Government Inquiry – Page 2 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

The Queensland government again demonstrates its ‘why bother with men?’ attitude

Their ABC presented us with a telling headline yesterday (29 April 2021):

‘Queensland’s domestic violence taskforce head wants to hear women’s stories of reporting abuse‘ (Source)

It began with “The head of a Queensland domestic violence and justice taskforce says women’s experiences reporting abuse to police will be looked at as part of the wide-ranging review, more than a week after the horrific deaths of Kelly Wilkinson and Lordy Ramadan”.

Queensland has had one or more DV task forces before, plus several inquiries, but they still need to hear from Queensland women. (Read about those previous inquiries here). Men, just wait, your turn will come … err … later.

The article went on to mention the names and brief details of some women who were killed in DV-related circumstances. No male victims rated a mention.

It then went on to talk about another possible initiative, women-only police stations. Talk about being seen to be doing something … whilst conveniently pandering to the feminist lobby.

This is not even part-way to being ‘good-enough’. It’s a pathetic embarrassment.

Newsflash: At least one in three victims of domestic abuse are male. You can’t possibly arrive at a workable solution to this violence and abuse by ignoring all the facets that don’t sit comfortably well with the prevailing feminist framework. And thus we haven’t. Just continual shrill calls from the feminist lobby for ‘more please sir’. More taxpayer dollars that is.

And finally they called for public submissions. The closing date for submissions on the discussion paper was 9 July 2021. The Terms of Reference are noted here.

I note that only two out of the eleven Task Force members are male, with participants drawn from academia, the public service, and the domestic violence industry.

See also:

Toowoomba’s Brittany Higgins Wannabee, by Bettina Arndt (31 October 2023)

Queensland Audit Office reports a lack of information sharing in Queensland domestic violence response (10 November 2022) Why am I not surprised?

Queensland study reveals horror rise in men threatening to burn their partners alive (2 August 2022) Data provided by staff of feminist NGO’s (ring any bells?). Authors neglect to mention instances of husbands/boyfriends set on fire by female partners.

1IN3’s submission to the Independent Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence (24 June 2022)

“I’m proud to be part of a government that values women in leadership roles and strives for gender equality. Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Shannon Fentiman, joined me as we released a new Queensland Women’s Strategy 2022-27“ (31 March 2022).

Investing in Queensland Women’s Grants (February 2022)

‘Hear Her Voice’ – the release of the report of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce (2 December 2021) I have just read the associated tweets from Shannon Fentiman MP, the QLD Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Minister for Women, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence (refer @ShannonFentiman) and saw no mention whatsoever of either violent/abusive women and/or male victims of domestic violence.

Queensland domestic violence taskforce proposes 13 changes to legislation including electronic monitoring (msn.com) (27 May 2021)

Inquiry into domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children

The Inquiry (Original version)

On 26 February 2020, the Senate referred an inquiry into domestic violence with particular regard to violence against women and their children to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for report by 13 August 2020.

Further detail about the scope of the inquiry is provided in the terms of reference.

The Inquiry’s home page can be found here.

The Inquiry has been completed earlier than was scheduled and its report is available here.

This article describes the early completion of the report and the adverse reaction it received from the feminist lobby. I have yet to fully read the report, but one useful feature is a brief summary of the many enquiries that preceded it.

From an egalitarian perspective the dissenting report from Senator Rex Patrick is disappointing – and hypocritical beyond belief in terms of what was, wasn’t, and should have been addressed by the Committee.

I note too that the term ‘male victim’ appears only twice in the 44 page report, in each case only as a brief passing reference to recommendations from earlier inquiries.

2. The Inquiry (Revised version)

What do you do when a powerful and vocal part of your audience isn’t happy? Yes, that’s right, you commence another inquiry:

‘Federal Government launches new domestic violence inquiry‘ (31 May 2020)

Parliamentary Inquiry into Family, Domestic and Sexual violence (31 May 2020) Minister Payne’s media release

The deadline for submissions for this inquiry was 24 July 2020, and submissions can be viewed here.

One submission of note is that produced by the ‘One in Three‘ organisation, and here is a link to their subsequent (1 December 2020) verbal presentation

This article discusses the submission by ‘Women’s Safety NSW’ which can be read in full here (see #150). Women’s Safety calls for “$12 billion over 12 years to invest in evidence-based solutions to the nation’s domestic and family violence scourge“.

Those making submissions were asked to address one or more of the topics listed in the terms of reference.

And the outcome thus far? The report was published on 1 April 2021. The ‘One in Three’ organisation, who contributed to the inquiry have advised that progress was made (as is detailed in their media release here).

Australian Federal Family Law Inquiry 2019

“The Federal Government will launch an inquiry into the family law system, after accusations the court system is failing vulnerable Australians.

Coalition backbenchers and the crossbench, including One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, have been calling for an inquiry for some time, arguing the system is too expensive and slow.

The inquiry will be run by former social services minister and long-serving Liberal MP Kevin Andrews.” (Source)

The feminist lobby and their domestic violence industry took great umbrage at this announcement. And so it began.

The Committee’s home page can be found here, and details concerning the making of submissions can be found here.

The first specific matter that the feminists got upset about was Pauline Hanson’s reference to the practice whereby some women make false claims against their former partners in family court, esp. in relation to domestic violence and sexual assault (refer example of outrage in the media).

In terms of topics related to the treatment of victims, another issue was that of couples counselling (related article). The feminist DV Industry is generally opposed to this practice, claiming that it exposes women to additional unnecessary risk. But not everyone was of the same view (related article).

Another curious complaint from various feminist spokespersons was that there had been too many inquiries, and the proposed inquiry was both unnecessary and would delay progress. This is extraordinary given the ongoing vocal urging for more inquiries/commissions/etc despite the many state and federal inquiries that have taken place – particularly related to domestic violence. A number of these inquiries can be seen listed in the relevant section of my Table of Contents page.

Submissions to the Family Law Inquiry have now closed, and a final report was due to be submitted in October 2020. On 31 August 2020, both Houses of Parliament agreed to extend the reporting date to the last sitting day in February 2021. An interim report was subsequently released on 7 October 2020.

Winner takes all, by Bettina Arndt (8 February 2023)

Greg Ellis shares harrowing story after ’10-word lie’ ruined his life overnight – Mirror Online (25 July 2021) An overseas example of family law in all it’s glory

When facts don’t matter (22 July 2021) By Sarah Phillimore UK (Posted here for background interest regarding feminist corruption of the family law arena)

1IN3’s Questions on Notice for Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System (19 October 2020) Re: Issuing of domestic violence orders against abusive women

Transcript of One in Three’s appearance before the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System (15 October 2020)

Mounting anger around the Family Law inquiry (29 June 2020)

Activists attempt to shut down the family law inquiry (19 March 2020)

Women lie about DV attacks: Inquiry told (12 March 2020)

One in Three’s submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System (24 January 2020)

B.C. psychologist apologizes for one-sided opinion in family court (14 January 2020) How many Australian ‘professionals’ are providing similar support to mothers?

How abuse of violence orders corrupts our family law system, by Augusto Zimmermann (11 November 2019)

Help make sure the family law inquiry exposes the real issues, by Bettina Arndt (1 November 2019) The closing date for submissions to the Inquiry is 18 December 2019

The Family Court does need reform, but not the way Pauline Hanson thinks (28 October 2019) As is often the case with these pro-feminist items, the material in the readers comments is more valuable than the article itself. Or at least the comments that haven’t yet been removed by the moderators, which is common practice at The Conversation. This here is a Twitter thread that might well present a wider range of views.

Joe Hildebrand: ‘Deadliest of lies’ we keep swallowing (27 October 2019) Australia

Pauline Hanson should be replaced on family law inquiry, Rosie Batty says (23 October 2019)

Rosie Batty launches alternative to government family law enquiry (23 October 2019)

A counsellor writes to the Family Court inquiry (18 October 2019)

Zali Steggall and family law: Part of the disease, not the cure (30 September 2019) Australia

Kevin Andrews refused to condemn Hanson over ‘lying’ women claim (24 September 2019) Australia

Thousands misusing abuse orders to get legal aid, says parenting charity (3 July 2018) UK

Domestic violence offenders use child custody orders to abuse ex-partners (3 January 2016) “Men who manipulate the system and abuse their partners”. Of course, only men do that, right? And it’s ok to label men that way, because I mean everyone knows we’re not taking about *all* men.

In closing, how many, if any, of the following groups explicitly represent fathers/men and/or male victims of domestic abuse? How many have anything approaching gender equality with regards to their board and/or their staff?

Other posts in this blog that you might find relevant include:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

The sham that is the Australian ‘Same Sex Marriage’ vote

The federal Marriage Act Sect 46(1) always required celebrants to provide a definition of marriage as part of the ceremony. The wording required is “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life“, or “words to that effect” (Source)

The percentage of the Australian population who self-identify as gay or lesbian is uncertain, but is probably in the range of 4-6%.

This month Australians were given the opportunity to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage (‘SSM’) in Australia via a postal survey. The postal survey asked a single question that question could only be answered with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’. The question was “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”.

I voted ‘no’, and no, it’s not because I am hateful or homophobic. Does that make me a hypocrite or a liar? No it doesn’t, and I think it’s simplistic to the point of childishness for anyone to suggest otherwise.

My primary concern is in relation to the process, including the troubling precedent it sets for future political and legal ‘reform’. As the campaign has unfolded I have also become deeply concerned about the behaviour of the media and elements of the ‘Yes’ bloc. On this latter note, see for example this article by Miranda Devine about assaults at Sydney University, the assault on Tony Abbott MP, and the young employee sacked for holding views that differed from those of her employer.

The linked video clips show separate incidents where ‘yes’ voters aggressively harangue people holding ‘It’s OK to vote no’ signs (example 1/example 2/ example 3). Just as with Trump/Clinton supporters in USA, it’s not the conservatives (typically labelled ‘far right’) who are behaving aggressively.

And now we’re told that ‘no’ voters can’t help it because they’re too stupid.

Some readers will be asking “How is this a men’s issue?“. No doubt there are gay men who would appreciate having the option to marry in preference to the alternatives already available to them. I mean them no disrespect. I was motivated to write this post mainly due to the parallels with how the broader gender debate is playing out, recognising this to be a major obstacle to achieving recognition of men’s issues and true gender equality.

The SSM postal vote is far from being a worthy model of the way to create legislation or govern the country. Our politicians must be told this in very clear and unambiguous terms.

At an estimated cost of $122 million it is also an incredibly wasteful exercise. The propensity of our state and federal government to convene Royal Commissions or Inquiries in order to delay or avoid making difficult decisions is a long-standing embarrassment, but compared to the SSM vote they are a bargain.

Further, the SSM vote is almost certain to be ineffective, not least because either the government and/or the ‘yes’ lobby or ‘no’ lobby will not accept the result. In particular, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the ‘no’ vote gets up on the day, then we are set to witness a replay of the Hillary Clinton loss all over again.

As others have already suggested, the process might have had some shred of validity if the government had circulated draft legislation, together with a summary of arguments for and against specific proposed changes. According to Peter Dutton MP and Treasurer Scott Morrison this was a decision of Cabinet.

A draft bill was prepared some time ago, but I understand that no commitment has been made that this version will be put up for parliamentary vote should the ‘yes’ vote prevail.

The voting paper asks “Should the law be changed …?” What will an answer to a question this vague tell our politicians that they could not judge for themselves in the context of a parliamentary vote?

So exactly how will the primary enabling legislation (the Marriage Act) be changed? What other legislation and regulations will subsequently need to be amended, and in what manner? What will be the likely tangible flow-on effect of these changes for ordinary Australians, for example in terms of financial costs/benefits?

If this were about a major infrastructure project then all relevant facts (or at least, estimates) would be set out for objective consideration. Instead the scope of discussion in relation to same-sex marriage has been, for the most part, remarkably narrow. Alternately tugging on heart strings/shaming those with alternative views, or dishing out some bible quotes, does not constitute an intelligent political debate.

Why so little discussion, for example, of what has happened in those countries that have approved SSM? (see here for discussion of the UK example, with related comments by Rowan Dean here)

Along with an abundance of predictable and sometimes shrill PC frou-frou, a few thoughtful pieces have appeared in the media. One example is ‘Liberals find scant refuge in a surrender to identity politics‘ by Greg Sheridan.

“The destructiveness of identity politics is that it poisons relations between human beings by claiming that historic injustices require civic inequalities to remedy them today. This requires that some groups be classified as victims and others as villains”

Parliament of Australia briefing paper on Same Sex Marriage (undated)

Howard rejects PM’s vow on religious freedom (29 September 2017) A copy of John Howard’s full page newspaper advert is provided below

The failure of ‘Yes’ to control its militant wing (27 September 2017)

Same sex marriage in Australia – why I have to vote ‘No’ (26 September 2017) Video

The definitive guide to the gay marriage debate (21 September 2017)

“Because part of this strategy is to provoke an equally irrational response from the Yes campaign”. Joe, wake up to yourself mate! No-one is manipulating the ‘Yes’ bloc into performing their special brand of craziness. No-one needs to – it’s what people in this sociopolitical milieu do now. And not just with this issue, but many others. For a recent Australian example just look at my post regarding the ‘Red Pill’ movie.

Same-sex marriage: Yes, but spare the virtue-signalling (19 September 2017)

‘It’s not okay to be homophobic’: Canberra contractor sacked for ‘vote no’ Facebook post (19 September 2017) What is happening to our country when people feel justified in jettisoning our open and democratic way of life in their quest to virtue-signal and shame.

Gay audience member shuts down MP’s argument against same-sex marriage (19 September 2017)

On the issue of conflating the right to marry with other issues, which Mr Lau had also raised, Ms Wong said conflating issues was a tactic of the “No” campaign. “The ‘No’ campaign is finding every other issue to talk about,” she said. “It’s a deliberate scare campaign, and I think it’s a tactic Australians are seeing through. And it’s a disappointing tactic.”

Leftists/feminists have no problem with conflating issues when it suits – the most common being the feminists=women furphy. In this case what Penny is really railing against is that other related issues might be considered, issues outside of the narrow parameters for debate approved by people such as herself.

Sure some of these factors will be over-reach or downright wrong. Most however will be legitimate and deserving of serious consideration in reaching an informed decision on this particular matter. And the many others that will follow.

Another federal government domestic violence inquiry – This one focuses on family law

“On 16 March 2017, a Committee of the Australian Parliament adopted an inquiry into how Australia’s federal family law system can better support and protect people affected by family violence. The inquiry was referred by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis Q.C. The Committee aims to make recommendations that will improve the system for all participants.” (Source)

Members of the public were able to provide feedback in the following ways:

An anonymous online questionnaire, open until 30 June 2017.

Community statements for individuals who wish to discuss their experiences of the treatment of family violence within the family law system with the committee.

Public hearings to gather evidence from stakeholders, including government agencies, non-government organisations, and experts in the policy area.

Written submissions addressing one or more of the terms of reference to be received by Wednesday, 3 May 2017.

The Chair of the Inquiry is Sarah Henderson MP, who is interviewed here on Sky News Australia. In this interview Ms Henderson unreservedly commends the work of Rosie Batty (strike 1), as well as mentioning some of the specific issues to be addressed in the Inquiry.

One such issue was the possibility of creating some sort of nexus between the nature of court orders made in relation to spousal support and property settlement, and the presence or alleged presence of family violence in the relationship. This is described in the Terms of Reference at point 4:

“How the family law system can better support people who have been subjected to family violence recover financially, including the extent to which family violence should be taken into account in the making of property division orders”

Men are already being blackmailed with allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse in relation to child custody matters, and now it seems they will also have to worry about the impact of such allegations on their financial affairs (strike 2). How many more male suicides will this generate?

As of 21 June 2017, 114 public submissions have been uploaded onto the Committee’s web site. I tendered a brief submission which can be accessed here (see submission 113).

The Committee subsequently tabled its report in Parliament on 7 December 2017. The report, which makes 33 recommendations, is available to read on the Committee’s web page at this link. The media release for the tabling of the report can also be found at this link.

Under a 2010 resolution of the House of Representatives, the Government is required to respond to the report within six months. When the Government has provided a response it will be made available on the Committee’s web page.

Related media articles:

One in Three Campaign supplementary submission to Federal Parliamentary Inquiry published (24 October 2017)

Lone Fathers President To Address Parliament Inquiry On DV (28 July 2017)

‘Good men doing nothing‘ by Bettina Arndt (9 May 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread (see comment by ‘SantaOrange’)

Domestic Violence Inquiry To Take On The Family Law System (23 March 2017)

Other:

Greg Ellis shares harrowing story after ’10-word lie’ ruined his life overnight – Mirror Online (25 July 2021) An overseas example of family law in all it’s glory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partner Violence as Female-specific in Aetiology [37]

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

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

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

“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the report of the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence

My initial blog post on this issue, which includes a copy of my submission, can be accessed here. The final report of the Royal Commission can be accessed here.

Men constitute a demographic group the same size as do women. The Commissioners admitted that one in four victims of DV are male (although that’s understating the correct figure). And yet here we see the discussion of male victims tucked away in a section of the report dealing with the needs of various minority groups. I recently observed the same approach being taken in the recent Queensland DV Inquiry.

Still it could have been worse, for male victims didn’t even rate a mention as constituting even a minority group in the Issues Paper produced by the Commission in March 2015 (refer clause 35).

And so in the final Royal Commission report a sub-section entitled ‘Male Victims’ can be found in Volume 5, which includes discussion of each of the following affected groups in the community:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (60 pages)
Older people (32 pages)
Culturally and linguistically diverse communities (32 pages)
Faith communities (10 pages)
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities (26 pages)
People with disabilities (38 pages)
Male victims (10 pages)
Rural, regional and remote communities (22 pages)
Women in prison (14 pages)
Women working in the sex industry (8 pages)

(Men in prison and men working in the sex industry are apparently exempted from involvement in family violence).

At ten pages in length the ‘Male Victims’ sub-section constitutes 0.48% of the bulk of this mammoth 2,082 page report, and features only two of the report’s 227 recommendations. The Commission’s report, by the way, cost $13.5 million.

Recommendation 180. The Victorian Government publicise and promote the Victims Support Agency in any information campaign relating to family violence as the primary source of assistance for male victims. The agency should also provide appropriate online resources for male victims [within 12 months].

Recommendation 181. The Victims Support Agency continue to receive all police referrals (L17 forms) relating to male victims, including after the establishment of the Support and Safety Hubs. The agency and all other relevant support services should develop joint arrangements to ensure that male victims of family violence are supported in obtaining the help they need [within two years].

Forgive me, but after reading these, the earth isn’t exactly moving for me. You’d think that if the Commissioners were only going to allocate two recommendations specifically in relation to the needs of male victims, then they might have come up with something a little more incisive and substantial than these.

One only has to read as far as the second paragraph of the ‘Male Victims’ section to see male victimisation being minimised. Do you recognise the following gem of many earlier pro-feminist reports/papers on domestic violence?

“Violence by women towards male partners is generally less severe than that of men towards their female partners.” (No citation provided)

On p209 I note the statement “A lack of data makes it difficult to determine the extent of the service gap for male victims of family violence.” And yet no subsequent recommendation that suitable research be undertaken.

Then on p210 “A number of men expressed a particular sense of injustice in connection with family violence intervention orders. In particular, some said the justice system was unable to differentiate between ‘true perpetrators’ of family violence and those men who were ‘set up’ by a female partner.

Conversely, the Commission heard that it was common for male perpetrators of family violence to blame their situation on unfair legal processes, rather than accepting responsibility for their own behaviour.” (The latter attributed to community legal service with no evidence provided of statistical validity)

My initial impression of the report prior to undertaking a more thorough reading?

I’m disgusted. By no means surprised. But most definitely disgusted.

With regards to its treatment of male victims, the Commission’s report represents nothing more than a token effort at providing a semblance of the level of support and compassion provided for female victims of domestic violence.

We really do still have a very long way to go to achieve gender equality and justice in this regard.

The most positive aspects of the report I can see thus far are that:

- Some attention was given to the need for greater oversight, review and performance measures in the provision of domestic violence services. This is an issue that I addressed in both my submission, and in my blog post in relation to the Domestic Violence Industry.

Some attention was given to the significance of the impact of domestic violence (and presumably child abuse and neglect) on children with regards to its effect in creating a generational cycle of abuse. This is, I believe, a causal factor which is far more significant that gender inequality. (Postscript: Unfortunately however it seems that the rapporteurs have even managed to apply gender bias to this issue – see comments below from Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation)

Newsflash 24 Sept 2023: Family violence roles axed in public service purge

Newsflash 6 March 2022: Anti-male gender bigotry is now VIC Gov’t policy

Video and discussion thread concerning a gender-biased advertising campaign (17 January 2017)

Victoria Is Spending More Money On Domestic Violence Than The Federal Government (15 July 2016)

Urgent Family Violence Investment Will Help Keep Women And Children Safe (13 April 2016) Only one mention of the word “men” here, and that is in relation to behaviour change programs fos abusive men. Male victims and/or female perpetrators? Erased

‘Silent victims’: royal commission recommends better protections for child victims of family violence (1 April 2016)

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence needs to think about her own family history (1 April 2016)

Family Violence royal commission proposes policing, social services, courts overhaul (31 March 2016)

Royal Commission into Family Violence: fixing the culture starts now (31 March 2016)

Royal commission calls for complete overhaul of Victoria’s family violence services and responses (30 March 2016)

Family violence: Portrait of an abuser (30 March 2016)

Royal Commission into Family Violence: what you need to know (30 March 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminism. Hypocrisy. Got it

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

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

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

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

OMG. Another domestic violence inquiry. And they sure have loaded the dice with this one

The inquiry that I am introducing in this post follows hard on the heels of another federal Senate inquiry into domestic violence. My submission to that earlier inquiry can be accessed in this blog post. There have also been several recent inquiries conducted by state governments.

The current federal inquiry is known as the Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality. It is being considered by a Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration known as the ‘References Committee’, the membership of which is listed here.

The proposed terms of reference of the inquiry are to examine:

Domestic violence and gender inequality, with particular reference to:

The role of gender inequality in all spheres of life in contributing to the prevalence of domestic violence;
The role of gender stereotypes in contributing to cultural conditions which support domestic violence, including, but not limited to, messages conveyed to children and young people in:
1. the marketing of toys and other products,
2. education, and
3. entertainment;
The role of government initiatives at every level in addressing the underlying causes of domestic violence, including the commitments under, or related to, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; and
Any other related matters.

As can be seen, these terms of reference were tailored for a feminist audience, and perfectly embrace the feminist narrative on DV. That is, in summary, that DV = men beating on women because patriarchy.

In fact each of these earlier inquiries demonstrated a pronounced pro-feminist bias, and this has greatly curtailed the breadth of issues and potential solutions discussed. Thus whilst some useful ideas were generated, these all fell well within the comfortable confines of what feminists consider to be appropriate policy responses.

As can be seen from its title, this inquiry hones in on one particular issue in the domestic violence debate that is absolutely central to the feminist perspective. The theoretical cornerstone of this is the ‘Duluth Model’ discussed in this email exchange, this academic paper, and in various other posts in my blog.

It is my belief, and one which is shared by many others, that applying this position to most (let alone all) incidents of DV is simply wrong. Focussing on gender inequality is diverting the domestic violence debate around 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Thus all things considered, this inquiry will likely be an utter waste of time and money. So why then bother preparing a submission?

My answer? If people who hold alternative views don’t continue to publicly reject the feminist narrative, then the only voices on the public record will be those of the feminist fright-bats that populate organisations such as these. Not on my watch.

Not if we want effective solutions addressing the whole problem, rather than just more of the same costly inequitable and divisive policy failures.

The closing date for public submissions was 31 March 2016. The reporting date was nominated as being 24 August 2016, but don’t hold your breath for the last federal inquiry ran about a year overtime.

Here is a link to the list of submissions received by the Inquiry. My submission is #48, a copy of which is also available here.

Here is a link to the submission prepared by the ‘One in Three’ organisation