It would appear that women are, on average, net beneficiaries of the tax system in most western countries – and by a large margin.
Firstly the contribution to the government’s tax revenue paid by women is dwarfed by that amount contributed by men. This is a reflection, in part, of the gender pay (earnings) gap that feminists are forever banging on about. And for the uninitiated, that gap primarily reflects personal choices rather than active gender discrimination by employers.
Secondly, of that government expenditure that can be seen to benefit one gender over the other, women/girls do extremely well in comparison to government allocations to men/boys.
The discrepancy between the amount of tax revenue contributed by men in Australia, and the extent to which the government invests in agencies/programs supporting men & boys is addressed in another blog post.
I anticipate readers asking ‘well, ok then, point me to definitive statistics to support your assertion’. But, alas, that’s not as easy as it should be. Some statistics for other countries are referenced in the articles below (example), but in Australia one would have to compile such statistics from scratch. This would constitute an onerous task for anyone as I state in a post mentioned earlier. This data gap is no accident, for most politicians and bureaucrats either don’t care or would prefer such information to not be made available. Groups like the Australian Research Council should do something about it. I mean something positive. For a change.
The same situation applies in relation to exploring the gender divide for many other issues. If you seek data that supports a position of male culpability or female disadvantage, information abounds. With regards to examining alternative perspectives, however, the reverse applies. It was once a case of the relevant information being available but well-hidden. Now, more and more, researchers simply elect not to ask the relevant questions.
Feminists rage about the desperate personal privations that women suffer a result of the gender wage gap, whilst demanding all manner of financial support. At the same time, however, others gloat (without a hint of irony) about the financial strength of women collectively. Go figure.
Some time ago I came across an item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication that focused on men’s issues. In its September 2014 edition it featured an article entitled Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women. (Sadly the web site no longer exists, although the article is still available via web.archive.org).
The article informed us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.
“So what does this tell us about public attitudes towards men, women, boys and girls? Big charities aren’t stupid. They know what sells. The top 1,000 charities in the UK raise £11.5 billion every year in voluntary donations. Charity is big, BIG business and big business knows that all of us, men and women, are collectively more tolerant of the harm that happens to men and boys. If you want to raise money, you’ve more chance of doing it if you tell people women and girls are suffering.
And what message does this send to men and boys? That we are less valued by society, that we are not cared for as much as women, that we are not as vulnerable, that we don’t need the help of others, that we are tough and strong and should “man up” and get on with our lives and not expect help when we face problems in life. Is it any wonder that men are less likely to access help and support when they need it, when the constant message that we give to men and boys collectively is that we don’t need and don’t deserve help and support from others?”
I included a link to this article in tweets I sent to organisations such as ‘Plan International’, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they promoted online.
One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.
There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.
Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?
And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:
“Our new four-year Strategic Partnership Framework with Australia and the commitment of AU$31.2 million to core resources are vital to UN Women’s ability to support gender equality and women’s empowerment” (19 June 2022) Source: A tweet from UN Women
Stronger partnerships with women in Southeast Asia (1 April 2022) ‘Women Together’ is $300 million program to “focus on building women’s economic empowerment, increasing women’s leadership in regional peace and stability and realise women’s and girl’s rights with a focus on violence prevention”
Russian soldiers are committing a genocide against boys & men in Ukraine. This has been picked up by the media, but they are avoiding saying the gender. They’re just “civilians” or “bodies”. Twitter thread (4 April 2022)
The silence about this (re: military draft) gender inequality is greatest from countries that profess to have a feminist foreign policy (Source) Certainly nothing has been said by any Australian politician or government agency.
“The Ambassador for Women and Girls raises the importance of addressing sexual and gender-based violence, increasing economic opportunities for women, promoting women’s leadership, the critical importance of promoting positive social norms and the rights of girls.”
A selection of foreign aid organisations that fail to address the welfare needs of men
See globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs
See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same
See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)
World Vision article prepared by news.com.au entitled ‘Why gender equality is about basic rights‘ only to then launch into a discussion of why (only) girls need help, and ignoring the fact that poor boys face the same challenges as poor girls, e.g. forced to work young, forced to marry young, genital mutilation, etc.
The article concludes with “All children can be vulnerable, and girls face particularly harsh realities because of their gender. That’s why World Vision has started a movement to sponsor 1000 girls by International Day of the Girl. You can join us now and help a girl in poverty live free of fear. Sponsor a girl today.” (September 2019)
“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”
“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”
“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:
• Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently; • Existing power inequalities between women and men exacerbates during crisis; • Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms; • Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and • Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”
Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.
“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being. We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”
Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why? Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?
Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”
“… The research by Lara Stemple at the University of California doesn’t only show that male sexual violence is a component of wars all over the world, it also suggests that international aid organisations are failing male victims. Her study cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. Only 3% of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically,” Stemple says, “as a passing reference.””
In an earlier blog post I briefly examined a number of pro-feminist organisations in Australia, noting (in part) the extent of public funding received by each. My post on the Domestic Violence Industry also identified another substantial sump for both government funding and private donations.
Despite the fact that I only scratched the surface in relation to identifying such organisations, the extent of state and federal funding involved already amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could tally up all the public funds that are directed towards the welfare of women/girls? And then go through a similar exercise in relation to funding for men/boys. To what extent do you think the two amounts would be comparable?
Well, until 2013 the Australian federal government did something a little similar. It was called the Women’s Budget Statement. I’m not sure why it was terminated, but perhaps it was found that the data it provided was unreliable and/or otherwise unhelpful in comparison to the annual cost of compiling the Statement. Another possibility was that it identified so much expenditure directed towards women that it’s value as a sop to the feminist lobby was eclipsed by the potential it posed for an angry voter backlash.
Miranda thinks that the community would benefit from the re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement. The author justifies this gynocentric bias, at least in part, on the existence of the much-discredited gender pay gap. I believe it would be far more equitable and effective (as a policy development tool) if there was one combined document that considered the impact of federal expenditure on both men and women.
Another point of difference between what Miranda has in mind, and what I envisage, relates to the nature of the information provided. Miranda wants to see an assessment of the economic impact, on women, of a wide range of government policies. I am not convinced how accurately such impacts could be assessed, nor to the extent it could be kept free of the gender bias and ideological tweaking that is now rampant across the Australia public service.
I would be satisfied with something simpler, merely a listing of specific programs or allocations that were directed towards (or could be determined to benefit) alternately either boys/men or girls/women. This in itself would be a difficult task, as many such allocations are hidden, for example, deep within departmental budgets.
In other cases, allocations which would appear to be gender-neutral could be determined on closer analysis to strongly favor one gender in relation to the other. An example of this would be funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission.
This suggestion is noted in another article (refer point 5), although I think Claire Moore, Shadow Minister for Women, probably has different priorities in mind.
So where would one make a start on creating such a spreadsheet? Well I’ve already mentioned the various organisations listed in my blog post about misandric agencies. We could expand that initial list by considering each of the members of the Equality Rights Alliance, Australia’s largest network of organisations with an interest in advancing women’s equality. From then on it would be a matter of relentless burrowing through budget papers seeking relevant allocations.
The intention would be to combine the total funding received by each organisation and compare that figure with total annual funding for boys/men’s groups and issues. Although larger in magnitude I imagine that the women’s budget would be somewhat easier to compile given that there are specific ministries and sections with agencies that deal with women’s issues.
I would wager that there is absolutely no chance that the expenditure ratio would match the ratio of males/females in the Australian population, with an overwhelming bias towards the welfare of girls/women.
As an aside bear in mind that men, both individually and through the corporate entities they own, contribute far more than 50% of the government’s income. Click across to this blog post and scroll down to ‘taxation’ to see some relevant sources. Would it not be more equitable if the default setting was that half of government expenditure was subsequently utilised to support the interests/welfare of men and boys?
I believe that such a process of financial analysis would not only identify a massive and inequitable gendered imbalance in government funding, but it would also identify enormous waste and duplication. I wonder just how many indulgences like this are out there waiting to be uncovered?
If I am correct and there is a substantial favouring of females over males, how can this be justified? Barring the absence of incontrovertible evidence of overwhelmingly greater need, across the board, this would be indicative of neither gender equality nor prudent governance.
Certainly priority should be given to the area/s of greatest genuine need. And of course there will be areas where women’s needs are greater than mens (and vice versa). Thus note that I am not suggesting for a moment that one would seek to religiously apply a 50% split to every government program in Australia.
But humor me and suppose that a detailed and objective analysis did find that vastly more support was accorded to women/girls across all of government? And that meanwhile funding was urgently required to meet the demonstrated needs of men/boys?
Let’s find out. Otherwise, sorry, not good enough. Not by a long shot.
“A priority for the Australian Government is to create the right economic settings for women to help them participate in work, increase their economic security and give them meaningful choices about their lives.”
Women’s group call for gender aware budget (22 May 2017) Australia. They are not calling for a “gender aware budget”, they are calling for a female-aware budget … no mention whatsoever is made of looking at the impact of the budget on men. More of the same here and here.
Gender Lens on the Budget 2017/18 (undated) Australia. We need something like this to look at the impact of the budget on men (shame this one didn’t address both genders)
If any further proof was needed that a male life was worth less than a female life, then the global media furore surrounding the activities of Boko Haram provides us with just that proof.
‘Bring back our girls’ indeed. Whilst not wishing to detract from the terrible tragedy of the kidnapped schoolgirls, the associated media coverage raises serious questions about the media’s blindness to the abuse and murder of enormous numbers of boys by both this and similar groups in Africa. Indeed most media coverage of the issues makes no mention of harm done to boys and men at all, see for example this article.
A journalist from the Wall Street Journal, Drew Hinshaw, recently did an online Q&A during which he ignored questions about why the WSJ had made no mention of the harm done to boys/men by Boko Haram. Can’t say? Won’t say? Don’t care?
Yes, you have to search on google (e.g. “what about the boys Boko Haram”) to find the few articles that have been published which actually address all those missing/killed/abused males – see this, this, this, this, this and this.
In our next example let’s move to Europe. In the 2004 paper entitled Gendercide in Kosovo,author Adam Jones investigates gendercide of men in Bosnia by excluding men:
There is obviously a great deal of violence, oppression and areas of relative disadvantage affecting men and boys. The true extent of this is, however, suppressed by feminists and feminist sympathisers within the media, government agencies and universities because it undermines the dominant feminist narrative (men as oppressors/women as the powerless and oppressed).
I touched on this issue in a post I made on the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page on 23 August 2014 concerning a story they ran on modern-day slavery:
“Isn’t is funny how gender is never mentioned in these stories unless women/girls are worse off? Most enslaved people are male working in primary production and construction, but most of the attention and support is directed towards the far smaller number of women is sexual servitude. Guess that might have something to do with the abundance of feminists in the media/gov’t/NGO sectors and how feminists view males as disposable.”