#HeForShe – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Gender bias and wasted opportunities at the 2017 National Family Violence Summit

Today was the second and final day of the National Family Violence Summit. The Summit was facilitated by the Tara Costigan Foundation and sponsored by BaptistCare. An extract from today’s program is shown below:

And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.

How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.

This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.

This is an affront to men everywhere, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where women are now smeared and disregarded in such a manner.

And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.

Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.

The ‘big picture’ of domestic violence comprises substantial numbers of abusive men and women, and of both male and female victims of that abuse. There is also a considerable (yet rarely acknowledged) element of bi-directional violence, where both partners perpetuate abuse.

And what of women’s role in addressing domestic violence, not only as empowered and autonomous individuals, but also in recognition of the fact that many women are also abusive. Not only is there a long-running problem with child abuse by women, but there is also a growing problem with female violence generally. These issues are alternately either excused away (“women are only ever violent in self-defence“), minimised or ignored altogether.

The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.

There have been so many talk-fests and inquiries in relation to domestic violence. Almost without exception their value has been severely compromised by a failure to open the floor to all ideas, especially those contrary to feminist dogma. That appears to have also been the case with the Summit, given that none of the speakers represented a men’s rights group, a father’s group, or an advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence such as One-in-Three.

Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?

The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.

Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.

Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?

I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.

Here are some links to related news coverage:

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims (28 February 2017)

The good thing to come out of horror of Tara Costigan’s murder (1 March 2017)

“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”

The article linked to this Twitter post is entitled ‘Be bullish about investing in women, and … be better at everything‘ by a truly cringeworthy ‘White Knight‘ journalist by the name of Leszek J. Sibilski.

“On the morning of June 14, 2016, I found myself surrounded by 5,000 women as part of the first day of the first United State of Women Summit convened by The White House at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. The #StateofWomen movement brought together activists from all 50 US states and from around the world.”

Firstly let’s just point out that no, there is no corresponding government-supported ‘United State of Men Summit’. Just as there is no corresponding ‘White House Council for Men and Boys’, etc etc. Because? Because? Patriarchy?

“I was honored to attend this historic assembly particularly as there were probably only a few dozen men invited, excluding the secret service detail and support services.”

So, only a small number of mostly elite men were allowed in, and by invitation only. And this muppet felt “honoured” to be at such a forum? What? In contrast I have yet to hear of a conference on men’s issues at which the entry of women was restricted on such a basis. And if there were one, can you imagine the select few female attendees – assuming you could convince them to attend in the first place – subsequently describing themselves as “honoured”? LOL

“I have not forgotten about my own gender. I am the one who constantly reminds our global community that every year on November 19 there is a very important holiday to celebrate: The International Men’s Day!“

Oh, you’re the man, Leszek! And pray tell how much mutual respect and support have you had from your feminist colleagues in relation to that endeavour? Because the typical reaction I encounter is one of disgust and annoyance, along the lines of “oh, it’s men’s day every day of the year!”

“At the end of the summit, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey deliberated about what message the present men should leave with. They both decided, with total agreement from the audience: BE BETTER AT EVERTHING! Be better husbands, be better fathers, be better employers! They all agreed that involving boys and men is critical for the well-being of girls and women in the near and distant future.”

We should all be better at everything Leszek, but we find ourselves in a time where men are held responsible for all things bad whilst women are held accountable for very little indeed. ‘Demonise’ and ‘white-wash’ are the two respective terms that spring to mind.

I would have thought that ‘gender equality’, which is what feminism is mean to be all about, would assert an equal responsibility on women to be better wives, better mothers, better employers, etc. But I’m not seeing any pressure being brought to bear in that regard. And certainly not in your simpering offering.

Turning finally to the question posed in Leszek’s article, the answer is that men are delighted to have women attend conferences learning about and discussing men’s issues. The implied suggestion that men might react otherwise is both sexist and condescending. And indeed many women do attend such events, and their participation is warmly welcomed.

Unfortunately the situation with feminists is somewhat different. Leszek, I suggest you google search for accounts of what has happened when conferences or other forums have convened in Canada or the U.S to discuss men’s issues. As far as the involvement of feminists is concerned, this generally takes the form of disruptive protests including actions such as bomb threats and pulling fire alarms. And this often after attempts to have the function cancelled have failed.

Such is the level of interest in, and respect for, men’s issues shown by the feminist lobby. Society as a whole suffers as a result of their lingering ignorance and bias in relation to the relevant issues, such as are addressed elsewhere in this blog.

Here are some other posts in my blog that are relevant to this issue:

A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”

Feminist efforts to shut down, disrupt and/or denigrate the 2014 Conference on Mens Issues

#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

If the central tenet of feminism is equality then what mens/boys causes have feminists championed recently?

Organisations with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

Here’s a post for Girl Rising and the World Bank: Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes

Oh, and Leszek, this one’s for you: On chivalry

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear.

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men. At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

When even the Prime Minister’s office imposes pro-feminist censorship …

On 4 March 2015 staff of the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, uploaded this post to his Facebook page. It was all about Tony pledging his support to the pro-feminist #HeforShe campaign which I discuss here.

I then contributed my own thoughts on the matter. Oh, wait you can’t see anything. That’s because the site administrator filtered it out of the timeline. I assume this was because he/she is either pro-feminist, or anti-MRA, or both. I can’t think of any other reason, for example, there is no profanity in my post. It was not due to my post containing a hyperlink (many other visible posts include hyperlinks), and I note that there are some fairly strident pro-feminist posts left visible.

Anyway, after I logged into my account, there was my post (visible in the second screen save), just below the post by Henry Poulsen.

That, folks is what you call ideological censorship. Whereas the office of the Prime Minister should be right at the forefront of protecting our democratic right to self-expression, here they are seen to be inhabiting a very different place.

Yet another of the tremendous advances achieved by the feminist movement.

#sarcasm

Malcolm Turnbull (then Minister for Communications) uploaded a very similar post onto his Facebook page on 2 March, and I provided the same response. It’s pleasing to note that in his case my post was not removed.

Ah, but then in September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull was appointed Prime Minister, and guess who suddenly fell into lockstep with the feminist lobby?

“The PM told Today’s Lisa Wilkinson that “the issue of family violence, or domestic violence as it’s often called – which is just violence against women, which is the way I prefer to describe it – is an enormous one.” (Source)

No Malcolm, domestic violence is emphatically not “just violence against women”.

On 24 September 2015 the Prime Minister announced a huge swathe of public funding to address the issue of domestic violence. Here is the media release … you will see that public comments are enabled. That’s great, but unfortunately once the tide of comments turned against the Prime Minister’s position, the moderator stopped uploading all contributed comments (no matter how civil they were).

In the screen-save provided below (from my Disqus account) you can see a number of posts marked “pending”. Thus rather than deleting comments, the moderator simply didn’t approve/upload those critical of the Prime Minister’s approach.

#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’

The last few years have seen a surge of social programs calling on men to step up to the line to perform some pledge or action for the womenfolk. These have been launched by government agencies, pro-feminist not-for-profits and various social media personalities. The foci of these demands for action have related mainly to sexual assault, domestic violence, and employment opportunity.

The #HeForShe hashtag/movement/thing was a reasonably high-profile example of such a campaign from the second half of 2014. The links below provide a small sampling of some of the other campaigns that have been and/or are now taking place:

One Billion Rising, A Call to Men, #YouOKSis, White Ribbon campaign, Polished Man, Red my Lips, Beards Against Abuse, Walk a mile in her Shoes, What Men Can Do, Men Stopping Violence, and #LeanInTogether

Male Champions of Change (also discussed here, here and here) is a home-grown campaign which has now spawned a ‘Female Champions of Change‘ program. And no, the latter campaign was not intended to provide a corresponding support network to champion the welfare of men. Beyond Australia there is a similar program known as Men Advocating Real Change (MARC), mentioned in this article.

Most of these campaigns have been packaged on the basis of selling a message to the broader community that feminists want to be inclusive and work with men to address shared issues of concern. Perhaps feminists realise they now have a serious image problem, having been stung into action by developments like the #WomenAgainstFeminism movement. The problem though is that beneath the shiny wrapping paper, the nature of the various campaigns runs contrary to any notions of equality, mutual respect or inclusiveness.

Firstly these campaigns all seem to be promoted on the basis of overstating men’s responsibility for both causing, and solving, each particular issue. At the same time they underplay or ignore the accountability of women in contributing to the problem, as well as their own responsibility in relation to undertaking any necessary remedial action.

There seems to be a fundamental hypocrisy associated with a movement that claims that women are strong and equal, yet continually demands that men step up to address women’s apparently helplessness in the face of real or imagined adversity.

Secondly, it is telling that no similar movements have been proposed or created by women to support men. In fact, there is no sense of reciprocity whatsoever. Nor is there even public acknowledgement that men might need or deserve similar recognition or support. And heaven help the women who dare to raise awareness of the need to help men & boys (example).

It is, in short, very much a one-way street. Given the many areas of relative disadvantage for men and boys this seems grossly inequitable. The underlying factor here is a culture of gynocentrism, explained here, here and here.

Thirdly, and in what must be a soul-destroying experience for the ‘white knights‘ who flutter around these campaigns like moths to a flame, many feminists resent men who openly support these campaigns. Do read this criticism, by a feminist journalist, of an admittedly ludicrous initiative by male staff of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

And thus whilst we have one group of feminists demanding that men ‘help’ women, other feminists berate them for interfering in women’s issues and/or for seeking thanks/congratulations for being good. This is apparent, for example, in this Facebook post about a recent campaign known as ‘Red my Lips’ … peruse the bitter and angry comments by feminists and other ‘white knights’ directed at men behind the campaign – and men generally.

Change Makers, Indoctrination for Australian men seeking help in becoming a suitably compliant puppy in the workplace (December 2022) And no, there’s no equivalent training available for women.

The archly feminist domestic violence industry does next to nothing for the many male victims of domestic violence and yet males are being called upon to do more to help them (1 March 2020)

Aggrieved Entitlement – women’s reaction to temporary loss of chivalry, by Peter Wright (27 January 2019)

Why haven’t the men of Hollywood spoken up? (11 October 2017)

We Need Fraternity Men to Do a Lot More Than ‘Walk a Mile in Her Shoes’ (4 June 2017)

It’s not enough for men to turn up. They have to do the work, by Clementine Ford (13 March 2017)

Men can stop sex-trafficking (20 January 2017)

Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak? (10 March 2016) Australia. And of course no reciprocal expectation on women to attend events addressing male issues (unless to pull fire alarms and disrupt proceedings). See also my related blog post here.

She for He – Part 1 – Introduction (9 March 2016) Video by Canadian Association for Equality

Most disturbing of all are those instances where men are called upon to aid and abet the indoctrination of boys in feminist doctrine as discussed at ‘We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology‘ (20 July 2015)

Consider next the example of the uproar over University of Tasmania’s ‘women’s officer’ (8 April 2015) Isn’t this also #HeForShe? Why aren’t the women cheering this fellow? Here’s how this story ended – yeah feminism! Further discussion and readers comments here and here

If men owe women chivalry, what do women owe men? (30 November 2015)

NCFM Member Man Up asks Big Brothers Big Sisters of San Diego why they don’t ask women to women up? (25 October 2015)

The 30% Club is coming to Australia, but ‘men speaking for women’ may miss the point (9 March 2015)

Catering to men’s rights is not the point of feminism (15 October 2014) Now that’s telling us! Silly me, I always though feminist was about gender equality

Oh and this is rich. Actress Rose McGowan castigates gay men (“as misogynistic as straight men, or more so“) for not doing more to advance women’s rights in the middle East. More here

We have just seen Julien Blanc tossed out of Australia, a fellow that apparently makes a living running seminars on how to pick up women. I don’t support him or the whole PUA thing, but yet again I can’t help noticing that men were called upon to deal with him.

Still in Australia, ex-Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce headed a Task Force on Family and Domestic Violence. Submissions to the Inquiry had just closed at the time this article appeared in the pro-feminist Guardian newspaper. It seems that those people who prepared submissions need not have bothered, as Quentin already knew that men were the problem and that the “the key drivers of change should be men and police“. That’s right ladies, no need to lift a finger, off you go and get yourselves a nice cup of tea whilst the menfolk cop all the blame plus the job of making things right.

Michelle Obama urges men at women’s summit to ‘be better’ (14 June 2016) Hmm, I wonder how she would feel if someone got up on a stage and urged black people to ‘be better’? But wait, don’t the klan do that already?

Ooh this is a bit ~~funny~~ naughty – feminists might go blind if they read this

The three reasons I don’t support feminist equality campaigns (13 December 2015)

Why the #YouOKSis “White Feather Campaign” failed … badly (11 December 2014)

White House calls on men to ‘step up’ in sexual assault prevention (19 September 2014) also here

Men have a special privilege of having to help women, I think we should check it (14 February 2015) Article and linked reddit discussion thread

Stella McCartney’s right: Women can use their ‘weakness’ as a form of strength (1 October 2014)

Finally, some blinding irony with the movement called ‘Men Speak Out‘ who “aim to engage men in the process of ending FGM and, on a larger scale, to end violence against women and promote gender equality through a human rights’ approach“. Bearing in mind, of course, the negligible level of interest/activity by feminists in ending the practice of involuntary male circumcision.

Specifically on Emma Watson and #HeForShe

Fans rush to Emma Watson’s defence after she’s branded a ‘hypocrite’ and a bad example of feminism for braless magazine cover (3 March 2017) Hypocrisy

Would any women here be interested in a ‘She for He’ campaign? Reddit discussion thread with further discussion here

The Reality of #GiveYourMoneyToWomen (31 May 2015)

Seven things Tony Abbott should start fixing now that he has joined HeforShe (4 March 2015)

Youtube video #1 concerning Emma Watson’s speech (23 September 2014)

Youtube video #2 concerning Emma Watson’s speech (23 September 2014)

Youtube video #3 concerning Emma Watson’s speech (23 September 2014) See feminist reaction in comments section

The five little words that betrayed Emma Watson, by Ally Fogg (23 September 2014)

Janet Bloomfield talks about #HeForShe (23 September 2014) YouTube video

Sorry, Privileged White Ladies, but Emma Watson isn’t a ‘Game Changer’ for Feminism (24 September 2014)

Resurgence of feminists soliciting for male allies (25 September 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Emma Watson leads the retreat for UN feminism (25 September 2014)

The UN’s risible #HeForShe campaign: Pointless self-flagellation for sex-starved beta males (25 September 2014)

Sorry, Emma Watson, but HeForShe is rotten for men (26 September 2014)

Four reasons I won’t be one of the men signing Emma Watson’s #HeForShe pledge (26 September 2014)

Stefan Molyneux on Youtube about Emma’s speech (29 September 2014)

Emma Watson and the future of feminism (6 October 2014)

#HeForShe was nicely summed up by ‘Mean0Dean0’ in a reddit discussion thread on the matter:

The very concept of “He For She” makes women look like helpless children. This isn’t even “She for She,” implying sisterhood and communal responsibility. This isn’t even “We For She,” which is one-sided and focused on a minority of victims of violence and social problems, but at least community-minded. “He For She” blatantly states that men have all the power (even when they don’t) and that women need men to do their work for them (even when THEY don’t).

It’s regressive and gender-traditionalist and feminist all in one, simultaneously telling women that they can be free to be doctors or lawyers or strippers on poles, so long as big strong men open up all the big heavy doors for them. It’s patronizing to women and insulting to men, and if a man had come up with the hashtag he would have been called out as a patriarchalist traditionalist chauvinist pig. “Let’s help out those less fortunate little ladies, eh guys? Guys???”

Emma Watson – classic hypocrisy (September 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

Women are held accountable for … (say hello to the Teflon Gender)
‘Bristly Woman’ campaign launch
Good manners versus chivalry
I thought women were meant to be more empathetic?

On chivalry

Upon entering the search term ‘feminist good manners’ into google one day, one of the first papers to crop up was one entitled “No chivalry, thanks”.

The author of that article sought to differentiate between the notion of ‘good manners/politeness’ on the one hand and ‘chivalry’ on the other. Her position was that good manners are mostly OK, whilst ‘chivalry’ is bad. I agree with her that chivalry can be a negative factor … but not for the reason she states.

Let’s detour for a moment to visit www.thefreedictionary.com, where upon entering the term “good manners” we bring up the following related words:

courtesy
personal manner, manner – a way of acting or behaving
niceness, politeness – a courteous manner that respects accepted social usage
urbanity – polished courtesy; elegance of manner
graciousness – excellence of manners or social conduct
chivalry, politesse, gallantry – courtesy towards women
respectfulness, deference, respect – courteous regard for people’s feelings; “in deference to your wishes”; “out of respect for his privacy”
civility – formal or perfunctory politeness

The definition of the term ‘chivalry’, on the other hand, includes “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women”, and “kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak”.

Back now to the ‘No chivalry, thanks‘ article where the author takes aim at two criticisms of feminism, which she describes as being:

The “cake and eat it too” complaint: “This anti-feminist argument says that women want to be independent and strong when it’s convenient for them, but they don’t want to lose the option for men to buy them dinner, open doors, and all around make them feel special. We want all the rights afforded to men, but that we also want to be treated better than men. Feminists want special, not equal, treatment, or in other words, they want their cake and to eat it too”, and

The “feminists hate manners!” complaint: “Other anti-feminists have chosen to smack-talk feminism by claiming that any stance which truly speaks out against chivlary (sic) is actually an affront to good manners.”

The author indicates that she’d “like to dismantle these complaints”, but in fact her views only serve to reinforce the validity of those complaints whilst undermining the feminist perspective generally. Her comments include:

The core of my disdain for chivalry is that it’s rooted in a gendered premise. Its very notion is that women need special assistance and wooing, which I flat out disagree with. Given this, I can say fully that I do not want or expect chivalry. In that way, the “cake and eat it too” complaint is nonsense to me. I do not want any person to look at me and treat me differently based off of (sic) my gender, even if that treatment is favourable.

(Mod: My emphasis added. LOL … I think we could readily find a plethora of exceptions to that with respect to feminist goals and achievements generally!)

“The same goes for stereotypes of all sorts–just because something is “nice” (ie Asians are so smart!) doesn’t make it any less racist. So with chivalry, just because it’s “friendly,” doesn’t make it any less sexist.”

“All in all, I simply feel that chivalry and feminism are inherently incompatible. I would never expect to be treated both equally and special. That’s an oxymoron. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that there are women who actually are advocating for both. Yes, some women want chivalry, but I would suspect they do not typically identify as feminists. To me, it seems a to be a straw man situation, as is the claim that feminists are really attacking manners. Nevertheless, it is important for us to understand the arguments used against our viewpoints, no matter how trivial.”

So in short, many feminists abhor chivalry because they perceive it as a pattern of behaviour intended to subjugate and patronise women, and as a manifestation of what they term ‘benevolent sexism‘.

Ah, but it gets confusing. In yet another of their breathtaking displays of hypocrisy, feminists strongly rely upon and encourage chivalry to achieve their goals. Look at all the calls for men to mobilise against other men in stopping domestic abuse and rape. Consider the #HeForShe campaign and many other similar campaigns. In none of these examples do feminists call for, or support, corresponding campaign for women to support men or men’s rights.

In contrast, the core of my ambivalence in relation to chivalry is that:

I believe in gender equality, and chivalry cannot and should not exist where there is true equality
Chivalry is the fuel that drives the actions of ‘white knights’, men who make it their duty to hamper progress on raising awareness and acceptance of men’s rights issues.
Chivalry stands in the way of objective reasoning. Chivalry causes men to conflate the often unreasonable assertions and demands of feminists, with the welfare of women generally. I see this happening in almost every mainstream media article that permits readers to contribute comments, wherein men attack one another in the mistaken belief that any progress on achieving men’s rights is not just a set-back for women, but somehow akin to spitting in their face. If only such men would make an effort to familiarise themselves with not just the specific issue under consideration, but also both the nature of feminism and of men’s rights advocacy generally.

More thoughts on good manners and chivalry

Female Privilege on the Titanic – The Fiamengo File 2.0 (16 May 2022)

No, chivalry is not dead – but it’s about time it was (18 January 2022) I suspect that feminists have no idea of the extent to which the strength of their lobby relies on the continued existence of rampant and endemic chivalry (sans any chivalric expectations re: women’s conduct).

Appalling Twitter thread by woman asserting that male chivalry is a myth based on an analysis of historic shipwreck fatalities, including the Titanic (December 2021)

ICMI2020 video #49 of 126: Martin Caplan – “Men’s leniency towards women at work is fueling the decline of the West” (j4mb.org.uk) (27 May 2021)

Good Samaritan case: Woman who lied about sex assault faces court (15 May 2019)

Aggrieved entitlement – women’s reaction to temporary loss of chivalry, by Peter Wright (27 January 2019)

Two terribly unchivalrous ladies (3 October 2018)

Court sheriff sacked for breaking up a fight between two women (3 October 2018) Australia

Modern dating experiences including ‘ghosting’ and ‘bread-crumbing’ leave three in four women feeling that chivalry is dead (2 August 2017) Women have been doing these things to men since whenever, now more men are giving back the same and it’s suddenly unfair

‘Good Samaritan’ bullied, beaten and called a kidnapper after helping lost child (29 June 2017)

This reader’s comment by ‘SantaOrange’ in a Reddit discussion thread addresses why chivalry is a major constraint to making progress on men’s rights (10 May 2017)

Here’s a recent newspaper item that features a prat-like whinge from a woman who would like men to leave her alone – after they perform whatever service she requires. Presumably men are meant to magically realise that she is a feminist and is not interested in social overtures. But on the other hand they are magically meant to know that although she is a feminist, she does appreciate men helping her by performing manual labour in relation to her overweight carry-on luggage. Perhaps if she held up a sign providing all this information, then men might be more co-operative/compliant. A subsequent online discussion can be found here.

And here is an article on the subject of holding doors open (plus readers comments) in a feminist blog.

Here is an article entitled ‘He also pays for his own dinners‘ that , in a patronising tone, sniffs at the notion of men displaying chivalry and their motivations for doing so. The best thing about the article was this readers comment:

“The most generous and helpful thing a man can do for a woman on an individual level is to hold her accountable – no letting her off because she’s female.

If traditional expressions of chivalry are important to women, let women do them. My girlfriend brought me flowers last night because I had a bad day. Fine. I’ll cook her dinner sometime.

Listen men, chivalry backfires. If you pay for the first date you’re losing a valuable opportunity to screen out the women who will see you as nothing but an ATM machine. And there’s no such thing as paying for a first date anyway. When you pay for a first date, you’re making it cheaper for her to go on another date with somebody else. You’re just subsidizing her search for the perfect man. Do yourself a favour and make women chip in for their quest for Mr. Right.

And men, while we’re on the subject of chivalry, remember you’re not a human punching bag. Make it very clear at the beginning of the relationship: if she ever hits you, screams at you, or calls you names, or tries to humiliate you in front of your friends, or destroys any of your property on purpose, or tries to use sex as a bargaining chip, that’s the end of the relationship, right then, right there. No questions asked. No looking back. Just walk away.

Don’t let your sense of chivalry turn you into a victim. You’re better than that.”

Men are weirdly concerned about trans women’s use of female bathrooms, according to new study (December 2016) How to take a good thing – men’s ingrained protective instinct towards women – and paint it as a negative.

“Men were 1.5 times more likely than women to have concerns about transgender women using women’s bathrooms.”

Man stabbed in Southbank while coming to woman’s aid (25 February 2017) Australia. It appears the female being assaulted left the scene – did you she render any assistance to her rescuer? Don’t be that guy. Timely that this incident occurred the same week as this article in The Conversation.

Dave Chappelle on how women killed chivalry (21 November 2016) Comedy video

Home Hill stabbing: British journalist Tom Jackson attacked as he went to aid of Mia Ayliffe-Chung (26 August 2016) Tom sadly later died from his injuries.

Damseling, chivalry and courtly love (part two) by Peter Wright (17 July 2016)

Belinda Brown: Women exploit men’s chivalrous instincts (12 June 2016)

Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality (8 June 2016) We’re more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.

Where are the stand up men? (29 May 2016) This special snowflake rant earned itself some rather forthright readers comments. Further commentary here.

The Confused Male: Do women really want what they say they want? (3 May 2016) UK

Chivalry: A learned deathwish, by Paul Elam (25 April 2016)

Would you be a Good Samaritan? Chinese kung fu student JAILED after saving woman from sexual harassment on a bus (22 April 2016) China. The woman ran away

Liz Hayes relives terrifying moment 60 Minutes crew were attacked (21 March 2016) Australia. Careful Liz, don’t let the feminists hear you admitting that – it’s kind of the opposite of their precious narrative …

“I just knew, they wouldn’t hit me … I was glad, right then, that I was a woman. I felt they wouldn’t hit me because of that, and that might mean I could slow things down a bit. I’m pretty sure if I was one of the guys I probably would have been hit as well.”

Good Samaritan Norman Olsen dies in hospital (24 February 2016) Australia

Female bouncers, sin bins should be considered as part of lockout laws, psychologist says (19 February 2016) I think female bouncers would be less likely to get punched due (in part) to chivalry, but the idea appears to contradict the feminist position on DV whereby men seen to be just as likely/more likely to hit a woman.

Chivalry and the Law: How Women Get Off, by Krista Milburn (15 February 2016) Recommended reading

Feminism, sex-differences and chivalry (7 February 2016)

Boats for women, by Mark Dent (12 January 2016)

Chivalry still a force to be reckoned with, by Miranda Devine (12 December 2015)

“The most despicable thing about the feminist movement is that it exploits male protective instincts and male virtues such as self-sacrifice for the “greater good” in order to expand female privilege. It doesn’t actually challenge these gender roles in any meaningful sense. But I agree it’s time to put an end to chivalry. The cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in.” (Source)

Man is crushed to death by falling elevator in New York City (1 January 2016)

Video captures man’s attempt to catch woman falling 11 storeys (1 January 2016)

If men owe women chivalry, what do women owe men? (30 November 2015)

YOYO 19: One day a month, stop protecting women (30 September 2015)

The sad reality of today’s male-female dynamic. I have women I love in my life and I wish things were different. It’s sad people have to think twice before helping others (9 September 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Why don’t we have stories about women sacrificing themselves for the men they love? by Janet Bloomfield (9 July 2015)

Men must stop playing by the rules, walk away, and claim their autonomy. The gender contract is null and void. If a new social contract is to be agreed, it must be agreed by free men (18 June 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Model receives death threats after splitting bill on date (22 April 2015)

Chivalry but equality: The feminist double-standard, by Prentice Reid (21 April 2015)

What ever happened to chivalry? by Peter Wright (13 April 2015)

Opinion: Chivalry, not gender politics, dictates who pays for that first date, by Caroline Marcus (12 April 2015) Notice not one reader comment in support of this hypocritical sexist tosh

John Stuart Mill on chivalry (31 March 2015)

Chivalry could indicate hidden sexism, study finds (10 March 2015)

Chivalry isn’t dead: Why feminists still want a gentleman Reddit discussion thread and linked article (15 February 2015)

I’m a Feminist and I Still Want These 7 Gentlemanly Gestures. Do You? (20 February 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

White Ribbon Campaigns: Promoting medieval chivalry (25 November 2014)

And more recently, an article entitled ‘Equality is essential but so is chivalry‘ (Herald Sun 16 June 2014). This one very much in the all rights/no responsibility vein. It starts of bemoaning the fact that nobody stood up for a pregnant woman on a train and then goes on and on from there. The usual feminist theme of … there’s a problem, men caused it, and it’s mens responsibility to fix it … to our specifications. No readers comments were permitted – wonder why? Thank goodness that this MRA made the time to prepare a great rebuttal.

Why women need to start asking men out … because men have no balls (9 September 2014) The author of this incredibly sexist article, notable only for the caustic criticism of the 1,200+ readers comments that follow it, was Lauren Martin.

Jennifer Lawrence Nude Pics Highlight Ongoing Struggle With Chivalry (2 September 2014)

How to be a 21st Century ‘Gentleman’ (12 September 2014) I liked this reader’s comment: “Are there any classes teaching women some basic etiquette, too? Why are we just gripping on men when women need just as much a major make-over on behavior”. This theme is oft repeated – recent versions here and here, and with a rebuttal article here

Feminists and their progressive allies think that children swearing edgy and humorous – provided it’s for a ‘good’ cause (October 2014)

Why I no longer hold doors open for women (9 September 2014)

‘Why didn’t I stop to help a woman in need?‘ (5 August 2014) The article is fairly ordinary but there is some excellent material amongst the readers comments section.

Pantene ‘Not Sorry’ video tells women to stop apologizing so much (18 June 2014)

From “Women assault elderly man” to “Shame on men” in easy steps, by Jim Muldoon (1 March 2014)

Women are fine with sexism … as long as it benefits them (22 October 2013)

The One Good Man (16 March 2011)

Now for the background to this article you’ll need to take a look at this other blog post. In the article feminist author, Lauren Rosewarne, lashes out at those concerned about comments made by a federal parliamentarian. That politician told journalists that she wanted a male partner who was rich, well-endowed and who didn’t talk. Lauren haughtily admonishes us, “today the sane amongst us dismiss such notions as laughably repressive and egregiously controlling.”