Some observations regarding online information concerning filicide

I was browsing Twitter the other evening and noted a reference to a UK article entitled Violent fathers given access to children even after 50 deaths. The Twitter thread to which I subsequently responded can be found here.

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.

Another reference I came across was entitled ‘Filicide: Mental Illness in Those Who Kill Their Children’ (4 April 2013). Note too the following reader’s comment which struck an accord with my own initial thoughts, but to which the authors failed to respond:

“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.”

I  also came acrossChild homicide perpetrators worldwide: a systematic review (date unknown). This paper took a global perspective and noted significant deficiencies in available date, for example:

“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.

One potentially relevant factor not discussed in any of the papers I came across was the gender bias (towards women) in the police and court system, which could involve less women being charged with murder, and with less being found guilty upon being charged.

Other related posts in my blog that may be of interest include:

The often contrasting reaction when mums and dads kill their children

On fathers and their children

Is child abuse a gendered crime too?

On housework and ’emotional labour’

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 ‘Marriage Strike’ and MGTOW
Men & women and their attitudes to marriage and parenthood

From this point forward, however, I will consolidate all such articles in this new post, and progressively add my own commentary.

Related references:

Bettina Arndt looks at housework (10 April 2019) Video

OECD: Time spent in paid and unpaid work, by sex (undated) When you add paid & unpaid work together then gender differences all but disappear.

Sharing the parenting duties could be key to marital bliss: study (3 October 2017)

Most of the articles on this theme don’t acknowledge that men are, on average, doing more around the house than they have ever done before. This article bucks the trend:

“Although men have increased their housework time since the 1970s, they more typically perform the least-urgent chores, like changing lightbulbs or car maintenance”. Err, thanks for the bouquet

Gender equality begins at home: empty the dishwasher, guys, by Judith Ireland (1 May 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread. And here is a February 2017 article on the same theme.

At home, women treat men as if they are barely competent (10 February 2015)

The two articles below argue a case that’s somewhat different to the usual feminist assertions:

Men Who Do More Housework Have Less Sex (1 April 2013)

The More Chores A Husband Does, The More Likely The Marriage Will End In Divorce (28 September 2012)

The Duluth Model: The theoretical basis for the feminist approach to domestic violence

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.

highrateDVareas

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 and its chief proponents are discussed at length in this illuminating series of email exchanges (mirror here).

“… 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.

See also:

You can’t help men by attacking masculinity, by Dr John Barry (27 November 2018)

Setting the record straight on Duluth (6 February 2017)

Taking an in-depth look into domestic violence research – The Duluth Model (6 September 2015)

The Gender Paradigm In Domestic Violence: Research And Theory (2005) by Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls

 

More ‘Toxic Femininity’: Racist rants in public places

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.

ranter

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 think here of possible underlying factors such as entitlement, the pussy-pass, and ‘it’s different when a woman does it‘.

Here are some links to relevant articles:

When actions move beyond words … this female international student was assaulted in Melbourne CBD and told to leave Australia … details in this tweet (26 March 2019)

Straphanger makes citizen’s arrest after hell beaks loose on subway (14 December 2018)

Simone O’Broin: Lawyer in wine-rage rant arrested after plane lands (15 November 2018)

Women yells obscenities at family speaking Spanish at Virginia restaurant (23 October 2018) USA

Missouri Woman Fired For Blocking Black Man From Entering Apartment Complex (15 October 2018)

Southwest Airlines Passenger Called Flight Attendant the N-Word (2 October 2018)

Tweet regarding racist rant at public pool (27 June 2018)

Air force fires waitress over racist video (17 June 2018)

After Racist Tweet, Roseanne Barr’s Show Is Cancelled by ABC (29 May 2018)

Video of woman bashing up allegedly racist woman in Florida goes viral (27 August 2017) USA

Vancouver SkyTrain Passenger Goes On Racist Rant, Gets Called Out By Riders (25 August 2017) Woman does a racist rant and boy comes to the defence of those who she targeted

Student sentenced over racist attack on Muslim woman caught on film (4 August 2017)

Airbnb host fined, ordered to take college course after turning away Asian guest (14 July 2017)

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.

Woman’s Islamophobic rant on Sydney bus caught on video (4 June 2017)

Walmart racist shopper’s rant against Latina and black woman (24 May 2017) USA

Airlines after hurling vile insults at Sydney family (23 May 2017)

Four Sydney Muslim women attacked in Broadway (11 May 2017) Australia

Woman reportedly told shopper in Va. store: ‘I wish they didn’t let you in the country’ (May 2017) USA

Racist footy fan exposes unhealthy obsession (12 April 2017)

Teen filmed attacking a Chinese man with a chisel on a Sydney train is set for jail (16 March 2017)

‘I’m not sending a lady to prison for this’: Student spared jail after racist slurs during Notting Hill club rampage (14 March 2017) UK

Party-loving teacher marched off flight after drunken outburst (1 February 2017)

Woman captured on camera abusing a Muslim student wearing a niqab: ‘Take it off, you terrorist’ (22 January 2017) Australia

Woman abuses Coles supermarket staff in Melton (5 January 2017)

Girl, 17, fined after unleashing foul-mouthed tirade on tram traveling on Port Road on Boxing Day (30 December 2016) Lacking obvious racial overtone but otherwise similar in character to the other incidents reported here

‘Invading our country’: Racist rant on Adelaide public bus caught on video (20 November 2016) with follow-up article here

Another racist rant by a woman on public transport (29 October 2016)

Port Adelaide fan who threw banana at Eddie Betts banned ‘indefinitely’ (22 August 2016)

Woman jailed for racially abusing teenage girl on Sydney train (13 April 2016)

Woman accused of racial abuse (16 January 2016) Australian video

Another racist rant – and threatened violence – by a woman on a train (28 December 2015) Australia

Another racist rant by a woman travelling on public transport (19 December 2015) Australia

Racist abuse on a Sydney bus left Lindsay Li fearing for her safety (25 September 2015) Australia

Stacey Eden defended a Muslim woman who was being verbally abused on a Sydney train (17 April 2015) Villain and hero are both women in this story

Disturbing video emerges of horror racist attack on Perth family (1 April 2015)

Psycho Chick fights with pregnant passenger on Perth commuter train (14 June 2013) Video Australia

Woman’s racist rant on train (3 July 2014)

Woman’s racist rant on bus (26 June 2013)

Goodes abuse: teen didn’t know ‘ape’ was racist, says McGuire (27 May 2013)

Woman’s racist rant on train (19 April 2013)

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:

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

On chivalry

On violence perpetrated, or instigated, by women and girls

I thought women were meant to be more empathetic?

Women attack first responders yet omitted from ‘awareness’ campaign

“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)

Anger after two Cairns paramedics allegedly come under attack while on the job (31 October 2016)

ambos

Melbourne mothers beg magistrate to spare them jail after attacking paramedic (8 September 2017)

“Experienced ambulance worker Paul Judd has not been able to return to work since the violent attack in April 2016 and has required multiple surgeries on his foot.

Amanda Warren, 31, and Caris Underwood, 20, have admitted punching and kicking Mr Judd as he and another paramedic tried to treat a patient in Reservoir.

They have both pleaded guilty to intentionally causing injury, while Warren has also admitted criminally damaging the ambulance by ramming it with a car.”

See also:

Glamorous teen assaults paramedic she calls ‘a white dog’ (1 June 2018). And she’s back in the paper in May 2019 and still being referred to, by the same female journalist, as “glamorous”. Not in my book!

Furious paramedics protest decision not to jail women who beat ambulance worker (16 May 2018) Gee, female judge too – fancy that.

Mums’ ‘vicious’ assault on paramedic lands them in prison (12 December 2017)

Other posts in this blog relevant to this post include:

On violence carried out by women and girls

How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

On the punishment of women and the notion of a ‘pussy-pass’

On chivalry

Feminist myth: Women usually only commit domestic violence in self-defence

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.

Well at least Michael can bring himself to admit that women can be violent. This is certainly the case, and in many jurisdictions such crimes are on an upwards trajectory.

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:

Dividing the Sexes: Misrepresentation of Domestic Violence Statistics in Australia (18 March 2018)

‘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”

From the web site of the Canadian Association for Equality:

“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”

Open letter to the Victorian Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, by the One in Three organisation (17 August 2015) Exaggerating the extent to which female violence is attributable to self-defence

The Gender Paradigm in domestic violence research and theory (2005) Includes coverage of the claim that women engage in violence mainly due to self-defence.

Deconstructing Self-Defence in Wife-to-Husband Violence by Dr Sotirios Sarantakos (Australia)

selfdefence

On masculinity and ‘real men’

Hyper-masculinity? Toxic-masculinity? What is this masculinity thing that is painted as such a blight on society?

But 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 some other alternate position:

Well, America, Gillette’s idiotic ad may have finally turned the tide on ‘toxic masculinity’ (22 January 2019) USA

Masculinity isn’t a sickness (16 January 2019)

Traditional masculinity has been dubbed ‘harmful’ by a major health body (16 January 2019) with related tweet here

Barbara Kay: American Psychological Association declares masculinity an “ideology” (12 January 2019)

You can’t help men by attacking masculinity, by Dr John Barry (27 November 2018)

Male authority – Be a “Man”, by Rollo Tomassi (13 November 2018)

Brown University Offering Programs for ‘Unlearning Toxic Masculinity’ (25 October 2018) See related tweet from James Woods

The fact that we’re considering making misandry a hate crime should concern everyone who believes in equality (17 October 2018)

The mysterious invisibility of men’s good deeds, by Mark Dent (14 July 2018)

Feminism: Toxic Masculinity (26 June 2018)

Why men are refusing to help women and children (6 June 2018) Video (and also take a look at this Jim Muldoon article on the same theme)

How feminists developed ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (14 June 2018)

Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence (25 October 2017)

Charts – Where You Fall on the Alpha / Beta Scale (9 October 2017)

Does the NRL have a culture problem? (13 September 2017) Video

Duke recruits men for program to fight ‘toxic’ masculinity (13 September 2017)

Houston Rescuers Prove the Lie of ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (1 September 2017)

Andrew Cadman: We are paying a high price for the feminisation of Britain (3 August 2017)

Delingpole: Too Much ‘Maleness,’ Complains Feminist Reviewer of ‘Dunkirk’ (2 August 2017)

We’re doomed and only women can save the day (20 July 2017) How men think of, and treat other men, is part of the problem.

SJW DYLAN MARRON GETS OWNED l Response to Unboxing Trump’s America and Masculinity l SJW Cringe (6 July 2017) Video

First police officer at London Bridge attack “was rugby player who took on all terrorists until forced to ground” (4 June 2017) UK

Study: Most Women Like ‘Manly’ Men, Don’t Worry About ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (13 May 2017)

The epidemic of sexless marriage is symptomatic of the modern emasculated husband (undated/2017)

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Trend Blames Boys For Being Born Male (12 April 2017)

Missed a spot, by Dalrock (1 March 2017)

Feminists wage war against romance on Valentine’s Day (14 February 2017)

Gender wars: Is masculinity toxic for boys? (9 February 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked video

Toxic masculinity: Will the ‘war on men’ only backfire? (28 January 2017) Australia. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

‘Toxic masculinity’ is ruining men’s lives, by Corrine Barraclough (26 January 2017)

Dear Feminists, male vulnerability isn’t a virtue (3 January 2017)

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:

Men are weirdly concerned about trans women’s use of female bathrooms according to new study and Drownings blamed on men’s risky behaviour

Male college students to undergo ‘critical self-reflection’ of masculinity (3 January 2017)

Feminist Prof: Cats are the solution to ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (15 December 2016)

To what should males aspire? (15 December 2016)

No Gender December: When did ‘gender’ become such a dirty word? (13 December 2016) Australia

The miseducation of young men, part 3 (9 December 2016)

Why women can’t complain about men (4 December 2016) Video

Masculine white men more likely to be mentally ill, says new ‘study’ (22 November 2016)

Why Colleges Should Stop Teaching “Toxic Masculinity” (16 November 2016)

The False Dichotomy of Feminist Ethics (11 October 2016)

‘Toxic White Masculinity’: What is it all about? (10 October 2016) USA

If gender is a social construct, why aren’t women ever accused of exhibiting toxic masculinity? (9 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

What will feminists accomplish by defining masculinity as toxic and pathological? (8 October 2016)

This Woman Never Looked At Her Fiancé The Same Way After He Abandoned Her During A Violent Mugging: Toxic lack of masculinity? Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

‘Effeminism’ and the War on Boys (23 September 2016)

It’s not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it’s men, by Janey Stephenson (28 July 2016)

Oddly, there has recently been other articles very similar to this one published in different countries, but with ostensibly different authors. See ‘What mass killers really have in common’, by Rebecca Traister (17 July 2016) and ‘One group is responsible for America’s culture of violence, and it isn’t cops, black Americans, Muslims or rednecks. It’s men‘, by Melissa Batchelor Warnke

And here is an MRA response to the type of article listed above: ‘The bizarre feminist response to Islamic terror in Orlando‘ (27 July 2016)

I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out (11 March 2016)

Joy of Masculinity (9 June 2016)

YouGov Poll: Only 2% of men aged 18-24 feel masculine (20 May 2016) UK

The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis (9 May 2016)

As a female college student, what can I do to empower my male friends who are (seemingly) very emasculated and don’t stand up for themselves? (9 May 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Masculinity isn’t toxic — our attitudes to it are’ (8 May 2016) UK

Violence in Men vs Women. Things aren’t how they seem (6 May 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Miranda Devine: Stop telling boys to act like girls (24 April 2016) Australia

39 Things Women Will Just NEVER Understand About Being A Man (14 April 2016)

Shaming Men Doesn’t Build Healthy Sexuality (9 April 2016)

New York Times: ‘Teaching Men to be Emotionally Honest’ (4 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Toxic Femininity and Heroism (14 March 2016) Australia

Female counselor says men are increasingly ashamed of their masculinity (28 January 2016) UK

European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings (27 January 2016)

How the European male was turned by the feminist into a “WIMP, PUSSY, AND MANGINA”, is it on it’s way here? (25 January 2016)

European men now being criticized for their lack of masculinity (25 January 2016) Video

Although the vast majority of people who risk their own lives to save others are men, this BBC article doesn’t mention that this is mostly a male behaviour. Every time there’s a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, feminists blame “toxic masculinity”. Why they don’t talk about ALTRUISTIC MASCULINITY? (5 December 2015)

Audio: Karen Straughan’s brilliant lecture on “toxic masculinity and toxic femininity” at SFU (21 November 2015)

Question to feminists regarding “toxic masculinity” (29 July 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Male Definition of Masculinity Is a Surprise – Toxic Masculinity Debunked (2008) with reddit discussion thread here

Feminism’s Real Target is Masculinity (December 2014)

It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether (29 October 2015) Nauseating pieces penned by mangina journo for The Guardian, but which attracted plenty of reader’s comments

“Toxic Masculinity” is hate speech. Full stop. It pathologies maleness and attempts to link violence to men’s culture. Feminists discussing “toxic masculinity” is little different than white supremacists attacking “ni**** culture” and “black violence” Reddit mensrights discussion thread (15 October 2015)

‘Real men don’t hit women’: The big problem with Malcolm Turnbull’s anti domestic violence message (10 October 2015) Australia. I agree with the prolem with the ‘real men’ message, but much about this article is wrong, not least the assertion by Michael Salter that female violence only occurs in the context of self-defence, and that the fact that most people in jail are male is proof that men are responsible for most crime.

Salon blames Oregon shooting on ‘traditional masculinity’ (9 October 2015)

Are today’s standards for being a ‘real man’ leading to violence against women? (8 October 2015) Australia. But what of violence BY women?

How to stop mass shootings (2 October 2015) and related https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3n8xmn/new_from_milo_yiannopoulos_on_the_root_cause_of/

Vanderbilt Women’s Center to Lecture Men on ‘Healthy Masculinities’ (31 August 2015)

Masculinity and Violent Behavior: A Complex, Combustible Relationship (25 August 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Masculinity is more than a mask, by Christina Hoff Sommers (13 January 2014)

What would happen if no men showed up for work today? (17 September 2013)

masculinity

Further sources yet to be reviewed:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dx2xLaLHZocC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=sociopathy+and+hypermasculinity&source=bl&ots=QVAdycmNbP&sig=mvQqp40-RZyqI1E3bF9Px4oAPEY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BXd7VK7ZAsfh8AWm9YK4CA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sociopathy%20and%20hypermasculinity&f=false

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6760256&fileId=S0140525X00039686

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=sluqacUK9mQC&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=sociopathy+and+hypermasculinity&source=bl&ots=OayNvsrL8h&sig=c9B_araQjFku6qB7DU7IZlefCqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BXd7VK7ZAsfh8AWm9YK4CA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sociopathy%20and%20hypermasculinity&f=false

built_by_men

Further posts within this blog that may be of interest:

On being male or female (incl. innate differences, stereotyping and so on)

The Elliot Rodger tragedy co-opted as a feminist bandwagon

*That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

This blog post follows an earlier post of mine entitled ‘Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support‘. That item discussed the gender bias that is very evident in a particular WA Government web page promoting a domestic violence helpline service.

The same WA government web page was also the focus of this reddit mens rights discussion thread. Within that thread I came across an interesting post from someone with the moniker ‘dragonsandgoblins’. It’s interesting not just in relation to the information about domestic violence that it contains, but also because of how it demonstrates the censorship that occurs in relation to efforts to broaden the DV debate beyond the feminist-framed male perp/female victim model.

Anyway, this is what the author had to say:

“I actually wrote an article inspired by this exact webpage in 2013 that was published by http://rightnow.org.au/. Or at least it was published for about 4 hours before they pulled it. I’ll copy/paste it here because people may as well read it:

This webpage, hosted by the Government of Western Australia Department for Child Protection, contains two short paragraphs describing the domestic helpline services provided by this state government. The women’s helpline offers a range of services for women experiencing domestic violence. The men’s helpline on the other hand is more singularly focused, only offering counselling, and only for “men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive“.

The Government of WA does not offer a helpline service to male victims, instead assuming that women are the only victims and that men will always be the perpetrators. This is despite a growing body of evidence that males do suffer from domestic and family violence in significant numbers. For example, the Personal Safety Survey (2006) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that, 780,500 women and 325,700 men aged 15 years and over experienced violence from a current or previous partner in the last twenty years. In other words, 29.4 per cent of victims who suffered domestic violence were men. 92.5 per cent (301,400) of these male victims suffered this violence at the hands of a female partner.

The Publications and Resources webpage from the Government of WA provides domestic violence resources aimed at the general public and they are as gendered as the helpline services. Out of the “Freedom From Fear” resources, three fact sheets and one booklet are targeted at the violent party and, excluding the fact sheet “How do I know if I’m abusive?”, they all use gendered language that exclusively refers to the violent party as male and the victim as female. All of them bear subtitles describing themselves as being “for men who want to change”, with no reference to women who may want to do the same. The fact sheet aimed at victims also uses the same gendered language.

WA isn’t alone. For example, NSW Legal Aid offers a Domestic Violence Practitioner Service and a Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Program which aid women and children who are victims in legal matters such as getting Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) and victims’ compensation. The NSW Government Family & Community Services Staying Home Leaving Violence program “…aims to prevent homelessness by working with the Police to remove the perpetrator from the family home so that women and children can remain safely where they are.” If the NSW Government offers similar programs specialising in male victims, I was unable to find them.

The federal government also discriminates against male victims. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (The National Plan) paints a pitiful picture of the federal stance on male victims. Along with use of gender biased language The National Plan has seen the Commonwealth commit $86 million to support women and children who are victims and only $0.75 million to male victims. This discrepancy in funding is justified through the use of misleading statistics from the ABS Personal Safety Survey.

The section of the page that discusses male victims provides statistics that only 4.4 per cent (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey were assaulted by a current/previous partner compared with 31 per cent (73,800) of women who were physically assaulted. This is misleading because it doesn’t compare the quantity of male victims to female victims – instead it compares what percentage of all assaults against men were domestic violence to what percentage of all assaults against women were.

Looking at just these numbers – 21,200 male and 73,800 female victims – the divide in funding is twenty-five times greater than the divide in victims. The National Plan claims only “a small proportion of men are victims“, yet the ABS survey shows that they are roughly a quarter of all domestic violence victims. Is that really such a minority as to warrant less than one per cent of the funding committed under The National Plan?

Our state and federal governments are perpetrators of gender discrimination. Those discriminated against are not only men, they are victims. Victims who are denied services and support they need based on their gender.

(I apologise for the fact that some of the figures are out of date (for example I am pretty sure the funding disparity under the national plan has increased since 2013), and any dead links. This is presented unaltered from when it was written in 2013.)”

The author of the paper was then asked “Why was it pulled?” and responded:

“Well it was refined by 3 of their editors and myself before going up. After a while one of them was contacted by the editor in chief who pulled it and asked me to make changes such as explicitly mentioning that women are victims more than men (which I do already, since I actually state numbers), saying that I didn’t want funding for women reduced, and calling DV a gendered crime. He also said that I could be “more critical in relation to statistics”. Note that I only take stats from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, hardly a biased source. He also wanted me to mention that women under report DV. He also said and I quote:

…[the article] can be understood as arguing “men are being discriminated against in favour of women”.

I replied and said that I could make some of these changes but my word count ceiling would need to be increased. I said that I’d be happy to say women under report but I wouldn’t say that without mentioning that men under report too. I also said that I couldn’t avoid the theme that “men are being discriminated against in favour of women” because that is the thesis of the entire piece.

I get the feeling the editor in chief never wanted my article to go up at all because without further discussion he decided that even with changes my article shouldn’t be published because.

Your responses suggest to me that it is likely that even with changes, your article will not be suitable for Right Now. The primary reason for that is that you principally concerned with “the numbers”, as you put it, rather than the human rights debate. This means that you miss the point that these services for female victims of violence are not simply about statistics (the fact that more women are victims of violence in domestic contexts then men) but also about socio-cultural male dominance

In other words, these services exist not only because of the quantity of violence against women, but its gendered nature.

So there’s the rub.

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

Many among the media, and the political and bureaucratic elite seem to get quite a hard-on about awareness campaigns. Indeed, some have suggested that such campaigns are a favoured device of the prevailing leftist/feminist hegemony. This despite the fact that the effectiveness of such campaigns is often difficult to assess. Or perhaps it’s because of that.

The American political philosopher Thomas Sowell observed “We should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.” (Source)

Ah, but not all awareness campaigns are the same. Campaigns concerning issues that are pivotal to the feminist cause are beyond reproach. Mild criticism is however tolerated in the case of campaigns on less ideologically revered topics.

A very different reaction to two public awareness campaigns

It’s May 2015 and the Australian federal government has released its annual budget. It proposes substantial allocations to two separate public awareness campaigns. One relates to drug use, specifically crystal methamphetamine – or ‘ice’ ($9 million). The other relates to domestic violence ($7 million).

Plenty of people have lined up to criticise the first campaign on the basis, for example, that it’s unoriginal, focuses too much on scare mongering, is unlikely to be cost-effective, and might even be counter-productive.

On that last point, one article included the statement that “When an ad is on television for a particular illicit drug, we know afterwards young people think it must be really, really common and so therefore it can increase their perception of how normal it is.”

In contrast the only public criticism that the domestic violence campaign has been subject to, is that not enough money has been provided. It is probably no coincidence that the feminist lobby is heavily invested in the DV campaign, but not the other.

So just how many parallels, if any, are there between the two campaigns?

The drug campaign was also discussed in an article entitled ‘Awareness campaigns need to target the real victims of ice” (13 May 2015), which noted that:

“International evidence suggests such “awareness” campaigns are not the most appropriate way to address harmful methamphetamine use. In fact, fear-based approaches can increase stigma which possibly drives people away from, rather than towards, treatment.”

The article proceeds:

“Australian media outlets and politicians claim we’re facing a nationwide “ice epidemic” …  the most up-to-date research estimates that the proportion of Australians who have used any type of methamphetamine (ice, “speed” powder) in the previous year has remained relatively stable for at least the last decade.

Nevertheless, the government and media’s continued use of hyperbolic language – in addition to a tendency to ignore and sometimes dismiss public health experts’ advice on ice – has the potential to incite unnecessary fear and misinform the public about this supposed “menace”.”

So there’s our first parallels, for neither campaign will be targeted and in both cases Australian media outlets and politicians are making exaggerated claims about an emerging epidemic.

The article then goes on to question whether the personal and public threat posed by drug use (as compared to the extent of drug use) has also been exaggerated.

The article states: “We need to accurately define the issue, including the nature and extent of methamphetamine use and related harms in rural and regional areas, to allow the development and implementation of cost-effective, evidence-based and timely responses.”

A further parallel is that the debate about domestic violence likewise does not accurately define the issue, focussing as it does wholly on uni-directional violence by men against women. I would also argue that the policy response is not evidence-based but rather driven by the ideology of those most heavily invested in the issue.

The article then goes on to talk about the success of health-related public awareness campaigns, noting that some “are costly, ineffective and possibly even counterproductive”.

In one example cited “The findings of one study suggest that the Montana Meth Project might actually increase acceptability and decrease perceptions of risk relating to using methamphetamine.” Elsewhere it noted that “fear-based approaches can lead to stigma and poor health outcomes, such as from reduced treatment-seeking.”

The article concludes with a discussion of the value of an alternative or supplementary strategy, that of “harm minimisation”. It notes:

“Because people will choose to engage in drug use (both licit and illicit) regardless of the policies and programs in place, we need to encourage them to do so as safely as possible. We also must continue to inform the public about options for managing drug-related consequences and appropriate and available means for professional support, such as telephone and internet counselling”.

The concept of ‘harm minimisation’ also applies to domestic violence when we consider the prevalence of bi-directional violence, as shown in the diagram below, and the fact that domestic violence may persist from one generation to the next. Perhaps we need to resign ourselves, that in some situations it may be more effective to focus more on the provision of short-term shelter accommodation, the removal of children into care, etc.

IPV-Truthwgray

Assuming there are parallels between awareness campaigns for drug use and domestic violence, then why have the same criticisms not been raised in relation to the latter?

Indeed, why has no criticism at all been directed at those spending large amounts of taxpayer funds on domestic violence awareness campaigns? Doubly so, given that there have been many previous awareness campaigns undertaken, and that these all appear to have achieved little in terms of effecting a remedy for the problem.

Is this lack of criticism because those in positions of influence truly believe in the value of such campaigns, or is it simply a reflection of wishful thinking and/or the very real fear of feminist backlash against dissenting voices?

Do public awareness campaigns even work?

Many public organisations love awareness campaigns because for minimal work they provide maximum profile (i.e. ‘look at us doing something about the problem!’). Just engage a marketing consultant, agree on a logo, and begin advertising.

The jury is out, however, on their effectiveness – in part because many public awareness are not subject to proper evaluation. This is probably, in part, because of the factor noted above – they are often created at short notice for reasons of political expediency.

It is known however that some types of awareness campaigns are more likely to be successful than others:

“Some police agencies participate in domestic violence awareness campaigns and school programming, such as classroom instruction to teens about dating violence and ways to handle conflict. Domestic violence prevention messages may target the general population or specific populations. For example, campaigns may be designed to encourage victim reporting, deter potential offenders, or raise the consciousness of potential witnesses of abuse (neighbours, friends, relatives). However, the effect of these prevention strategies is unknown.

For instance, few of the programs developed to reduce teen dating violence have been evaluated, and of those that have, there have been mixed results. Although some report an increase in knowledge in the targeted population and greater familiarity with available resources to help victims, this does not necessarily translate into a reduction in the incidence level of dating violence.

† The Lancashire (United Kingdom) Police Constabulary placed messages about domestic violence on police vehicles, beer glass coasters in bars, utility bills, and lampposts, and used radio advertising to increase awareness of domestic violence.

As a rule, prevention is more likely to work if highly targeted. General campaigns are not typically effective. Highly targeted campaigns that focus on a specific target group or geographic area can have some impact. Offender-oriented campaigns, which are designed to raise potential offenders’ perceptions that there will be meaningful consequences to battering, are more likely to be effective than campaigns that appeal to potential offenders’ morals.” (Source)

See also:

What’s the point of sexual harassment training? Often, to protect employers (17 November 2017) This research found that sexual harassment training could actually produce the opposite result to what was intended.

Marriage vote: how advocacy ads exploit our emotions in divisive debates (13 September 2017) Now transpose the views expressed here across to domestic violence awareness campaigns, with the ‘yes’ lobby being those challenging the status quo by seeking a non-gendered approach to the issue. Again, “the ‘no’ campaign has many unfair advantages”. Though I suspect, most likely, not in the eyes of the typical reader of ‘The Conversation‘.

Feminist academics take issue with a women’s fitness awareness campaign (13 August 2017) Don’t exercise as men will look at you. A Mark Latham video

How Australia’s discrimination laws and public health campaigns perpetuate fat stigma (11 July 2017) “Fat-shaming” awareness campaigns don’t work and are reprehensible (… but male-shaming campaigns do/aren’t?) Of course this nothing to do with where the issue of focus falls on the leftist/PC acceptability spectrum.

What if Mandatory “Sexual Respect” Classes are Counterproductive? (21 September 2016)

What good is ‘Raising Awareness’? (21 April 2015) USA

Are social marketing campaigns effective in preventing child abuse and neglect? (October 2010) Australia

And what if the campaign message is inaccurate and/or biased?

Another reason why a campaign might be counter-productive is when the information it disseminates is inaccurate and/or biased. This is a real danger with a topic like domestic violence, the debate concerning which is tightly-controlled by one group who maintain a very particular and inflexible ideological stance on the  matter.

It is highly likely that the campaign that eventually emerges will focus solely, or almost solely, on men’s violence towards women. Issues like bi-directional violence, domestic violence in same-sex couples (especially women), and female on male violence will be ignored or minimised. The focus on gender and control will mean that other factors like social disadvantage and substance abuse will be played down. Political correctness will also rule out consideration of race, ethnicity or religion as potentially relevant factors.

What messages will this send? What biases and stereotyping will this reinforce?

Three examples:

Feminism, Domestic Violence & Spiderman Screenings (12 July 2017)

Video and discussion thread concerning a gender-biased awareness campaign in Victoria, Australia (17 January 2017)

The UK Home Office ‘Disrespect Nobody’ campaign included this TV advert which failed to acknowledge female perpetration of abusive behaviours.

Other sources that may be of interest:

‘Ice Wars’ message is overblown and unhelpful (14 February 2017)

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Just have one feminist organisation (a recipient of substantial public funds) evaluate the effectiveness of a program of similar allied organisation. What could go wrong with that?

Miranda Devine: Stop telling boys to act like girls, by Miranda Devine (24 April 2016) Australia

Some early reaction, on mensrights reddit, to the new Australian DV ‘awareness’ campaign (24 April 2016)

Get ready for some good old male-bashing (22 April 2016)

What about the mean girls? by Jasmin Newman (21 April 2016) Australia

Australia’s costly new national ‘violence against women’ awareness campaign and some articles that followed its launch:

Prevention of violence against women – finally, an idea whose time has come, by Mary Barry (20 April 2016)
Domestic violence ad campaign to focus on ‘influencers’ in bid to change attitudes (20 April 2016)
Where the new $30 million domestic violence campaign is missing the mark‘. This campaign ignores male victims and female perpetrators, and is based on the flawed assumption that the main cause of DV is attitudes towards women.

Branded for life? Sending the wrong message to young perpetrators of family violence (24 February 2016) Australia. Campaign devised by feminist group ‘Our Watch’ and article published in pro-feminist site The Conversation. Campaign only features male perpetrators, this issue ignored in article.

Fear-based health information makes new mothers anxious (23 July 2015) Australia. Now consider DV campaigns that demonise all men despite them having no control over the small minority of men who abuse. The community seemingly sees no problem with making men feel “anxious” in that situation, even despite the fact that four times as many men commit suicide as do women.

Not just a slick TV ad: what makes a good domestic violence awareness campaign? (23 July 2015)

National $30 million campaign to tackle domestic violence (5 March 2015)

Mark Latham on why Labor can’t get it right on domestic violence (16 May 2015)

$16m for dom violence but $1.2b for terrorism (14 May 2015)

Social Marketing for Preventing Violence Against Women: Making every action matter (June 2013) This paper is written from a pro-feminist pro-awareness campaign perspective, but provides a useful list of many previous awareness campaigns. It fails to provide serious/objective evaluations of individual campaigns or of awareness campaigns generally. Indeed, it’s telling that the only campaign against which it directs criticism is the ‘One in Three‘ campaign that draws attention to male victims of domestic violence. One in Three‘ is an ongoing target for feminist criticism.

 

 

 

Feminists claim domestic violence is caused by ‘rigid gender roles and stereotypes’ (then apply them to men in painting them as perpetual aggressors)

I’d suggest reading the following article and the readers comments that follow it, and then come back for a brief discussion:

Quentin Bryce urges focus on gender inequality to tackle domestic violence (6 April 2015)

Firstly, a few words about Quentin Bryce. Quentin is a former Governor-General who recently chaired a state Taskforce into Family Violence the report for which was released in February 2015 (see related blog posts here and here).

Quentin deserves our thanks for performing that role without sticking out her hand for the sort of generous compensation demanded by other prominent talking heads of the Australian Domestic Violence Industry. Quentin was ill-advised, however, to issue statements during the course of the Inquiry that were pre-emptive and prejudicial, and which clearly signalled her own personal anti-male and pro-feminist agenda (example1example2).

In the article linked above Quentin reiterates a key element of the feminist narrative as it is applied to the issue of domestic violence, that:

“Domestic and family violence is caused by unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women, it’s about the rigid gender roles and stereotypes that characterise our society, and the culture and the attitudes that support violence against women”

Domestic violence does indeed involve an unequal distribution of power, but where feminists get it wrong is that the man need not be the partner wielding the power. The feminist perspective also ignores the reality of domestic violence affecting same-sex couples.

Feminists cling to this notion however because it dovetails with a theoretical framework that they rely upon so heavily, known as the Duluth model.

According to the Duluth Model, “women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society.” The program’s philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship. Its philosophy is illustrated by the “Power and Control Wheel,” a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. (Source)

An excellent rebuttal of proponents of the Duluth model recently penned by South African MRA Jason Dale is well worth reading, with some further criticism here. A further study illustrating the ineffectiveness of the Duluth approach is provided here.

What galls me most, however, is the mind-numbing hypocrisy of feminists asserting that the application of “rigid gender roles and stereotypes” promotes domestic violence, whilst their ongoing portrayal of men as perpetual perpetrators relies upon applying those self-same roles and stereotypes. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

And here’s yet another example, an article entitled ‘Stop gender inequality and you will stop domestic violence‘ (3 September 2015)

See also ‘Testing Predictions From the Male Control Theory of Men’s Partner Violence‘ (2 August 2015)

And in closing perhaps you might like to read ‘Always beating up on men‘ by Bettina Arndt.

Elsewhere in the blog you might be interested in:

Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men?

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative