Grotesque hypocrisy by female politicians (re: domestic violence)

Last night I read an article by the MRA-related UK group HEqual.

It was regarding the response of three UK feminist politicians to the suicides of Caroline Flack and of Carl Sargeant. It disgusted me. I suggest you take a look now … you can read it here

That HEqual paper reminded me of some earlier similar events, and initially the case of Ms Layla Moran (Lib Dem MP for Oxford West & Abingdon and Spokesperson for Education, UK)

Calif Rep Katie Porter’s ex-husband stands by domestic abuse allegations against her, contradicting campaign (13 April 2023) USA

Layla Moran was wrong to hit her partner. But domestic violence by women is not the same as domestic violence by men (7 October 2020)

The next case that came to mind was that of Sarah Champion (more on that case below).

Ex-husband of Labour’s domestic abuse Minister ‘still has nightmares about her’ after attack during divorce (26 September 2016) UK

British feminists including Cherie Blair and Jess Phillips rally behind Amber Heard amid Johnny Depp’s bombshell ‘wife-beater’ libel trial (20 July 2020)

Goodbye Spectator (21 November 2020) UK

MP Claudia Webbe handed suspended sentence for harassing partner’s female friend (5 November 2021)

Leaked Divorce Documents Allegedly Reveal Radical California Democrat Katie Porter’s Horrifying Abuse of Her Ex-Husband, Including Dumping Boiling Potatoes on His Head! (12 April 2023)

(Stay tuned – More to come)

When men have a daughter (another tale of male-blaming and silencing)

At the time of writing the Weinstein affair remains an ongoing and evolving media phenomenon. The hypocrisy of this one does my head in.

Imagine … All men being demonised for being the same gender as the alleged perpetrator at the centre of a major scandal. Men offer comments supportive of female victims of sexual harassment, and condemnatory of male perpetrators, but are dismissed or even shamed for doing so. Meanwhile other men are shamed for not commenting.

Men subseqently re-frame/qualify their thoughts/feelings in the light of well-publicised research – research that proposes that men understand and empathise with women better when they have sisters, wives and daughters. Men are then shamed on the basis that their amended and qualified message of support doesn’t treat women as humans.

Men, the beasts that they are, just can’t seem to say or do the right thing.

Women are a different kettle of fish. It goes without saying that nowhere, nowhere are they responsible. For anything. Not for being victims or alleged victims. Not for helping Harvey trick/lure women into private meetings in hotel rooms (their excuse). Not for willingly following the casting-couch route to financial rewards. Not for remaining silent when they knew what was going on, in many cases accepting payment for doing so. And absolutely not, for they themselves harassing others.

Note that I have addressed the topic of harassment in the workplace in another blog post. This current post is more about feminist shaming, bitterness and hypocrisy set against the backdrop of the media furore surrounding Harvey Weinstein’s real and alleged misbehaviour.

Feminists have long been telling men – even feminist men – that they have no legitimate right to talk about feminism, or about specific topics that they (feminists) consider to be women’s issues. They typically assert that men have no understanding of women’s lived experience, and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Here’s a recent Australian example.

As a consequence men are most reluctant to offer up public comment on such matters. This situation is addressed in the following blog posts:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
Karen Straughan and others on feminist shaming tactics

The media informs us however that men move one rung up the ladder when they have wives and/or daughters. See for yourself – just do a google search using terms such as “when men have a daughter” or “men change after having daughter”. Year in and year out, article after article based on this assertion:

Why the best words a dad can hear are… It’s a girl! (7 June 2017)
Men Really Do Get Less Sexist When They Have Daughters (3 June 2017)

This is the backdrop to the emergence of the Weinstein affair. Or at least the October 2017 version thereof. Because, as we are finding out more each day, plenty of people were ‘in the know’ before now.

The first development after the publication of the initial allegations was men being blamed for not speaking out against Harvey Weinstein. See for example:

Hollywood men silent over Weinstein allegations as women speak out (11 October 2017), with a later contribution being … Men who are silent after #MeToo: it’s time to speak up (20 October 2017)

Sure enough, after being given what they assumed to be the media’s ‘green light’ to enter the debate, more men spoke out to condemn Weinstein and/or to condemn the problem of sexual harassment generally.

Thus the next wave of outrage was in relation to men speaking out against Weinstein, especially those mentioning that they were motivated to do so, in part, because they had wives/daughters. Some examples of the media coverage include:

You don’t need to be a father to stand up to abusers. You need to believe women (13 October 2017)

Some questions for the “Fathers of daughters” condemning Harvey Weinstein (13 October 2017)

Men don’t need to have daughters to be concerned about women (13 October 2017)

People Are Dragging Men Who Say They Care About Rape Culture Because They Have A Daughter (12 October 2017)

Does any reasonable person seriously believe that men referencing the girls/women in their lives meant women any disrepect? Think of any other instance where this ‘logic’ has been proposed, because I can’t. I can think, for example of discussions regarding childhood disability or illness whereby parents comment along the lines of “as a parent of a child with autism …“. Were those parents insinuating that their autistic kids were less than human?

Then there was the push-back against the push-back. Men are mostly guilty and should do more to stop themselves and their brothers, including but not limited to public self-flagellation:

Dear Men: It’s you, too (19 October 2017) by Roxane Gay & attracting 1,397 readers comments

How men can help after Weinstein and #MeToo (22 October 2017)

“After the flood of #MeToo posts, critics charged that the hashtag continues to put the onus on victims to speak up while letting men off the hook. In response, some have shared lists of tips on how men can stop this behaviour from flourishing.”

And to remove any doubt about who’s wearing the pants in this debate, the usual feminist voices pressed long and hard on the ‘all men are responsible’ button:

It’s not the job of “Hollywood women” to ‘fix’ sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

The men who kept Harvey Weinstein’s secrets safe are all around us (11 October 2017)

Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Men In Hollywood Staying Silent? | The View (10 October 2017) Video. Reddit discussion thread here

Oh, and for any other men who dared offer an opinion, because “… some people – and more particularly, men – seem to think that it’s not the feelings of the alleged victims that matter. No, it’s actually their feelings that are important.”

Men of Hollywood – don’t make this Harvey Weinstein situation about you (13 October 2017)

‘Cancel the Christmas party’: 2017’s the year of the ‘confused’ man (16 November 2017) Rather than working with men to resolve confusion about what constitutes appropriate behaviour, feminist journo prefers to mock for what she sees as a weak ‘excuse’. Anything but helpful.

As is usually the case, any rebuttal was muted and provided by male-positive writers like Martin Daubney and Kathy Gyngell:

This #MeToo witch-hunt will destroy women’s happiness (23 October 2017)

Weinstein’s actions are revolting – but don’t tell me all men are to blame (11 October 2017)

So male voices were silenced again and the debate wrested back into the hands of feminists/liberals satisfying their ongoing imperative to control the narrative. But things didn’t entirely go their way, as derailments followed (and continue to this day), namely:

Articles highlighting the hypocrisy of the Hollywood democrat/leftist elite in turning the backs for so long, and regarding Harvey Weinstein as an archtypical nice guy & supporter of feminism, for example:

“Weinstein, the reports noted, had been a prominent donor to causes that address gender inequality, especially in the entertainment industry” (Source)

Harvey Weinstein and Feminism (19 October 2017)

Watch When Barbara Walters and The View Coverup For Harvey Weinstein Types (15 October 2017)

Jane Fonda: I knew about Weinstein, and I’m ‘ashamed’ I didn’t say anything (12 October 2017)

Ah but of course the feminist lobby will never admit weakness or fault, so their strategy here is to double-down on their ongoing ‘feminist men aren’t feminists’ offensive (example, with more in the opening section of this blog post).

Articles highlighting the elements of dog-piling, misandry, vengeance and hysteria that is occurring, for example:

#MeToo: A moral panic about men (18 October 2017)

Male Victim Erasure and Backlash in #MeToo Campaign (17 October 2017)

The hysteria in the Harvey Weinstein scandal (12 October 2017)

Finally, I note that mention has yet to be made of sexual harassment perpetrated by influential women. There has, however, been some limited and peripheral acknowledgement of the harassment of men/boys by men:

Corey Feldman celebrates ‘turning of the tide’ on Hollywood sex abuse (17 October 2017)

Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys (16 October 2017)

Weinstein saga leads James Van Der Beek to share personal story of sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

Actor Terry Crews recalls being sexually assaulted by Hollywood exec (11 October 2017)

In closing, Cathy Young has written an excellent article that touches on a number of the issues mentioned above.

See also:

Paul Elam’s take on this topic from a Red Pill perspective
This piece by Gideon Scopes entitled ‘Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence’, This article by D.C MacAllister in the The Federalist

Women in politics fear #MeToo moment will backfire — and they’ll be the ones punished (12 December 2017)

A panic is not an answer: We’re at imminent risk of turning this #metoo moment into a frenzied rush to blame all men (26 November 2017) by Christina Hoff Summers

Kathy Gyngell: The silence of the males (13 November 2017)

Knee-touching MPs? I took advantage of men to get ahead at Westminster: By Spectator columnist MELISSA KITE, who admits flirting shamelessly to get scoops (14 November 2017)

The #MeToo sexual harassment hysteria is a pretext for women to take power and money from men (21 December 2017)

Other posts in this blog related to this topic include:

Don’t look at me! No wait. Look at me!
Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?
#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
On Gender Traitors, White Knights and Manginaso

‘Diversity’: A buzzword that sounds good but is often misused

Diversity is another one of those buzzwords du jour – and apparently the cure for all that ails. Except there are a few problems.

Firstly, diversity is often not – in practice – extended to embrace many within the community. I’m thinking here, for example, of white men, non-feminists, and those with a conservative or right-of-centre political persuasion.

In this blog post for example I examined the example of a debate organised by the Diversity Council of Australia. In that example, diversity meant assembling two debating panels that represented or supported a range of feminist perspectives.

A couple of other examples are provided in these other blog posts:

A couple of queries concerning ‘Balancing the future: The Australian Public Service gender equality strategy 2016-19’

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

Martin Daubney in the UK has drawn attention to this July 2013 article about part-time workers in Britain, which includes the following extract:

“For years, the term “part-time” has been synonymous with junior responsibility and low pay. And yet the pool of people who want to work in this way is incredibly diverse.”

Martin points out that only 12% of those featured on the ‘Power Part-time Top 50’ list mentioned in the article are male. Not so diverse in that regard, huh?

Elsewhere Martin provides the example of the organisation ‘CMI Women’, within whose web site we see an exhortation for gender diversity which starkly contrast with their own board membership (100% female).

Secondly, those who lobby for diversity tend to want to have it imposed by way of gender or racial quotas, selective recruitment, and the like. They do so despite the fact that such measures need not result in measurable improvements to organisational performance or community harmony, and may even be counter-productive in this regard. Indeed they are not averse to exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the benefits of diversity.

This aspect is discussed in these blog posts and others:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’
On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas
About what happened in Cologne

Thirdly, those who lobby for diversity fail to acknowledge, let alone analyse and debate, the negative outcomes that arise when achieving becomes the major determining factor when adopting government policy. Indeed, if we look at what is happening in some European countries now, such as greatly increased criminal activity, there is evidence of efforts being made to suppress such information.

(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes. Or something)

University students show they’ve bought into the diversity delusion (24 February 2020)

Goldman Sachs will no longer do IPO’s for companies with all-male boards (23 January 2020) From 1 July 2020 Goldman Sachs will not work on IPO’s from companies that don’t have at least one “diverse” board member

Commissars in our universities (27 April 2019)

The ever-growing ‘diversity industry’ is overtaking higher education (25 April 2019) USA

Want viewpoint diversity on campus? Here’s how (16 April 2019)

Finally some robust research into whether ‘Diversity Training’ actually works – Unfortunately it’s not very promising (10 April 2019)

Ex-diversity officer smacked with massive fine after giving husband fellowship (15 March 2019) USA

Apple’s diversity VP apologizes for controversial statement at summit this week (14 October 2017)

A memo to Google – firing employees with conservative views is anti-diversity (11 August 2017)

Diversity Authoritarians (17 July 2017) Video

Opinion: Screen Australia’s sexist policies proof it is biased against men, by Mike O’Connor (12 May 2017)

Social Justice is winning (29 March 2017) Video

“Massive immigration and forced assimilation is called genocide when it’s done in Tibet. When it’s done in White countries it’s called “diversity.”” (Source)

College ‘Diversity Council’ Admits to Posting Fake Racist Flyers On Campus (23 March 2017)

Misguided drive for diversity is sending us headlong off a cliff (28 February 2017)

By promoting diversity over fighting ability the Army is alienating its warriors (25 February 2016)

Why Diversity Programs Fail (July-August 2016)

Thomas Sowell on ‘diversity’ – the World Champion of a Word That Substitutes for Thought (8 May 2013)

Related Twitter discussion thread re: the above quote

The 2017 Women’s March, Women’s Strike & other anti-Trump protests

As you are no doubt aware, in November 2016 the American people chose a new President. He’s a bit different from the previous one, and some people aren’t too happy about this. Piers Morgan provides further context in his article entitled:

Memo to millennials, that awful feeling you’ve got is called losing. It happens. If you want to know how to win, stop whinging for a bit and learn some lessons from Trump

In this post I have thrown together a few snippets concerning the troubling, unproductive and all-too-often violent leftist/SJW/feminist response to the democratic process …

Some related articles:

Women’s Marchers Say Pro-Lifers Can’t Be Feminists

Limo torched in anti-Trump protests belonged to Muslim immigrant who faces £80,000 bill

Commentary: After assault by inaugural protesters, a call to redefine nation’s character

Women’s March featured speaker who kidnapped, raped and tortured a man (with related Reddit discussion thread here)

Feminists should face their own flaws, not sneer at Melania Trump

Ann Widdecombe Calls Women’s March ‘Pathetic’ on Good Morning Britain (video)

College Professor Exposes Women’s March on Washington (video)

Dear Daughter: Here’s Why I Didn’t March For You by Mary Ramirez

Women’s march: #ButItsAboutEquality! by Hannah Wallen

White Women behaving badly by Janet Bloomfield

More divisive that Trump by Corrine Barraclough

About the organisers/speakers & celebrity hangers-on:

The celebrities shown here loathe Trump because of how he objectifies women

What others thought of the Women’s March and preceding protests:

Tangible outcomes of the Women’s March:

And after the Women’s March came the Women’s Strike on 8 March 2017:

A Day Without Women, A Defamation of Men (8 March 2017)

Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march (25 February 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Women’s strike could be coming and history tells us what will happen by Jane Gilmore (8 February 2017)

Pray men never take a day off by Janet Bloomfield (18 September 2013)

On bigotry as art (#KillAllMen at NIDA)

NIDA →Productions & Events →#KillAllBlacks

#KillAllBlacks

Date/Time: 19 Oct 2016 – 25 Oct 2016

Eight men create an internet utopia where they discuss the most intimate details of their lives, the most righteous, and the most hilarious. Drinking, sports, work, activism, and how to be an out and proud Klansman. But when one of them disappears after being attacked everything changes. #KillAllBlacks suddenly moves from joke to reality.

OK, relax. I’m just pulling your leg. Australia’s prestigious Institute of Dramatic Arts didn’t really fund and host a production called #KillAllBlacks. That would be bigoted beyond belief. Can you imagine the uproar? Chortle, chortle. As if!

No, in fact they funded and hosted a production called #KillAllMen. It’s still bigoted of course, but the essential difference is that men are a social group that one may now denigrate without fear of repercussion. The #KillAllMen hashtag has quite a history, as discussed in this further blog post.

Oh, I can hear some of you chorus “but there is no comparison at all – men have all that privilege. Look at all those male politicians and CEO’s!“.

Ignoring all those men of colour for a moment, just what percentage of men are politicians or CEO’s? One per cent? Even that?

The writer, Nakkiah Lui, identifies as an aboriginal. One might have thought she would possess an abundance of empathy regarding bigotry. Or at least enough to avoid such a grotesque mis-step. But clearly her feminism trumps her empathy.

Hypocrisy is the short answer, but those preferring the challenge of a TL:DR version can chew on ‘cognitive dissonance‘.

Bigotry dressed up as art is still bigotry. Shame on NIDA

Addendum: Ms. Lui was aware of this post as of the day it was uploaded, and was invited to offer a rebuttal. Subsequent feedback consisted of witless ad hominem delivered in a manner reminiscent of terriers yapping behind a screen door. The one criticism that contained even an ounce of substance, was that I had not seen the play.

How ironic then that feminists have just succeeded in having the Australian screening of a film about mens rights cancelled. A film that, ahem, not one of them had seen.

So on the one hand we have an individual castigated for saying bad words about a feminist production in a personal blog, but with no serious intent of having the play cancelled. On the other hand we have 2,000+ feminists and white knights deliberately setting out to deny everyone the opportunity to experience a production. The former production finished its run, the latter never got started.

Again, this patriarchy of ours sure does work in mysterious ways.

See also:

Hateful Clementine Ford (6 January 2024) Scroll to the last two paragraphs to read about her proposed publicly-funded theatre production

Why it’s not OK to say ‘Kill all men’ (2 December 2021)

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
Variety; multiformity
The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

Does the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics & answers:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
To attract and hold fast
To attract or please
To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
To betroth
To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ might not be the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick (also chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program).

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when people dare mention issues that might be perceived to detrimentally affect them, is to tell men (and their female supporters) to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies or ‘‘pick-me’s’. This latter term is a derogatory label that feminists apply to women who are sympathetic towards men’s rights issues.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could not care less about helping men, excepting a few situations where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women (e.g. paternity leave for men).

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? Perhaps one thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as an adjunct to the debate? What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the Council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes)

Who pays on dates?

There have been, and there continues to be, many articles written about the topic of who should meet the costs of dating or courtship. Most articles appear to be written by women, and mocking (to varying degrees) the alleged or implied cheapness of men who dare object to paying the entire cost of a night out.

Whilst hardly a ‘life or death’ matter, this topic has special significance in that it illustrates how some traditional gender roles are aggressively retained whilst others are forcefully discarded. With the former all appearing to benefit women.

A number of justifications are put forward as to why one partner should pay for the other. Perhaps the most common is the suggestion that the person who makes the approach, and issues the invitation, should pay for the date. That is clearly very convenient for women given that 99 times out of 100, the male is the one doing the asking (this being yet another retained gender stereotype).

After that, the rationalisations as to why men should pay get even more ‘out there’ … especially when it is a feminist at the keyboard. Consider for example, ‘I Let Him Pay for Dinner – Am I a Bad Feminist?‘ by Suzanna Weiss (5 July 2016)

My own position is that if the costs of dates aren’t shared, or if partners aren’t treated on alternate dates, then it is free-loading no matter how you dress it up. And if the first date is such that you know there won’t be a second one, then you should definitely split the bill. Forget ideology, it’s just the decent thing to do.

And now the gender wage gap, in an increasing number of employment segments, is actually reversed (i.e. favors women). This means that in more and more instances, the female dinner-goer would have a more substantial income than her male partner (see related post). Surely now, women would be proud to pay their own way. Ha, ha, yes, I’m only kidding.

A number of relevant articles now follow:

Influencer says men ‘should pay on the first date’ because women spend a lot on make-up (20 March 2024)

Surprisingly traditional dating ‘rule’ Gen Z men won’t let go (13 February 2024)

Reason men should always pay on the first date (10 January 2024)

People need to chill about women getting ‘free food’ on dates (13 July 2021)

Woman, 26, forced to pick up $500 dinner date bill (24 November 2023) And not just any woman, but an “adult content creator”.

The $2000 dating rule to avoid ‘frightful’ sex syndrome from men (2 November 2023) More dating wisdom from Jana Hocking

Why men feel entitled to sex if they pay on a first date (14 March 2023)

‘Extreme’ response to date’s $4.50 burger concern backfires massively (13 March 2023)

Splitting the bill on dates makes no sense (14 February 2023) No, what’s make no sense is investing several minutes in reading this feminist contrived nonsense.

Woman went on six dates a week, didn’t grocery shop for two years (24 January 2023)

Woman Sues Man For $10,000 For Failing To Show Up To A Date (20 July 2022)

Woman blasts her date for not paying after she said no to sex (24 June 2022)

Why men should always pay on the first date (20 April 2022)

Abbie Chatfield angers Italian men after calling out ‘sexist’ menus (7 April 2022) How ridiculous is this? Abbie and the sisterhood should all pay their share, and they’re welcome to have a menu with prices. The thing is, they don’t want to know prices in order to pay – they want to know in order to be able to gloat.

Single woman says men shouldn’t get a second date if they don’t pay (4 April 2022)

Woman left stunned by date’s split bill request (6 December 2021) “A man should pay everything and should bring you a gift for spending your time with him, commented one woman.”

Woman’s bad date disaster goes viral: ‘He bought food for himself’ (13 November 2021)

Jana Hocking on why men should always pay on the first date (4 December 2020)

Feminists on Twitter get upset that man on a date doesn’t pay for a cake for his date (1 March 2020)

Young women at Griffith University (Australia) get tips about what to expect/demand in a special dating guide. (February 2020) Gee, hope they enjoy the company of cats.

10 Reasons Why Women Should Expect Men to Still Pay for Everything | by Fox | Medium (22 January 2020)

Forget the booty call, the foodie call is the new dating (out)rage (6 July 2019)

A third of women only date men because of the free food: study (21 June 2019) USA

‘Serial Dine-and-Dasher’ arrested for awful dating etiquette (29 August 2018) And would a women be reported to the police? I think we know the answer to that

Beware of ‘foodie call’ dates who are just in it for a free meal (30 August 2017) USA

Women forced to pay for dates (9 March 2017) Video

How is it okay for a stranger to pay for your first-date dinner because he’s a man? (27 January 2017)

6 Things a Feminist Woman Who Dates Men Should Look For on a First Date: Validate his every political and social view conforms to those you require. Offer to pay and think of him as cheap if he accepts (27 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and linked article.

A Women’s Advantage (2016) Concerns research into OKCupid users, not just regarding who pays on dates but also courtship protocols generally.

Guy texts girl demanding she pay him back after he bought her a drink at a bar (12 September 2016)

“I’ll be more cautious who I take free drinks from in the future!” Free?

Lizzie Cundy slammed by viewers for insisting a man should always pay on a first date (31 August 2016)

Woman Says She Was Left With $163 Tab After Man She Met On Dating Site Dined, Then Dashed (3 August 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

“Operation: No Pay May”: A Houston Woman Attempts 31 Dates in 31 Days (31 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

The new economics of dating: Do men still need to pay? (24 May 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

For men, finding love is still more costly (16 May 2016)

I said no to a second date so he asked for a $40 refund (11 May 2016)

That’s rich… women decline to date men who earn less – however good looking (3 February 2016) UK

Shock horror! A man feels I should pay my own way on dates. “I feel this is a dealbreaker.” Welcome to feminism (9 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Attention, straight men dating women: Here’s why they still — yes, still — expect you to pick up the check (28 August 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Paying while dating: meet the men who pick up the check (and those who don’t) (28 August 2015) and being in The Guardian we just know which team they’ll be rooting for.

Two Strong INDEPENDENT Feminists demand men pay for dates (18 August 2015) Video and related reddit discussion thread (Quote: “I understand most women don’t want to be used as sex objects. Maybe they should stop looking at men as success objects“)

Ladies, It’s Now Your Turn to Pay On the First Date (9 January 2015)

Cha-Ching! Guess who spends the most in love? (February 2015)

Valentine’s Day spending driven by single men in search for love (12 February 2015)

Who Pays for Dates? Following Versus Challenging Gender Norms (2015)

Why women should never go halves on a date (27 November 2014)

‘Why I’d never be with a man who always pays the bill‘ (28 September 2014) Article unconvincing but see readers comments

It’s 2014: Why are men still paying for first dates? (18 September 2014) and here’s the feminist perspective on that issue (though note that not all readers agreed with her assessment)

Helena Andrews explains why men should always pay for dinner by Janet Bloomfield (9 September 2013)

Should I Pay for a Date Simply Because I Am the Stud? (6 September 2013)

I just made a woman pay for her own food, her reactions were interesting (19 November 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Valentines Day, by the numbers (14 February 2013)

Almost all of the articles on this subject in the mainstream media focus on heterosexual couples, and are set in the context of first world western countries.

The heterosexual focus is interesting as my initial impression is that courtship costs are approached in a somewhat more egalitarian manner in gay/lesbian relationships. I have listed some articles about splitting costs & gay/lesbian dating and courtship below. If readers can suggest more and/or better references then please leave a message.

Who Should Be Paying on a Same Sex Date? (11 May 2016)

Who picks up the tab on a date between two gay people?

When two gay men (or ladies) go on a date who pays?

On male-only and women-only spaces

“The course has hosted golf’s prestigious Open championship no less than 16 times in its 125-year history, the backdrop for wins by greats such as Nick Faldo, Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player.

But Muirfield, with views over the Firth of Forth and a favoured retreat of Edinburgh’s judiciary, has forfeited its right to hold the championship again after members voted to continue its ban on women joining the club.” (Source)

The subject of male-only and women-only spaces is one which I see written about fairly often – generally from the feminist perspective. And that perspective is that male-only spaces are uniformly undesirable and should be eradicated, whilst female-only spaces are desirable and much-needed.

Which is ridiculous. And just as chock-full of hypocrisy as are most of the other building blocks in that ideological house of horrors that is gender feminism.

The topic has been raised in relation to mens and boys organisations and clubs like Men’s Sheds and Scouts, university student houses (frat-houses) and societies, fitness centres, etc.

I normally wouldn’t bother writing a post about this subject as it is not one of the more pressing issues, but I have just read an item by Janet Bloomfield/Judgybitch which stirred me into action. Great article + some good comments too. See Why are feminist women so fucking pathetic? (24 May 2016)

Other articles relevant to this topic:

Elite Australian golf club suspends members over sexism row (16 September 2024) See readers comments too. Not so much about ‘space’ as it is about the differing approach & language used by management and observers when those seeking ‘equality’ are male rather than female.

Is it time to stop men congregating in groups? (18 May 2024)

Lawyer who raised ‘boys’ club’ concerns over judgment accused of misconduct (28 March 2024)

Necessary sanctuary or blatant discrimination? The decades-old battle over women-only spaces (24 March 2024)

Building safer spaces for women (27 October 2023)

Men are boycotting gyms due to creepy women (20 September 2023) Video

We should have women-only times in Scotland’s parks (17 May 2023)

Single-Sex Spaces for Me, But Not for Thee, by Janice Fiamengo (9 April 2023)

The boy’s club is under siege, by Bettina Arndt (25 November 2022)

Perspective: The real reason the all-women workspace failed (16 September 2022)

The push into male space: News item about girls in the boy scout organisation, with commentary provided by Rollo Tomassi (5 February 2019)

Dartmouth Fatstock: Sexism row over men-only awards dinner (12 December 2018)

Women are dropping $3,055 and waiting on an 8,000-person list to join an exclusive, no-men-allowed club based in New York City (7 November 2017)

Harvard Crimson: University Is Right to Ban Fraternities, Wrong to Ban Sororities (27 September 2017)

Salon upset to learn whiny men were right about women-only movie screenings being discriminatory (9 August 2017)

Cafe of Confusion (7 August 2017) Video

Feminism’s latest victim: St Paul’s College, by Miranda Devine (14 June 2017)

Guy buys movie ticket, internet outraged (27 May 2017)

Bro-go areas: the last few men’s only clubs (15 March 2017)

Muirfield golf club to allow women to join for the first time (14 March 2017)

Return of Women-Only Offices Proves That Equality Has Gone Into Reverse, by Martin Daubney (3 February 2017)

Girls allowed: why women-only co-working spaces are the latest office trend (January 2017)

No boys allowed: the new rule of co-working spaces (4 January 2017) USA

Gender discrimination is bad for business (4 November 2016) Australia

You know that narrative about train groping and women-only carriages in Japan? About that (19 October 2016) Japan. Reddit discussion thread

Why women hate male-only groups, and why they shouldn’t (15 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Duke offers men a safe space to contemplate their toxic masculinity (30 September 2016) USA. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Hawleywood men’s barber shop ruffles feminist feathers (6 September 2016) Australia

All Clubs at Harvard Have to Be Gender Neutral—Except Women’s Clubs (16 August 2016)

SheShed importer says demand has exceeded all expectations (17 July 2016)

Michigan State University Faces Civil Rights Complaint Over WOMEN-ONLY Lounge In Student Union (12 July 2016)

Glastonbury Festival 2016: Glasto will have a women-only venue for the first time (5 June 2016) See also here

Safe Space Shut Down After Anti-White, Anti-Male Statements Leaked (31 May 2016)

Burlesque, body shots and bi-curious: Sydney gets its first Skirt Club (30 May 2016)

Australia: Tuggeranong Men’s Shed split over allowing women to join (February 2016) Reddit post with linked sources

Man Sues Gym over ‘Women Only Hours’ (Youtube video)

The Colonization of Male Space (5 August 2010)

Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

My post today begins with a panel discussion entitled ‘Have men become second-class citizens’ that featured on the ‘Sunrise’ TV program in Australia.

“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”

Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.

Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.

Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle. And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.

So this is how strong independent women behave? No, but it’s how feminists behave.

This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.

Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.

But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:

“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”

Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.

Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …

Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!

And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:

I have sympathy for Mark Latham. He’s barking at a cloud that’s passed him by (4 May 2016)

Van Badham and Steve Price went head-to-head on Q&A (12 July 2016) See also this article in The Age. Response from Steve Price here.

Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.

Look what I found in a Reddit discussion thread about Van Badham’s stouch with Steve Price … apparently Van wanted to put Tony Abbott underwater. Wait, where have a heard a comment like that before? Oh yes, Eddie McGuire.

From The Spectator, ‘Van Badham and the ugly facts of an ugly matter‘ (15 July 2016)

Readers might care to seek out a tweet by @RitaPanahi on 12 July 2016 for further examples of what Ms Badham considers appropriate to dish out (but not receive). Gems such as:

And on a parting note, an item by Andrew Bolt entitled ‘How Van Badham attacks even children‘ (2 March 2017).