I haven’t written anything more about the topic. Yet at the same time, it is something which is put in our face every time the media (TV) runs an item on domestic violence and finishes with the advice to call (such and such agency) if “you are troubled by violent or abusive behaviour from your partner”. Which leaves everyone thinking that at least some help is available for (all) victims of domestic behaviour. But it’s not so.
Most agencies in the domestic violence sector will either turn male callers away or will (officially) cater for them, but on the (wink/nudge) understanding that they are either abusers trying to locate their partners, or are simply abusers in denial.
But now the topic of whether domestic violence help-lines actually do assist male callers has been raised again by an English researcher, Deborah Powney (Twitter id = @Firebird_psych). On 14 April 2020 Deborah began sending daily tweets as per the following:
Simple question. Shouldn’t take long to answer. And she waited. And while she did, she asked one or two further questions, for example:
“Could you provide the numbers of female perpetrators you have helped in the past 12 month? Could also provide the number of female perpetrator programmes that Respect have accredited in the same time period?” (To @RespectUK on 29 April 2020)
It took until 15 May 2020 before Deborah received an initial response.
“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”
Deborah responded the same day, as follows: “Thank you for your response. Just to clarify – you do not help male victims at all – other than ‘immediate’ referal to the @RespectUK men’s helpline. Is that correct?”
@RefugeCharity further responded (also 15 May 2020)
“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. The national domestic abuse helpline, which Refuge runs, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days week. If male callers contact us, we refer them immediately to the men’s advice line, which is a specialist service for male victims of domestic abuse. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”
On 15 May 2020 Deborah then asked:
“Can @RefugeCharity@ukhomeoffice be clear what support the 24 hour National DA Helpline gives to male victims of domestic abuse when the @RespectUK taxpayer- funded “Men’s Advice Line” is closed (from either 5pm or 8pm weekdays to 9am & weekends) @nicolejacobsST@pritipatel”
@martintandc @RespectUK @JoTodd4 Could you clearly explain why you make specific reference to male terrorists in your Toolkit for working with Male Victims of domestic abuse for the Men’s Advice Line? @nicolejacobsST @pritipatel @ukhomeoffice @mankind @MartinDaubney @PhilipDaviesUK
“For instance, the biggest denominator in acts of terrorism and mass killings is that almost all of the perpetrators are men. Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large-scale violence. Similarly, the levels of suicide for men are much greater then for women, because of social pressure on men not to seek help to deal with their emotional problems”. (Source)
From reading this material it seems obvious to me that staff in the relevant agencies had not considered how male callers were being dealt with, let alone how they should be dealt with. The topic was not even ‘on the radar’ as it was seemingly seen to be unimportant, and offering to assist men at all was seen as merely a token gesture.
You might wish to now refer to Deborah’s Twitter account to see if any further responses have been received from government, domestic violence industry, or readers.
(Some information about Deborah’s current research project regarding the experience of male victims of domestic violence can be found here.)
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the feminist lobby has claimed that there has been a surge* in domestic violence. (*Note that the term ‘surge’ has been well and truly overtaken by now, more recently by ‘staggering increase‘ or ‘driving a spike‘). This trend has manifested itself across several countries, with the UN Women agency being a significant player. UN Women has produced guidelines in relation to gathering data about domestic violence against women.
The feminist lobby has linked this alleged increase in violence to, in particular, the common practice of governments requiring people to quarantine in their own homes. The proof offered to support the feminist position has primarily been claimed to be significant increases in call volume to DV help-lines (largely operated by feminist NGO’s). There have also been similar claims made in relation to alleged increases in traffic to web sites dealing with the welfare of victims of DV.
In only one of the media articles I read, prior to uploading this post, was reference made to an increase in the number of calls to police. This did not relate to increases in the number of charges laid, nor punishments meted out, but rather to queries made by people concerned about a perceived threat of DV.
I would suggest, as have others, that domestic violence is the feminist lobby’s primary cash-cow. Consider too, for example, the salary of DV agency bosses such as Sandra Horley, who is reported to receive a remuneration package of more than £210,000. The British Prime Minister is currently paid approx. £155,000.
To base government policy, even just one-off hand-outs of public money, on unverified allegations, is at best naïve. And when such claims are being provided by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a public view of a problem that they assert to be large & growing. Well, one might label such vested interest ‘ideological bias’, ‘pecuniary interest’, or worse as per the flow-chart below (Source). But whatever you call it, it is by no means competent, objective, unbiased research.
It is particularly annoying that whilst the feminist-saturated domestic violence industry is loudly proclaiming a jump in violence in the home, they are maintaining their silence with respect to the reality of female-perpetrated assaults/abuse of men and children.
The other galling issue, although unrelated to Covid-19, is that I have belatedly learnt that, in the UK, the rate of women being killed by their partner was now at a 40 year low (Source). You would think that this would be shouted from the rooftops, wouldn’t you? Well, unless people sought to maintain perception of a growing epidemic. One that desperately demands further public funding.
What follows now are a series of media releases or articles dealing with the issue, presented in reverse chronological order:
No spike in home violence, police say (10 June 2020) ‘The Australian’ newspaper tells us that NSW authorities “almost doubled domestic violence checks” but found “no increase in abuse rates“.
“Professor Wendt says women are experiencing violence at a more “intense level” as they try to survive the restrictions and plan their escape as measures lift”. Needless to say, what constitutes a “more intense level” is left to the imagination, and no supporting statistics are provided to quantify intensity.
” … I have just had 50 front-line workers on a statewide forum on the phone and all of them are saying how much busier it is… and now the stats come back to prove it”. “Stats” that agency staff themselves generated … what could go wrong?
“Ms Foster said the figures were concerning because they conflicted with a recent report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found “domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020, despite social distancing measures commencing … But Ms Foster said the report had sent a “dangerous message” to victims and policymakers. She said it was “irresponsible to put out a report drawing a conclusion that fears that domestic violence would increase hadn’t been realised.”
“The Queensland Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Di Farmer, said authorities across the country were grappling with an “amplification” of abuse caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and tough health restrictions.
Domestic violence crisis centres in the state have experienced a 40 per cent spike in calls for help since the start of the pandemic …”
“The most concerning statistic came from Google data, with the Federal Government seeing a 75 per cent increase in searches about family and domestic violence compared to the average number of searches over the previous five years.”
“Alison Macdonald, acting chief executive of Domestic Violence Victoria, said there was clear evidence a surge in demand was coming. “We know from international evidence that there are spikes in family violence in post emergency and post crisis situations,” she said. “We know from Australian experience with bushfires, with floods and with cyclones.”
“To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on efforts to end gender-based violence, Avenir Health modelled a delay in the scale-up of prevention efforts as attention and resources are devoted to COVID-19, and an increase in violence during the period of lockdown. Assuming a slow start to the scale-up of prevention programmes (i.e., a 2-year delay in 2020 and 2021), followed by a rapid expansion of prevention programs in the middle of the decade, an estimated 2 million additional instances of intimate partner violence in 2020-2021 are expected.”
“COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in progress towards ending gender-based violence by 2030”
“For every 3 months the lockdown continues, an additional 15 million additional cases of gender-based violence are expected”
That’s right, no police reports were used to generate predictions. It was all based on modelling. Remarkable. And of course, no mention anywhere of female perpetration.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic the mainstream media has been following what is by now a well-established script. That script is one that involves playing down or ignoring the negative impacts of an issue or situation on men, whilst focussing on the perceived negative impacts on women. It also involves playing up the positive contribution of one gender over the other, with regards to fixing the problem. And if this sometimes involves misrepresentation, exaggeration or even fabrication – as it invariably does – well apparently, so be it.
That article mentions “a man diagnosed with coronavirus who recently travelled to Hamilton Island“. Actually it was a woman. Until this tourist travelled there, there were no other reported cases of COVID-19 in the region. The article also mentioned that the “ABC understands the patient recently travelled from New South Wales where they were first tested.”
A regional newspaper article published on 19 March 2020 (pay-wall protected) provides further/clearer details of the incident …
“A woman admitted to Mackay Hospital on Tuesday with coronavirus defied health orders and flew to Hamilton Island after being diagnosed with novel coronavirus in Sydney. It is understood the UK tourist, in her mid-30’s, was found on a Hamilton Island beach after NSW Health authorities alerted their Queensland counterparts”.
“She is understood to have told health authorities she did not understand the directive to self-isolate after testing positive to Covid-19“.
Domestic violence – or more specifically domestic violence against women – has been one of the major gender issues appearing in the media thus far. I have addressed that issue, or at least one aspect of it, in another post.
Further items related to the impact of Covid-19 on women, and vice versa:
“It’s a free country” (12 April 2020) & in another incident … “A 20-year-old woman stopped in Port Macquarie gave police her twin sister’s details before police dropped her home with a warning. She refused to go inside, walked off, gave police the finger and was promptly handed a $1000 fine.”
But what’s going on? There appears to have been a change of feminist tactics, as this is the 2nd paper I’ve read today admitting that there had been no boost in the number of calls from DV victims since the commencement of the pandemic.
“At 9.20am yesterday, a woman was walking south along Sharp Street, Cooma, in NSW, when she allegedly stepped in front of another woman and intentionally coughed in her direction.The woman allegedly continued to cough at members of the public as she walked past them, including a woman with a young child.”
Malaysia apologises for telling women not to nag during lockdown (1 April 2020) Many recent articles express sympathy & frustration on behalf of women forced to isolate with men who (allegedly might) beat them, or at least don’t wash more dishes. But sympathise with men who have to put up with nagging or condescending women …. ooh no …that’s some serious #misogyny. Stop it now, you hear?
Tellingly, media outlets like The Guardian reported this as ‘young people’ rather than “young women”. Most of those that didn’t (initially), either amended online copy or removed it within hours of publication.
“Seriously people, this is not the time for judging, finger pointing or shaming. Our world is in uncharted territory, we are all desperately trying to filter through the mass of news we’re consuming eager to decipher what works for us and our families.”
Yes, similar to the way feminists refrain from finger-pointing at, or shaming, men. All the time. Oh please, spare us the tunnel-vision!
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.
“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.”
“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.
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:
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.”
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 Luito 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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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:
“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.
Reader posts in a related Reddit discussion thread here
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:
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.
Some time ago I came across the following item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication that focussed on men’s issues. In its September 2014 edition it featured an article entitled Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women. (Sadly the web site now seems to have been removed, can anyone provide me with an alternate URL?).
The article informed us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.
I included a link to this article in tweets I sent to organisations such as ‘Plan International’, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they promoted online.
One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.
There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.
Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?
And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:
“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 advis
See globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs
See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same
See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)
World Vision article prepared by news.com.au entitled ‘Why gender equality is about basic rights‘ only to then launch into a discussion of why (only) girls need help, and ignoring the fact that poor boys face the same challenges as poor girls, e.g. forced to work young, forced to marry young, genital mutilation, etc.
The article concludes with “All children can be vulnerable, and girls face particularly harsh realities because of their gender. That’s why World Vision has started a movement to sponsor 1000 girls by International Day of the Girl. You can join us now and help a girl in poverty live free of fear. Sponsor a girl today.” (September 2019)
“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”
“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”
“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:
• Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently; • Existing power inequalities between women and men exacerbates during crisis; • Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms; • Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and • Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”
Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.
“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being. We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”
Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why? Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?
Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”
“… The research by Lara Stemple at the University of California doesn’t only show that male sexual violence is a component of wars all over the world, it also suggests that international aid organisations are failing male victims. Her study cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. Only 3% of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically,” Stemple says, “as a passing reference.””