media bias – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Some observations regarding online information concerning filicide

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

I queried whether (in the UK) more children were killed by their mother or father, and I included a link to an earlier post I prepared regarding filicide that shows, amongst other things, that in Australia the biological mother kills more children.

Another poster then provided a link to a 2013 University of Manchester article entitled ‘Findings from most in-depth study into UK parents who kill their children‘. The study relied upon a 10-year consecutive case series of convicted homicides and homicide-suicides (01/01/97-31/12/06) in England and Wales. That paper defined ‘filicide’ as “a homicide committed by a parent or adult in-loco parentis, with the victim aged under 18.”

The article noted that:

“Overall, fathers were significantly more likely to kill their children than mothers, and were more likely to use violent methods of killing, have previous convictions for violent offences, perpetrate multiple killings, and have a history of substance misuse or dependence.”

I sought to verify the statistical source and compare this with other sources or studies available online, for which I then went hunting. So what did I find? Well it was interesting (though I note that my research is to be continued as time permits and as I receive responses to both my Twitter posts and this blog post).

Soon afterwards another poster assured me that fathers killed more children, and added “if you factor in that there are only 2% of males who are stay-at-home parents, the vast majority of single parents are women and women do the vast majority of child-rearing, if you considered hours by capita on childcare then the stats would be vastly skewed against men.” He/she then provided a link to a 2017 article in The Conversation entitled ‘Understanding the triggers for filicide will help prevent it‘. If you can spare the time be sure to note the readers comments. My requests for further related/supporting reference works were declined.

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

“The paper presents information that appears skewed that hides certain details of the sampling. It notes that the significant majority of perpetrators are fathers but this includes Step fathers that is a social construct. This figure portrays fathers as being more likely to kill a child when in fact it is mothers & their partners that are more likely to be the perpetrators. The fathers protective role is supported by the fact that step mothers commit only 2% (in one case) of the cases. Other research in the US including DOJ and Dept of Child Services show that the largest perpetrators of filicide in children under 1 year old are biological mothers.

Do not see a break down of biological fathers vs biological mothers role, and the insistence of including the artificial mix of step fathers/mothers only serve to skew the impressions the media is likely to interpret from this article. The inclusion of step fathers with speaking about fathers is a common ploy seen in media to portray fathers in bad light. In my local area, in the overwhelming majority of times the word “father” is used in a negative context committing a crime against a child, its in fact a step father or mothers boyfriend.

Your statement “Overall, a significantly higher proportion of fathers than mothers were convicted of filicide; a male to female ratio = 2:1” is problematic. You are using courtroom outcomes to determine guilt and severity. We know from several studies that women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes/circumstances in about that same ratio. Examining the data chart is even more troubling. 84 out of 195 male perpetrators (don’t know how you can include step fathers as having committed filicide unless he kills his own biological children) receive the charge of murder compared with 9 out of 102 female perpetrators.

My hypothesis from data collected from government sources in the US, it is clear that the biological fathers role is very protective compared to all other parent ‘figures’. It appears this is also correct in your data if you were to solve a few simple linear equations to arrive at the ratios of biological fathers to mothers as well, and treat each demographic separately. But the statement you make that “I am going to presume that this is by design and qualifies as an example of the “WAW” effect which is a form of bias.”

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

“Vast differences in the definitions of perpetrator categories only allowed crude comparisons across countries. Categorisation of perpetrators into parents, other family members, acquaintances, strangers and unknown did not capture nuances such as, for example, mothers’ boyfriends, who were considered as acquaintances as there was a lack of information on whether they were solid family members or casual relationships.”

My initial observations include:

That most statistical sources and the papers based on them were relatively dated
That papers were inclined to focus more on the gender of victims rather than perpetrators
That explanations or factors contributing to the crime were sought and discussed more in the case of female perpetrators, than for male perpetrators. In the case of women, the two most common factors seem to be that women spend more time with children and are hence more likely to harm them, and that female killers are more likely to be found to be younger and/or mentally ill.
That the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim was usually identified, but not clearly detailed in the case of differentiating biological father, step father or de-facto partner.
That an unknown, but possibly quite significant, number of murders are apparently excluded from being classed as filicide due to mental illness on the part of the murderer. This would reduce the ratio of female to males sentenced.

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

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

The often contrasting reaction when mums and dads kill their children

On fathers and their children

Is child abuse a gendered crime too?

Apparently there’s not enough “educated” men nowadays

Until recently articles about women having trouble finding/securing dating or marriage partners were often quoted as querying “Where have all the good men gone?“. I talk about this in another post called ‘MGTOW and the Marriage Strike‘.

The rationale is that men are deficient in that they are failing in their responsibilities (to women) through their immaturity and/or by simply not trying hard enough to please. There is never a suggestion of any shortcomings on the part of women.

I’ve noticed we seem to be transitioning to a new meme, similar yet different to the last. In this one men are still deficient – they are now said to be playing video games instead of doing the work or study necessary to improve their educational/financial position.

We are told that educated women are complaining because, apparently, there are not enough “educated” men to partner with. Here’s an example of an article on this theme (with a response from an MRA here). As a consequence, these privileged women say, they must freeze their eggs and/or become solo parents by way of artificial insemination, etc.

Of course it would make sense to delve deeper into why men are staying home playing video games and/or are becoming increasingly under-represented in universities, but the debate stalls at the shaming stage. Because … still no suggestion of any shortcomings or blame on the part of women. (This blog entry illustrates what might otherwise be said and discussed)

I saw this program about solo parenthood on TV the other night. Interesting, though very much gynocentric in terms of the issues explored/presented. I saw women who had quite negative attitudes towards men and/or who freely admitted that they were not prepared to compromise in terms of any aspect of potential traditional pairings. On the other hand they were most willing to compromise their independent/empowered woman status when it came to having others around them support and/or subsidise their lifestyle choice.

The perspective of straight men and their attitudes and experiences was not addressed. Sperm donors who chose not to establish/maintain contact with their offspring were presented as insensitive cads. No hint was provided as to what other factors that might have contributed to their behaviour, for e.g. the possibility of being lumbered with eighteen years of child support payments.

Then I read firstly this article, then another, and another, these being just a few examples of a spate of pieces on this theme. As is often the case, there were some quite illuminating reader’s comments following each, including this offering:

“Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.

The time has come to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.”

And here is further evidence of the feminist hive-mind in action with another series of almost identical articles on a related theme – young men allegedly addicted to video games:

On Tinder, only women have a preference for highly-educated partners (24 July 2019)

Unemployed and don’t care: why young men aren’t working (1 April 2017) A sexist hit-piece in a professional journal of all places. The author wilfully confuses cause & effect when discussing unemployment amongst young men. See reader’s comments including:

“placing the blame of men not working on video games seems like such a stretch of the imagination as to be unbelievable”

‘The curious political effect of men losing their breadwinner role, by Jena McGregor (24 April 2017)

‘Why Some Men Don’t Work: Video Games Have Gotten Really Good‘ (3 July 2017)

Will Darwinism kill Feminism? (7 July 2017) A great offering on the issue from Martin Daubney

‘We’re losing a whole generation of young men to video games‘ (8 July 2017)

Link between young men spending more time gaming and less working (13 July 2017)

It’s not just young men — everyone’s playing a lot more video games (11 July 2017) Oh gee, someone finally provided corresponding stats for women

No eligible men (10 July 2017) This video kind of sums it all up

See also:

Women admit that marriage is prostitution, and they like it that way (10 September 2019) Another worthwhile video in the ‘Regarding Men‘ series

Women freeze their eggs to allow men to get ahead in their careers (3 July 2018) UK

D’oh! Women ‘marrying down’ as men become less educated (9 November 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread here

The second half of this Sargon of Akkad video deals with the ‘lack of educated men’ issue (October 2017)

‘Marrying up’ is now easier for men, improves their economic well-being, study finds (28 August 2017) I think they really mean ‘marrying up should now be easier for men’. And again, if the genders were reversed, there would certainly not be the same meek acceptance of the women being failed by the education system.

College-Educated Women Can’t Find Good Men – What’s to blame? (3 February 2016)

The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women, by David M Buss (January 2016) USA. An article written by a male academic, but from a wholly gynocentric perspective.

These women can’t find enough marriageable men (24 September 2015) and related reddit discussion thread here

Rich educated women cannot find husbands and it’s all your fault, by Sargon of Akkad (10 May 2015) Video

Where are all the smart men? (3 May 2015) New Zealand with related reddit mensrights discussion threads here and here. A separate, and even more ignorant editorial here concludes with “The failure of men to foot it with them educationally in equal numbers is no reason to change the education system or promote men undeservedly. The shortage of partners for highly educated women is a problem only men can solve. Get your credentials, boys.”

Some other related posts within this blog:

On boys and education
Men & women and their attitudes to marriage and parenthood
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us
We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

Why is it so very hard for MSM to allow objective airing of men’s issues? The example of Triple J Hack’s ‘debate’

This evening ABC2/Triple J Hack are to broadcast what is billed as a debate on the topic of ‘Is Male Privilege Bullshit‘. In fact it will most likely be nothing more than yet another bigoted feminist soliloquy.

They have most likely scheduled this program due to the considerable amount of recent publicity concerning the screening of the Red Pill movie, and the feminist lobby’s desperate need to try to claw back some credibility.

For background or updates readers can peruse the Twitter streams for @ABC2, @TripleJHack @TomTilley and/or the corresponding Facebook pages.

ABC2 have invited the likes of Clementine Ford and Nakkiah Lui to join the panel. Of course, if you want to have a fair and balanced discussion you invite misandrists onto the panel. If worst comes to worst then the rest of the sisterhood can claim ‘not all feminists are like that‘, then rinse and repeat.

While Karen Straughan (‘GirlWritesWhat’) features in a promo video, sadly she will not be participating on the discussion panel. Cassie Jaye (‘Red Pill’) was to be interviewed (via satellite) during the show but pulled out stating:

“I already see so many warning signs of inherent bias based on the program’s marketing … I don’t see what I can gain by being a part of this when it’s clear that the show is going to give selective and limited airtime to certain guests over others.” (Source)

Additionally, yesterday ABC2 published this biased and misleading article about domestic violence (‘DV’). The focus of the article is an assertion that the Australian finding that one in three victims of domestic violence are male, is false. This is not the first time that Australian feminists have attacked this statistic.

The article quotes well-known anti-men’s rights advocates Michael Flood and Michael Salter, and includes various factual errors as well as misrepresentations of the MRA perspective on the issue of DV.

Here is a rebuttal of that article prepared by Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation:

“I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into correcting the following factual errors from your article “What about men?: Challenging the MRA claim of a domestic violence conspiracy”:

The article claims, “In the 2012 PSS, about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner in the last 12 months. The ABS warns the estimate has a standard error of 25-50 per cent (meaning the real figure could be 50 per cent higher or lower) and “should be used with caution”. If we look at experiences of domestic violence over a longer period, we find the proportion of male victims sharply falls.” The 2012 PSS also found that about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner since the age of 15. There was no standard error. This is the same proportion, not a “sharp fall”.
It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three… Emergency departments: Two-thirds of patients presenting for family violence reasons were female.” This is exactly one in three, not a fall.
It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three. Victoria’s 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence compared several sources…”. The Royal Commission into Family Violence found (I quote), “Over the five years from July 2009, the proportion of male victims has increased and in 2013-14 male victims made up 31% (n=5,052) of total victims of family violence”. That’s pretty close to one in three.
Dr Salter claims, “For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it’s primarily self defensive or it’s expressive in terms of a push or a slap” without citing any research to support his claim.
It claims, “Some MRAs argue the one in three figure actually underestimates the number of male victims of domestic violence, because men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner… But apart from these anecdotal reports, there’s no other evidence to back up this claim, and no easy way of measuring this potential statistical bias.” The 2012 PSS found that men who have experienced partner violence are 2 to 3 times more likely than women to have never told anybody about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; twice as likely as women to have never sought advice or support about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; up to 40% more likely than women to have not contacted police about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; and half as likely as women to have had a restraining order issued against the perpetrator of previous partner violence. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.
Michael Brandenburg said, “Certainly there’s a cohort of men who experience family violence… In our experience a significant number of those experience violence not by intimate partners, but from other family members.” The 2012 PSS found the vast majority of partner and dating violence committed against men is perpetrated by females (94%). Only 6% occurs in relationships with a male perpetrator. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.”

The Australian mainstream media have apparently learnt nothing from the marked backlash against the rude and biased treatment of film director Cassie Jaye on The Project and Sunrise TV programs.

It is so incredibly frustrating that they are unable to address men’s issues in a fair and objective manner, and simply provide the public with the facts and different opinions and let them form their own views.

The debate tonight is designed to try to inflict maximum damage on the men’s rights movement. It will only dig the media an even deeper hole in terms of their credibility in the eyes of the community. Instead of bringing people together and fostering understanding and consensus, media stunts like this simply set the scene for more lobbing of grenades from trench to trench.

Media coverage after the event:

Hack critique Pt. 2, by Gary Orsum (22 June 2017) Video

Hack Live: What happened when we debated male privilege (21 June 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread

Bettina Arndt tells why Cassie Jaye ditched Hack Live (20 June 2017) Video

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Female Privilege Check-list

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media

Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone. Dodgy research helps no-one

Why slave away crafting a serious academic research paper when you can knock out an under-graduate quality effort that will still be published provided it pushes the appropriate PC buttons? One gets to bang the feminist drum to one’s heart’s content, virtue-signal across the chattering class, and pad out one’s resume all at the same time.

Anyway, accuracy, objectivity and academic rigor are so last century!

‘Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey’ (14 February 2017)

This unexceptional article merits its own post only by virtue of the way it exemplifies several of my concerns regarding pro-feminist research:

presents a non-gendered issue as gendered
only surveys women yet uses the results to argue a case of relative female disadvantage
features lamentably weak research methodology
only identifies contributing factors consistent with a predetermined conclusion based on feminist dogma
infers that men are primarily responsible for both causing and resolving the alleged situation of female disadvantage

My comments are inserted within the body of the article, and shown in blue font.

The main premise of the article is that women are significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving financial security, and warrant special assistance in this regard. This disadvantage is said to stem mainly from a lack of awareness of investment options and strategies. In supporting this position the paper grasps at various feminist chestnuts such as the gender wage gap, the superannuation gap, and gender bias within schools and specific employment sectors.

“Our investigation into the financial literacy of young women finds they are confident in implementing budgeting and savings strategies, but lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies.”

The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘Why focus solely on young women?’, especially if the intention is to assert gender-based disadvantage. What exactly was the goal of this research project? Better understanding a problem that affects many PEOPLE with a view to identifying strategies to help those in need? Or simply opportunistically seizing on the issue of savings and investment in order to add to the chorus of ‘women have it tougher’?

The justification for excluding men from the study is hardly compelling:

the average level of retirement savings for men is greater than the average for women
men are claimed to be, again on average, more financially literate than women.

What of the fact that many men fall below the male average, and quite likely also the female average? There would certainly be no shortage of men who “lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies“. Consider too that some women would exceed male average savings, and that this segment is sure to increase in coming years.

Bear in mind too that men’s savings are not necessarily their own, and will more often be used to support dependents. For example, many women are financially supported in later life by current or previous male partners, whilst relatively few men are supported in such a manner. And indeed, far more men than women will have some or all of their savings confiscated via court-ordered settlements following separation or divorce.

“This is surprising given that financial literacy usually refers to not only an understanding of how money actually works and how to make and manage money for day-to-day affairs but also how to use this in preparation for the future.

While our results are preliminary, based on social media users and require more detailed research, our results begin to draw links between social, institutional and personal attitudes towards financial knowledge.

A survey we distributed across social media found that 91% of 175 respondents had confidence in their ability to implement savings strategies (varying from simple to complex), and 89% were confident in their ability to budget. Strategies included everything from planning for a holiday to managing credit cards. Participants also considered budgeting and saving to be the most important aspects of their finances.”

It appears that all the survey respondents were female – a major oversight – and were likely self-selected from within the ranks of the researchers’ friends/associates. What likely degree of survey bias did this entail? In other words, to what extent are the results meaningful even in a purely statistical sense?

However, our survey participants expressed a distinct lack of appreciation for longer-term financial goals. While 72% of respondents felt that savings were extremely relevant to them, only 38% said the same about superannuation, and they showed even less interest in other long-term investment (23%).

Knowledge and confidence in implementing long-term investment strategies were even more concerning. Only 17% of respondents said they had a “medium” knowledge of superannuation and only 1% (or two of 175 respondents) felt that they had an in-depth understanding. In contrast, 55% indicated having little or no knowledge whatsoever.

The numbers look even bleaker for responses about investments. A low 12% of survey participants had medium levels of knowledge in this area, while again only 1% felt their knowledge was in-depth.

When asked about why they lacked financial knowledge, the barrier most commonly acknowledged by participants was lack of financial information taught at school (91%). Also 55% of participants reported feeling discouraged from learning about finance because they were women. This is consistent with reports of female students being discouraged from studying subjects such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).”

Oh please! That’s a reach isn’t it? Did male students receive additional education regarding financial information at school? With no corresponding results for young men, the value of the stats provided above – in terms of supporting a gendered agenda – are dubious.

And as for the validity of measuring how people “feel” about things, I would refer you to this paper.

Why financial literacy matters for women

Women working full-time currently earn 84% of a man’s pay – at a 20 year average. The impact is this: women will earn around [A$650,000 less than men across their lifetimes].

While the pay gap is considerable, the “super gap” is even greater. On average women will accumulate 46.6% less in superannuation than men, and one in three women retire with no super at all. Superannuation is the second largest asset for most Australian households, (second only to housing) and contributes significantly to economic security and savings at retirement.

The pay gap is based on the average for all men and all women, and when analysed it becomes clear that there a significant variations in the extent of the gap (even with respect to which gender is favoured).

Insufficient superannuation and savings at retirement have also been linked to high rates of homelessness experience by older women – a point that has been emphasised by Homelessness Australia. While there are many factors that contribute to homelessness, from drug and alcohol abuse, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence, a 2013 study by Adam Steen and David MacKenzie suggests that the little research done is this area indicates poor financial literacy is also a contributing factor.

Difference in superannuation savings between women and men are driven by interrelated factors including: the gender pay gap, more frequent participation of women in lower paid industries and jobs, disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual positions. Also influencing this trend are the fragmented work patterns as a result of time taken off for unpaid care and pregnancy related workplace discrimination. Women also typically retire earlier and live longer than men – up to 4.4 years longer for a female born today.

These are mainly issues of personal choice. Choose different options, for example taking a job in a higher paid sectors, and the situation changes regardless of gender – as stated in the following paper (and countless others).

“A Department of Labor study released in 2009, which reviewed upwards of 50 peer-reviewed papers, concluded the wage gap, “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

“Women, more than men, show a demonstrated preference for lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety and comfort, and they are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the greater safety and reduced probability of work-related injury or death”” (Source)

In addition to these structural and social factors, our data suggests that women are ill-equipped to manage long-term financial investments.

That sounds almost sexist doesn’t it? … whilst readers can only speculate how much better-equipped men in the same cohort are, as the relevant information is omitted from the “data”.

And then there are the other factors that might have a bearing on women’s relative unwillingness or inability to commit to long-term financial plans. One of these is female hypergamy, and one of the authors responded to this suggestion in the following manner:

Do you, dear reader, consider the author’s response to be a) Objective b) Scholarly or c) Butthurt (Circle correct answer/s)

Some other possible factors are mentioned in the readers comments that follow the article, for example the relative confidence of men v women (as distinct from actual knowledge or skill). Willingness to take risk was also mentioned.

Reduced financial literacy amongst women in comparison to men was acknowledged by the Australian government in 2008 and again by the NSW Council of Social Services in 2016. Likewise it has been acknowledged in the United States and further afield. Our data suggests little has changed.

But the authors earlier asserted that homelessness was highly correlated with financial literacy, and yet there are far more homeless men than women. Would someone please explain?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that financial literacy is a significant factor, for both men and women, in achieving financial security later in life. And yes, this should be a major focus in terms of designing appropriate remedial action.

What I am not willing to accept however is:

Designing and providing educational programs for financial literacy that are not available to both men/boys and women/girls
Extending financial support or other incentives to women, but not men (as in the case, for example, of the ANZ staff Super payment mentioned in this blog post).

And more publicly-funded ‘research’ like this!

Aussie retirement gender gap much larger than US, UK (17 October 2017)

Brisbane small business to pay female employees more superannuation than male co-workers (28 September 2017)

Superannuation is sexist (6 September 2017) Video

Claims super is ‘biased’ against women are nonsense (30 July 2017)

A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men

The mainstream media is awash with articles infused with anti-male bias. Indeed after being conditioned through decades of exposure to this material, most people accept what they are told. In comparison to most of those articles, the focus of this post regarding alleged male risk-taking behaviour is admittedly rather benign. Indeed, if taken at face-value it appears to be sympathetic to the welfare of men & boys.

Examined more closely however the article reflects the contrasting and hypocritical manner in which the media addresses men’s & women’s issues.

The same day I noticed this article I came across another in a similar vein. That article mocks men in relation to another trait associated with masculinity – demonstrating protective behaviour towards women.

No there is nothing controversial about shaming men – just men – about pretty much anything nowadays. That’s kind of my point. And the article isn’t so much about “asking why“, but telling us why … apparently men are foolish.

And oddly, whilst this is an article about men’s behaviour, it begins with an account of the drowning of a 23 month old toddler. This seems to infer that even very young boys are dying due to masculinity-induced recklessness. Presumably female toddlers are more careful.

As the article is relatively brief, I’ll provide it here in its entirety:

‘Drownings blamed on men’s risky behaviour‘ (The Australian, 30 December 2016)

“The twin brother pulled unconscious from a Sydney swimming pool has died three days after his sister, in what has been described as a “deeply disturbing” week for water deaths.

Charli and Robbi Manago, 23 months, had been fighting for life in The Children’s Hospital at Westmead since they were found in their family’s pool around 7pm on December 20. The hospital last night confirmed Robbi had died.

His death takes the number of coastal and inland waterway fatalities since Sunday to 11. Nine of the dead were men.

Experts say a deadly cocktail of conditions — male bravado, consistent warm weather, and a poor understanding of water dangers — has led to the deaths.

As police and volunteers return to Sydney’s Maroubra Beach to find the body of missing teenager Tui Gallaher and search a Wagga river in the south of NSW for a 42-year-old man, experts have warned people not to overestimate their abilities.

Between 80 and 90 per cent of drowning victims are male, according to recent figures.

Four people died on Boxing Day, including 60-year-old Geoffrey Blackadder, who died trying to save young relatives from a rip on the NSW north coast, and 25-year-old Amine Hamza, who died after swimming with friends at Bents Basin in Sydney’s west.

“It’s deeply disturbing. Men are more likely to overestimate their swimming ability and underestimate how dangerous conditions are,” said Justin Scarr, chief executive at the Royal Life -Saving Society Australia.

“Men are more likely to swim in locations away from lifeguards and crowds, and they’re also more likely to consume alcohol.””

As you can see, the premise of the article is that substantially more men die from drowning due to those men taking excessive and presumably avoidable risks.

May I ask you, when was the last time you saw a headline “X blamed on women’s risky behaviour”? Where ‘X’ might have been death/rape/injury/cosmetic surgery/whatever. 1965? That’s because journalists know that when they discuss any such situations they must, at all costs, avoid be called-out for ‘victim-blaming’. And yet the same consideration is not on offer when men are the victims. Gender equality when it suits?

The assertion that drowning deaths result from men taking undue risks appears unproven. The examples of swimming outside the flags and drinking are provided, although neither of these behaviours are exclusive to men.

There are other possible explanations for a gender variation in deaths, particularly the likelihood that men venture into the water more often, and for longer periods, than do women. Clearly those who don’t go to the beach, or who lie on their towels 95% of the time, are less likely to drown in the ocean.

All outdoor activities have some degree of inherent risk, i.e. they are all “risky”. Given that men are significantly more likely than women to participate in almost all forms of outdoor recreation, they are clearly more likely to be injured or killed participating in such activities. One of the few exceptions is netball, a sport recognised as having a low risk of drowning.

If a significant number of drowning deaths were due to medical emergencies then it would make more sense to focus on men’s health, than male shaming. It is likely that some of the male drowning deaths were also the result of men attempting to rescue others.

For the purpose of this discussion let’s concede that “risky behaviour” (to be defined) may indeed result in more men drowning than women. And of course it would be preferable that those tragedies not occur. But before rushing to judgement let’s also consider the issue of risk-taking by men in a broader context.

Men tend to take more risks than women, and this risk-taking results in a range of both positive and negative impacts on society. On the positive side I would go so far as to propose that risk-taking by men has been and continues to be the powerhouse of civilisation.

Need someone to step forward to defend a woman being attacked? Men are expected to step forward, and are shamed if they do not. Need someone to defend a country from attack? Ditto.

In Australia 97% of workplace deaths involve men – around 175 people in 2016. Men working in dangerous and unpleasant jobs that women generally won’t accept. Where is the outrage about the risks these men take in providing necessary services to the community?

Based on media coverage, or lack thereof, it would appear that men taking risks in the name of chivalry, industry and national service is acceptable if not expected. In contrast, men taking risks during their leisure hours is unacceptable and worthy of negative media attention.

Men don’t deserve to be shamed for exhibiting the trait of risk-taking, nor for choosing not to do so. In fact greater recognition that male risk-taking more often benefits society would seem appropriate.

Sure there will be times when some men deserve a thoughtful journalistic rap over the knuckles, but this should not be the default position. Similarly there are times when women’s behaviour merits a commensurate sanction. At the moment however women are rarely subject to criticism, are encouraged to take risks, and the blame for any negative repercussions more often placed at the feet of men.

It’s time everyone got on the same page with gender equality, and recognised that there should be one standard to which we are all held. And that support and empathy should be consistently applied and gender-blind. Anything less will see more of the same unfortunate and divisive gender bias that now permeates the mainstream media.

See also:

Reader posts in a related Reddit discussion thread here

Former senior judge Richard Gee latest to die in summer drowning tragedy (3 January 2016)

Further related blog posts that may be of interest include:

On chivalry

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media

On masculinity and ‘real men’

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

Women are held accountable for … (say hello to the Teflon Gender)

Men do more of most things … get a target painted on their backs

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

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators

I had the misfortune to read an article in the NZ Herald entitled ‘No predator more dangerous than the human male‘ by Rachel Stewart.

This is the self-same journo who last year informed us that “There’s no doubt that New Zealand’s epidemic of domestic violence lies firmly at the feet of men. As does the solution.” Oh dear, someone hasn’t bothered to even dip their toe into that extensive body of domestic violence research that didn’t pass through the feminist filter.

But back to yesterday’s article about men as predators. You can probably guess the bulk of its contents. Comparisons between men and different wild animals. The writer alleging the receipt of abuse and death threats for speaking out for women. (Presumably these threats came from male predators, because feminists don’t do stuff like that) And then some more about men being horrible. Oh, and a bit of Trump-bashing to freshen up those other tired feminist cliques.

The final paragraph read:

“Before I hear you shriek “not ALL men”, how about you good guys start calling out the bad guys, as well as sexual predators. Because you know who they are.”

Yes that’s right all bad guys show a secret sign that only other men can see, and which signals that they are bad. If only the good men then did their duty, presumably by way of citizens arrests or possibly even summary execution, allowing the womenfolk to remain safe whilst going about their business.

Thankfully there are no bad women, thus the issue of good women having responsibility for calling them out is moot. We can disregard the countless rare aberrations detailed in the following blog posts as but rambling inventions of an unhinged MRA and his vast army of similarly brain-washed academics, journalists, public servants, etc:

On violence perpetrated, or instigated, by women and girls
Regarding female perpetration of paedophilia and underage sex
On deaths related to domestic violence
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence
Mostly female perpetrators, so child abuse is a gendered crime then?
The often contrasting media reaction when mums and dads kill their children

Rachel went on to tweet:

To which I responded:

The article to which I linked was this fabulous offering from Janet Bloomfield (aka ‘Judgy Bitch’). Please take a moment to read it now if you are not familiar with this work.

“Heavy lifting” by feminists … what a joke! If there’s any lifting to be done they just start a hashtag and recruit some gullible white knights to get down and dirty.

And after that, quelle surprise!

Hmm. Well given the choice between being a vile gender bigot clinging to a tainted ideology that will without doubt soon find itself on the wrong side of history … and being thick … I think I’ll settle for the latter.

Finally, here is a link to the page that tells people how to lodge complaints regarding material published in the NZ Herald. That is, of course, if you can spare a few moments away from all that predation.

Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes

Some time ago I came across the following item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication focusing on men’s issues:

Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women (25 September 2014)

The article tells 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.

I have included a link to this article in quite a few tweets I have sent to organisations such as Plan International, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they have 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:

‘Did many men lose their lives due to discriminatory policies?‘ (26 May 2016)

“Most international charities discriminate against men at least since 1995. In 2010 Haiti Earthquake men were denied food. Do you think such policies are responsible for many excess men’s deaths?”

It’s worth taking a moment to look at the readers comments (30 of them as at the time I uploaded this post).

The Australian Government not only provides far more more funding for women/girls with regards to its domestic programs, but now its foreign aid programs are increasingly gender-targeted. This January 2017 article, for example, discusses the Australian Government contribution towards UN Women. In November 2016 Prime Minister Turnbull advised that the resettlement scheme for those in detention centres would prioritise women, children and families. Because #genderequality

A selection of foreign aid organisations that fail to address the welfare needs of men

List of human rights issues as identified/pursued by the United Nations … men are apparently missing in action. The UN doesn’t even bother to list International men’s Day (19 November) in its online calendar of events. Here’s a list of the female days celebrated by the UN (Tweet dated 5 April 2019).

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)

Upon first arriving at the web site of Project Futures the organisation appears gender-neutral. Sadly the more you read the clearer their blindness to trafficked or enslaved men becomes, despite the size of that problem in the Asian region. They also appear to be supportive of disgraced activist Somaly Mam (refer wiki entry).

Further sources illustrating and/or discussing gender bias in foreign aid:

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)

Gender Empathy Gap Day (23 June 2018)

African Opposition to UNICEF’s Mass Infant Circumcision Campaign: UNICEF responds. So do Africans (1 August 2017) And when the UN does decide to ‘help’ men/boys, is this is the best they can manage?

Canada commits $97-million to Congo under feminist foreign-aid policy (6 July 2017)

How to spend foreign aid like a feminist (4 July 2017)

Ottawa unveils new feminist foreign-aid policy (9 June 2017) Canada

“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”

Secret aid worker: Men have as many issues as women, we just don’t know what they are (14 February 2017)

“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.”

The U.N.’s Shocking Gender/Feminist Bias: Masterpost with Links (17 September 2016)

Dear #GamerGate, UN feminism is more dangerous than you know (27 September 2015)

Gender Equality in Humanitarian Assistance (March 2015) Sweden

“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.

Thai Team Receives World Bank Award for Innovations to Prevent Gender-Based Violence, with more details in a blog post entitled Ending the invisible violence against Thai female sex workers (June 2016) I submitted a comment to the blog post which was not uploaded … par for the course when feminist author meets dissenting view.

“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’?

Zika and Ebola had a much worse effect on women: we need more research to address this in future (20 October 2016)

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.”

Take five with Joy Chebet Bii: Why does digital literacy matter for women and girls? (4 October 2016) Girls get taught to code, boys can watch on

Defining, Demonstrating, & Understanding Male Disposability (30 September 2016)

Iconic Australian charity changes its name to ‘Ourtown’ in 2016 after 55 years as ‘Boystown’, as explained by them and as announced in a media article

Unheard Voices: Men and Youth in Thailand’s Conflict-Affected Deep South (21 September 2016) An oh-so-rare example of consideration being given to the welfare of men/boys in a humanitarian program

Meteor hits earth: Women most affected (19 September 2016) Video

How Clean Cookstoves Create Gender Equality (15 September 2016) Apparent over-reach to promote this as a gender issue given lack of evidence in either this article nor the linked source article.

Commonwealth Ministers pledge four-point plan to empower women (9 September 2016)

Take a look at how fear of sounding politically incorrect forces the U.N into hypocrisy and inaction, ignoring the male education crisis in East Asia (23 June 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Teaching slum girls and female refugees to believe in themselves (17 June 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

5 Ways to End Poverty by Focusing on Women and Girls (14 June 2016)

Canada to turn away single men as part of Syrian refugee resettlement plan (24 November 2015) So Muslims OK, but men not OK, right?

Inside Story – The silent victims of rape (28 July 2011)

The rape of men: the darkest secret of war (17 July 2011)

“… 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.””

Haitian Men starve while “Women Only” get food (1 February 2010)

UN sets up women-only food aid in Haiti (31 January 2010)

Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations (2006)

I will add further references and discussion to this post as time permits and as I come across relevant items.

See also my blog post entitled ‘Human trafficking of men and boys + other hidden sexual violence against males‘

Gendered, gendered, gendered: The word that fuels the feminist machine

Few of those reading this would be unfamiliar with the feminist proclivity for labelling a plethora of issues as ‘gendered’. Like many terms it doesn’t mean much without considerable qualification. And even then it may not mean much. But if something can’t be portrayed as being gendered then feminists and their beloved narrative lose traction.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘gendered’ as “reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other.” The problem though is that in real life there are relatively few things that only (or even predominantly) affect one gender. In most situations both genders wield a significant influence and/or are significantly affected. We’re all in it together. One topical example would be online harassment.

Let’s now look at an even more contentious issue, child abuse. Most non-sexual child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women. Most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by men (although there are still plenty of sexual abusers of children who are female). So is child abuse gendered? And in terms of framing remedial action, is it more or less productive to attack child abuse as a gendered issue?

The straw that broke this camel’s back today was an article entitled ‘Australia’s most shocking statistic: Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women with disabilities‘ by Ginger Gorman. The tagline was the shocking announcement that 90% of disabled women have been sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Ginger’s article tells us that most abuse takes place in institutions, yet makes no mention of the abuse of disabled men/boys. She then provides some examples of incidents of abuse involving male perpetrators in non-institutional settings. The actual gender mix of perpetrators of abuse, in either institutional or non-institutional settings, is left unstated.

In the absence of further details it’s highly likely that readers would have assumed that most victims of abuse were female, and their abusers male. Such is the inevitable outcome of persistent gender bias in the media on top of decades of gynocentric conditioning.

This is despite that fact that there are certainly instances where research has found most perpetrators of abuse to be women. One such example can be found in the Adele Mercier incident, whereupon a feminist academic wrongly denied female perpetration of institutional abuse.

This selective presentation of statistics – only showing the extent to which women are affected, and in the absence of comparative statistics for men and boys – is extremely common in feminist literature. This problem is discussed further in a separate blog post about feminist research and their misleading use of statistics.

The source document for the 90% abuse claim was a submission by the Australian Cross Disability Alliance. I found the relevant reference in the section entitled ‘Incidence & prevalence data on gendered disability violence‘ (page 37). Despite asserting that the abuse was gendered, this section provided no comparative statistics whatsoever in relation to the abuse of men/boys.

How is that appropriate in terms of either compassion or academic rigour? I mean, is this a case of just ‘trust me, I’m a feminist’?

I then took the matter up with the author of the article in a series of exchanges on Twitter including the following:

Look, don’t get me wrong, the most important thing here is to effectively reduce the incidence of child abuse. The rest is second-order stuff. But I honestly don’t see that goal being significantly advanced via the blinkered and self-serving approach taken by feminists. As with domestic violence, framing a solution to half a problem translates into no solution at all.

Oh, and colour me surprised – see below for how this episode ended.

How could anyone take feminism seriously when one is constantly reminded how infantilised its followers have become?

How to make anything a gendered issue, by Blaise Wilson (30 April 2017) Video

The following are some of the other posts in my blog that are also relevant to this issue:

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
More assaults at aged care homes
The unbearable lameness of being
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

Thank you Bev, whoever you are

Within the limits of the little free time available to me I try to keep abreast of media and social media discussions concerning gender-related issues. I also post readers comments from time to time.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that readers comments are often far more informative and entertaining than many of the articles I read. And it’s doubly true when the author is a feminist.

In reading comments I sometimes recognise the names (real or assumed) of those posting their thoughts. Some of these names are familiar to me from their posting on reddit, on mens rights blogs, and from stumbling upon their own blogs or Facebook pages. But one is a bit of a mystery.

That reader, who signs off as ‘Bev’, pops up all over the place, by virtue of the large number of comments posted each week. Not just any old comments, but generally cordial, thoughtful and articulate comments. (Example here)

Anyway thanks for your contribution to raising awareness of the male perspective Bev. Your efforts are much appreciated. And to everyone else, maybe keep an eye out for Bev’s handiwork.

And thanks to all the other women who speak up in support of the welfare of men and boys. It’s really great to see not just the numbers of women who are prepared to expose themselves to the wrath of the feminist horde, but also the calibre of their input.

Sadly, Australian politicians only find the courage to criticise the feminist lobby after they retire

If any further proof were needed about the extent of power wielded by the feminist lobby in Australia then consider the fact that gender issues are rarely mentioned by politicians unless their views are in lockstep with the feminist position on the relevant matter. As for direct criticism of feminists or feminism … well that’s as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.

One of the few exceptions to the above rule that I am aware of is Victorian MP Graham Watt. Whilst his criticism was mute, it was certainly unambiguous. Another is Senator Mitch Fifield who refused to roll over when subjected to a sexist slur in parliament. And another is Queensland MP Tim Mander who highlighted the hypocrisy of leftists/feminists who call for diversity and gender parity but look away when the gender balance favors women (media response).

Most recently, ACT politician Mark Parton ruffled feathers when he claimed that middle-aged white men were being ignored in the rush to diversity.

That this is the case speaks far more about the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and infiltration of the media and public service, than about the actual number of adherents to feminist ideology out in the broader community.

In early 2015 only 18% of Americans considered themselves to be feminists, this figure representing a substantial drop in feminist numbers since 2013. Consider too that most of those identifying as feminists likely only possess a superficial knowledge of feminist theory and its tawdry history. In Britain now the figure is even lower, sitting at just 7%. Nevertheless, the feminist hierarchy has no qualms about claiming to be the font of wisdom with regards to what all women want, and how they should live their lives.

Yet despite this our elected representatives, from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to take a stand. Thus they would rather please a screeching minority group than represent the best interests of the majority of their constituents.

This sad trend is addressed in this February 2017 article by British MP Philip Davies wherein he states:

“The recurring theme is the number of MPs in different parties who tell me, privately and in a whisper, “Of course you are absolutely right about this, it is all ridiculous” but – with very few but notable exceptions – will not dare to say so publicly.

This highlights two things. Firstly, most MPs lack courage – even to say things which are just plain common sense.

Secondly, it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.”

The sitting politicians’ concerns are, unfortunately, understandable when one considers the harsh criticism meted out to those rare individuals who do dare to speak out (related article).

One of those attacked for questioning the feminist-constructed status quo is former MP Gary Johns (example). All Gary had to do was question the merit of providing substantial funding to feminist advocacy groups (in lieu of direct funding of relevant government agencies), and secondly to query why male victims of domestic violence were being ignored.

Another former MP, Bill O’Chee, has written articles highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence (such as this and this).

Mark Latham has attracted wave after wave of abuse after writing about feminism and motherhood, the current political approach to the issue of domestic violence, and celebrity ‘victim’ Rosie Batty. Listed below are a few examples of articles that have heaped scorn upon Mark for daring to offer an opinion contrary to the feminist narrative:

Em Rusciano: Good riddance Mark Latham (17 August 2015)
Men are second-class citizens? Give us a break, by Wendy Tuohy (2 May 2016)

Mark Latham and others in a Sunrise (TV program) panel discussion regarding feminism (1 May 2016) Video

Left bleaters ignore truth about wife beaters (29 February 2016)

In January 2016 Mark again found himself the target of furious feminist and ‘white knight‘ scorn after he commented upon the rampant gender bias and misrepresentation within the domestic violence debate:

Mark Latham attacks Rosie Batty in first podcast for Triple M on new segment called ‘Lathamland’ (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham under fire for Triple M podcast describing domestic violence as ‘coping mechanism’ (22 January 2016) with related reddit discussion threads here and here

Mark Latham’s spray makes him an apologist for perpetrators of violence against women, by Wendy Tuohy (22 January 2016)

Why we can’t and shouldn’t look away from the damage Mark Latham is doing (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham’s spray may be his last on Triple M after backlash over domestic violence comments (22 January 2016)

‘You do believe that Rosie Batty causes more harm than good?’ Mark Latham challenged on Sunrise about controversial domestic violence comments on Triple M… as radio station is slammed for hiring him (23 January 2016)

Rosie Batty responds to Mark Latham’s comments about domestic violence (25 January 2016)

Alan Jones and Mark Latham talk about domestic violence (31 October 2016) Audio. See media follow-up here and in The Australia (behind paywall). Jenna ‘Destroy the Joint‘ Price then had to weigh in with some righteous fury.

Mark Latham is not actually retired – he jumped across to the NSW parliament. And since then he’s still addressing feminism and gender issues, which is great. Here’s Mark asking questions about domestic violence and the BOSCAR report findings (October 2019)

In this interview with Bettina Arndt, former politicians Peter Beattie and Peter Reith discuss the non-feminist perspective on domestic violence (10 October 2016). On that note, see also this further video from Bettina entitled ‘Enough Talk, More Action’ (17 October 2019)

See ‘Abbott slams “anti-men” policy, but why are other MPs silent?‘ by Corrine Barraclough (3 May 2017). Tony Abbott has not yet retired, but as a former Prime Minister kicking around on the backbench he’s only step removed. Nevertheless, bravo Tony!

Senator Leyonhjelm has also kicked some solid goals, but is unfortunately now in the process of moving from the federal to the (NSW) state arena (see video).

Beyond these few courageous individuals the picture is bleak indeed. So much for living in a parliamentary democracy. So much for freedom of speech. So much for teasing apart a problematic issue and discussing new and/or alternative solutions to achieve positive change.

Now shut-up and prostrate yourselves before the wonder and wisdom of 3rd wave feminism.

Other blog posts related to this topic include:

Dealing with men’s issues – The current situation in Australia
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Going Batty: The making of a champion of the Domestic Violence Industry
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)
On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions