readers comments. My requests for further related/supporting reference works were declined.
“The paper presents information that appears skewed that hides certain details of the sampling. It notes that the significant majority of perpetrators are fathers but this includes Step fathers that is a social construct. This figure portrays fathers as being more likely to kill a child when in fact it is mothers & their partners that are more likely to be the perpetrators. The fathers protective role is supported by the fact that step mothers commit only 2% (in one case) of the cases. Other research in the US including DOJ and Dept of Child Services show that the largest perpetrators of filicide in children under 1 year old are biological mothers.
Do not see a break down of biological fathers vs biological mothers role, and the insistence of including the artificial mix of step fathers/mothers only serve to skew the impressions the media is likely to interpret from this article. The inclusion of step fathers with speaking about fathers is a common ploy seen in media to portray fathers in bad light. In my local area, in the overwhelming majority of times the word “father” is used in a negative context committing a crime against a child, its in fact a step father or mothers boyfriend.
Your statement “Overall, a significantly higher proportion of fathers than mothers were convicted of filicide; a male to female ratio = 2:1” is problematic. You are using courtroom outcomes to determine guilt and severity. We know from several studies that women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes/circumstances in about that same ratio. Examining the data chart is even more troubling. 84 out of 195 male perpetrators (don’t know how you can include step fathers as having committed filicide unless he kills his own biological children) receive the charge of murder compared with 9 out of 102 female perpetrators.
My hypothesis from data collected from government sources in the US, it is clear that the biological fathers role is very protective compared to all other parent ‘figures’. It appears this is also correct in your data if you were to solve a few simple linear equations to arrive at the ratios of biological fathers to mothers as well, and treat each demographic separately. But the statement you make that “I am going to presume that this is by design and qualifies as an example of the “WAW” effect which is a form of bias.”
“Vast differences in the definitions of perpetrator categories only allowed crude comparisons across countries. Categorisation of perpetrators into parents, other family members, acquaintances, strangers and unknown did not capture nuances such as, for example, mothers’ boyfriends, who were considered as acquaintances as there was a lack of information on whether they were solid family members or casual relationships.”
My initial observations include:
That most statistical sources and the papers based on them were relatively dated
That papers were inclined to focus more on the gender of victims rather than perpetrators
That explanations or factors contributing to the crime were sought and discussed more in the case of female perpetrators, than for male perpetrators. In the case of women, the two most common factors seem to be that women spend more time with children and are hence more likely to harm them, and that female killers are more likely to be found to be younger and/or mentally ill.
That the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim was usually identified, but not clearly detailed in the case of differentiating biological father, step father or de-facto partner.
That an unknown, but possibly quite significant, number of murders are apparently excluded from being classed as filicide due to mental illness on the part of the murderer. This would reduce the ratio of female to males sentenced.
You may have noticed articles appearing on the above topics with increasing regularity. Almost without exception the theme is one of men as unappreciative, lazy, selfish, oafs. We are told that women who are in heterosexual relationships are routinely forced to pick up the slack, and are consequently unhappy and disadvantaged.
Until now I collated articles on this theme in (mostly) the following blog posts:
The cornerstone of the feminist approach to domestic violence is known as the ‘Duluth Model’, which is often illustrated as follows:
The Duluth Model is “based in feminist theory positing that domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners”. (Source)
It is my position, and I am certainly not alone in this regard, that applying this theoretical framework to most (let alone all) incidents of domestic violence is highly misleading and inappropriate.
Further, if gender inequality is the most significant precursor in relation to domestic violence, then:
Why is the incidence of domestic violence greater in lesbian couple than in heterosexual couples?
How might one explain the already high and growing levels of female-perpetrated violence generally?
How might one explain the significant geographical variations in the incidence of domestic violence? The chart below, for example, looks at variations in the incidence of DV in the Australian state of New South Wales.
Why does there exist a very considerable number of male victims of domestic violence?
How might one explain the relatively high levels of child abuse and neglect involving single mothers?
Why is the level of domestic violence so high in countries like Sweden that, even feminists would agree, have a higher than average level of gender equality?
These categories or situations of domestic violence are not the inconsequential anomalies that many propose them to be. On the contrary, they constitute very large and substantial pieces of the domestic violence jigsaw.
In an intimate partnership between two people of different genders, an unequal balance of power can be a factor contributing to DV. But what feminists refuse to concede is that the partner asserting most power need not be male, and often isn’t.
“… the Duluth model essentially views all female transgressions as being self-defensive in nature (even against children!) and can be attributed either to previous victimization by a male or to an allegedly oppressive “patriarchy” (Dutton and Corvo, 2007)”
I would urge you to take a moment now to read Jason Dale’s detailed and insightful commentary. The quote below has been attributed to Ellen Pence (Wikipedia).
Regular readers of this blog would be aware that I tend to get a bit riled about the way that men are consistently portrayed as the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, whilst their many good deeds are often taken for granted. Women, on the other hand, are far more likely to be portrayed as the victims of abuse or negative discrimination whilst their countless infractions are continually white-washed or minimised.
I just came across a post in a blog that reflected this sort of bias, a picture from which is provided below.
The post provides some tips on how observers might intervene in ways that would hopefully diffuse a volatile and potentially violent situation. That’s a positive thing. Unfortunately however, the blogger tainted an otherwise potentially valuable message with a goodly measure of gender bias, portraying:
Men as the aggressors
Women as the victims of male aggression
Women as the rescuers of women suffering male aggression
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the followers of Islam do not constitute a ‘race’. I also appreciate that in the context of anti-Islamic abuse, women are more likely to be singled-out due to their distinctive clothing.)
That said, in the broader context of racially-motivated abuse in public places, it would seem that:
Women are just as likely, if not more likely, to engage in taunting or abuse
Men are just as likely, if not more likely, to intervene to stop abuse (example)
And indeed I’ve seen evidence of many nasty incidents involving girls/women unleashing racist rants on others. Obviously some men are also racists, but I have noticed relatively few stories with men as perpetrators. Why might this be so? Could it be, for example, that women consider themselves relatively immune from harsh intervention by victims and/or bystanders? I’m thinking here of possible underlying factors such as entitlement, the pussy-pass, and ‘it’s different when a woman does it‘.
This July 2017 article “based on 243 cases of verified Islamophobic incidents collected over 14 months in 2014-15” suggests that “perpetrators were three times more likely to be male“. I’m more than a little dubious.
I also noticed that if you search on the words ‘racist rant by woman‘ on YouTube you get 165,000 results. If you search on ‘racist rant by man’, you get 317,000 results but the search results for the latter appear to capture video clips for both ‘man’ and ‘wo(man)’.
Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:
“The government is spending more than $1.3 million on an education campaign to remind the public not to treat health workers as punching bags, after 3300 assaults in the past year alone.” (31 March 2016)
Click here and scroll down the page to watch two of the ads subsequently aired on Australian TV.
Strange thing though … no violent and abusive women are featured in the ads, despite the fact that such people most certainly do exist in real life. I very much doubt that was an accidental omission. Think about why such a decision might that have been made.
There might well be fewer incidents involving women, though I would be interested in seeing the stats in relation to the sex ratio of males v females treated/transported and then the percentage of each that were abusive.
Personally, I suspect that the decision to only show violent men is less about patient ratios and more about social conditioning with respect to how society perceives men and women, and the threat they pose.
Here are three incidents in the first half of 2016 involving female perpetrators assaulting paramedics:
“A WOMAN has stabbed a paramedic on Fraser Island after trying to force him to hand over drugs.” (Source)
“A 21-year-old woman has been charged over the alleged assault of a paramedic sent to a Brisbane pub to help her. The 41-year-old female ambulance officer suffered cuts her arms and swelling and bruising to her face in the alleged drunken assault at Toowong’s Regatta Hotel.” (Source) (Postscript: This case went to court in August 2017 and the perpetrator was found ‘not guilty’)
“As the ambulance passed through the Legacy Way tunnel en route to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital she allegedly attacked the 51-year-old ambulance officer, kicking him in the groin and punching him in the head.” (Source)
I was reading an article the other day that included comments concerning domestic violence made by recently appointed Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Within it I noticed the following quote from an outspoken Australian feminist academic and female violence enabler by the name of Dr Michael Salter:
“In the context of intimate relationships we do see women use violence but it’s predominantly self-defence. We have to reaffirm everyone has the right to defend themselves against violence”.
Sadly this is by no means the first time I have come across a feminist proposing this shameful nonsense as a truthful reflection of reality.
The dominant theoretical framework employed by the Domestic Violence Industry is known as the Duluth Model. A paper attempting to defend this approach, included the following statement:
“The vast majority of women arrested in Duluth for domestic assaults are being battered by the person they assault. Most, but not all, are retaliating against an abusive spouse or are using violence in self-defense. The notion that battered women share responsibility for the violence used against them because of provocative words or actions is a dangerous form of collusion with men who batter (Mills 2003). We do not accept that these women should complete a batterers’ program. We do agree that there are a small number of women who use violence resulting in police action against their partners without themselves being abused. This is not a social problem requiring institutional organizing in the way that men’s violence against women is.” (Source)
A selection of sources that argue either in support of, or against, the notion that women only perpetrate domestic violence in self-defence and/or after experiencing sustained abuse:
Domestic abuse victims ‘should use Tony Martin defence’ to quash convictions (7 June 2022)
‘Understanding domestic abusers’ (undated) from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. See “responsive violence”. Sure women are violent but only in order to “attempt to forestall attack, defend self and others, or control the situation”
“Fact: Self defence is no more common a reason for female violence against a partner than it is for male violence against a partner
Sources: Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40(1), 51–57. Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. C. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practitioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment (pp. 59–87). New York: Springer (also available at http://pubpages. unh.edu/∼mas2″
Hyper-masculinity? Toxic-masculinity? What is this masculinity thing that is painted as such a blight on society?
Why is there is never any mention of toxic femininity when (to varying extents) many of the same issues apply? Just look at my posts on for example, female violence, lack of empathy, sexual abuse by women, and damseling and the shameless exploitation of male chivalry.
The articles below all address the concept of masculinity, alternately either from a feminist, egalitarian, MHRA or another alternate position:
The words Will Smith didn’t need to say in his latest apology (2 April 2022) The female journalist implores readers to go easy on Will (for many reasons as listed). The journalist uses the term ‘toxic masculinity’ but then states that “In no way, shape or form did Smith’s actions harm the people attending the Oscars, or anyone watching at home.” Whilst it’s rare to see people being asked to show empathy for men, what’s the bet that it’s only happening here because Will is perceived to have ‘done it for a woman’? #WhiteKnight
‘Will Smith, we don’t need men to protect us’ (28 March 2022) Meanwhile, in real life and starting immediately after Will Smith hit Chris Rock, the media began exposing women stating things like “Gee, I wish I had a man to protect me like that!” #EyeFlutter
Today (30 December 2016) I noticed two articles that took a now common approach of using/portraying generally positive attributes associated with masculinity (protectiveness towards women & risk-taking behaviour) in order to mock or criticize men: