About what happened in Cologne (and in its aftermath)

First up a little background about what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015/6 – see the relevant Wiki entry – not that Wikipedia is free from bias but on this occasion it’s probably as good a starting point as anywhere.

Whilst the focus of this post is what happened in Cologne, readers should be aware that similar issues have arisen (but on a thus far smaller scale) in many of the other European cities that accepted ‘refugees’. I won’t worry about providing a list of links here now – just google on ‘refugee rape sweden’ or similar and you will turn up dozens of sources.

I am also aware of an incident here in Australia that also involved a sexual assault by Muslim ‘refugees’, and an alleged media hush-up.

In relation to the events in Cologne please review the following sources:

After Cologne, Feminism is Dead (18 January 2016)

“Lie back and think of multiculturalism, German women were effectively being told”

Cologne attacks were not an isolated incident (18 January 2016) Australia

Where are the feminists? (18 January 2016) Video

Europe’s tragedy: Too much Angela Merkel, too little masculinity (17 January 2016)

“‘Taharrush’: Authorities Fear Repeat of Cologne as Middle East Rape Culture Imported to Europe” (13 January 2016)

The Arabic gang-rape ‘Taharrush’ phenomenon which sees women surrounded by groups of men in crowds and sexually assaulted… and has now spread to Europe (13 January 2016)

Europe is enabling a rape culture (10 January 2016)

Refugee scandal: How Germany’s politicians and police betrayed German women (8 January 2016)

Muslim Rape Gangs Attack Women, and Feminists Won’t Say a Word About It (5 January 2016)

Jane Kelly: The shock is not the 100 attacks on German women. It is the liberal media cover-up (8 January 2016)

Op-ed claims: Don’t blame immigrants for sex assaults, blame men (8 January 2016)

Now let’s ask ourselves this question: ‘If left-leaning liberal progressives (and this category captures many if not most feminists/SJW) had not lobbied for/permitted unfettered entry by so-called refugees, would the events in Cologne have taken place?’ I’d say the clear answer to that is ‘no’.

In looking at this incident we can see that preserving the treating Muslims and the displaced has been accorded a higher priority than keeping women safe and preserving social order.

Why is this so? What motivates people to adopt such as attitude? Naivity? Wilful stupidity? A desire to irrevocably alter the nature of western society? Or a combination of such influences? Theories abound but I half suspect that it is, in part, a case of viewing Muslim ‘refugees’ as the reborn 21st Century version of the ‘noble savage’.

But whatever is the intent of media, politicans and lobby groups, the pivotal issue is the feminist cohort is standing mute whilst the welfare of thousands of their own (white western women/girls) in compromised. Government agencies and the media have been complicit in covering-up the extent of the problem and in diverting attention elsewhere, and the law enforcement bodies have been hamstrung with PC directives from above.

And I believe that what we have seen to date – widespread sexual harassment/assault/robbery – is only the start of what is going to happen in coming months, and possibly even years.

We always knew that feminists had little regard for the welfare of non-white and non-western women, but they are clearly spiralling even lower in their race to the bottom.

What is doubly sickening is that feminists have then fashioned this (their own duplicity in creating a rape culture in western society) into a stick with which to beat all men. They are using it as fuel to feed their men bad/women good mantra, and anyone dissenting with their view is dismissed as a racist and/or misogynist.

I feel only revulsion at seeing what is happening, and sympathy for the women/girls who have been, or who will be, terrorised. If only we could have them trade places with the feminists/SJW who manufactured this unfolding debacle.

Here is one of the hundreds of reader’s comments in response to *that* article in ‘The Independant’:

This piece is such a shameless deflection of responsibility for the widespread criminal assaults against the women of Europe it actually frightens me. There were rapes. Young girls were brutally molested. Women who were disembarking from European train stations were forced to travel through a gauntlet of violent sexual abuse as the police stood back. Although Cologne had the highest number of reported incidents, they occurred across Germany and beyond. Stuttgart. Zurich. Helsinki. A small town in Sweden where a group of teenage girls were assaulted by a pack of Middle Eastern men. The attacks were vicious. The attacks were coordinated. The attacks were meant to test the resolve of free Western societies. Articles such as this demonstrate the mental gymnastics being applied in order to cling to an absurd political ideology. Sacrificing the safety of women in free societies in order to accommodate legions of foreign men who possess barbaric beliefs about women is not ‘tolerance’. It is lunacy.”

See also:

Danish Woman Given Just Three Months in Prison for Sexual Relations with Underage Asylum Seeker (26 October 2017)

Sweden: Female employees performed lap dances for “child refugees” and had sexual relations with them at an asylum centre (12 August 2017)

Growing Trend Of Older Women Becoming ‘Sugar Mamas’ For Young Migrants (28 July 2017)

Sweden Planning ‘Man-Free’ Music Event After Rapes, Sex Attacks at Festivals (6 July 2017)

Swedish feminists systematically having sex with refugees (8 June 2017)

Those malevolent forces of which we dare not speak, by Chris Kenny (6 June 2017) Interesting article that compares government/media response to Islamist terror versus domestic violence.

Racketeering Refugees: What the Million Marching Pussyhatters Really Want? (28 January 2017)

The Death of Nations: Globalism, Immigration and Migrant Crisis (9 January 2017) Video

Cologne Sex Attacks One Year On: 1300 Victims, Just 18 Convictions (15 December 2016)

Denmark: Female Aid Workers caught having sex with underage African/Muslim male refugees (2 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Regressive Left puts bigotry and militant Islam on a pedestal (17 September 2016)

Swedish feminist: It’s “worse” when Swedish men rape when than when immigrants do (5 July 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Politically correct schoolgirls cover up their own sex attacks at the hands of migrants (11 June 2016)

It’s not their fault, it’s yours! Swedish GIRLS blamed for rise in migrant sex attacks (31 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

When Islam meets the West it’s a train wreck, by Miranda Devine (22 May 2016) This article took an interesting slant on the issue, looking at how increasing permissiveness (some might say, amorality) in Western countries has provided the fuel for radical Muslims.

Why Women destroy nations/civilizations – and other uncomfortable truths (17 February 2016) Video

The Racism of Modern Feminism (30 January 2016)

Inside the Swedish town where armed gangs patrol the streets, crime has exploded and a beautiful social worker’s murder has shocked Europe (30 January 2016) Europe

Life in peaceful Sweden (24 January 2016) Video

VIDEO: Woman Uses Phone To Record Molesting, Foul-Mouthed Migrant Men (19 January 2016)

Danish Journalist Calls for a “Male Revolution” and for European Men to “Defend Their Woman, Children & Culture” From Refugees (28 January 2016) Video with related reddit discussion thread here

Swedish Police, Accused of Cover-Up, Look Into Reports of Sexual Assault at Festival (11 January 2016)

Immigrants Aren’t Responsible for Rape Culture in Germany (8 January 2016) with related reddit discussion thread here

Feminists’ Failure on Rotherham (29 August 2014) And again a google search will turn up dozens more links on this issue

(The graphic below was sourced here)

Cologne-rape

The people speak: Feminist journalist hears but won’t listen

You might be interested in taking a look at this article entitled ‘A gender-equality wish list for 2016’, and the readers comments that follow.

The article was written by feminist journalist Wendy Tuohy. I think I first introduced Wendy in this blog post. I would probably place her in the second tier of Australian feminist journalists, were they ranked according to stridency and degree of bigotry. In other words she is a self-professed feminist with narrow and stereotypical views on gender matters, but by no means barking mad. Like many feminists she enjoys cats and blocking dissenting voices.

tuohy2

 

The issues that Wendy flagged in her latest article included domestic violence, the gender pay gap, the proportion of women in management positions, the number of women on current affairs show panels, female economic empowerment, and women playing football. No surprises there.

Ah, but then Wendy got a surprise. For with but two exceptions, her readers tore her article to shreds. Quite coherently, and with facts.

Some brief extracts from Wendy’s readers:

“We have a media dominated by women’s voices focusing (as most of you do) exclusively on women’s issues. It’s simply mind blowing to hear you say women have no voice. The only time men can speak with any confidence they won’t be crucified by the media is when they speak in total support of anything concerning the welfare of women”

“Sure, you have two journos dedicated to women’s issues and none dedicated to men’s. Maybe get a third female journo talking about female issues as a step closer to equality? Maybe four or five and we are there?”

“Yes we need to do more about DV mostly adopting an honest approach, recognizing that it is not a gendered crime and producing all the stats not just part of them.

The figure of 78 women has been front and centre but broken down 28 were not DV related and 10 were killed by women so men killed 40 women and 4 children (DV related). Women killed 19 men and 10 women plus after removing clear cases of mental problems they killed 11 children.”

The final numbers, men (in a DV situation) killed 44 and women killed 40. So let us be honest next year and tackle the problem in an unbiased manner.”

True to feminist form Wendy did not respond to her critics here, let alone attempt a rebuttal of the points they raised. But elsewhere, in her Twitter account, she implored a supporter to avoid reading the comments in the Herald-Sun, of which she was haughtily dismissive …

tuohy2

Yes, whatever you do fellow feminists, don’t expose yourselves to the nasty views of the unbelievers.

Hold true to your feelz, and to our precious narrative, special snowflakes!

Don’t learn, don’t understand, don’t engage or collaborate, and don’t empathise. We’ll show them.

 

But then the fear and loathing with which feminists and SJW view the dark threat that constitutes the reader’s comments section is now well-recognised. (PS: And in fact Wendy has since closed her blog because of her disdain for comments contributed by her readers)

Australian MRA Mark Dent also posted a copy of his reader’s comment on Wendy’s Facebook page. The subsequent exchange between Mark and Wendy is quite interesting, and I’ve reproduced it below in the event that it disappears from Facebook.

“Hi Mark, my brief is to focus on issues impacting women, kids and families — all of which are affected by the issues I touched on in my article titled ‘A few small changes could make a big difference’ in The Herald Sun last Sunday, and just up on my blog. Of course I care about issues impacting men: I’ve written lots about male adolescent mental health and better supporting boys in education and not ‘writing off’ teen boys (of which I have two lovely examples). But I stick to my primary brief in most of my work: issues primarily impacting women. Here is one pay gap link, reporting ABS statistics. Thanks for reading, Wendy”

(Mark replies) “Thanks for responding (as you always do) but you have proved my point. The media are not stupid. They know women devour stories about their victimhood or heroism. This is why our papers and TVs are saturated with females talking about issues which affect women.

Please point out one male journalist whose brief is to write exclusively about issues which are confronting men and placing them at a disadvantage. It seems there are many women who do just what you do so how do you then complain about a lack of female voices in the media?

Just because your brief is to focus on women’s issues does not make your statements about gender inequality any more true or acceptable.

I have presented a range of issues which impact upon men in a far more devastating way than a mythical wage gap based on gender or a purported lack of a voice (when the opposite is true). Men’s issues are about death, injury, the right to see their own children, huge disparity in sentencing for the same crime when compared to women and their total invisibility when it comes to being victims of family violence. There are weighty issues which lead to homelessness and suicide yet when was the last time any paper devoted a segment to the horrendous obstacles and injustices confronting men?”

(Wendy replies) “Mark, my former editor, Simon Pristel called me in and commissioned me to write a blog/do a round focused on women. I don’t know what his thinking was or why he chose me to do it (I was a general features writer before that for a couple of decades) but it has been going now for about 5 years so I guess it must be considered to be serving a market that perhaps we weren’t offering as much for previously.”

Mark: “Wendy-I am not attacking you for writing about women’s issues. I am questioning why this should almost always lead to anguished diatribes on all of the inequities women supposedly face and creating the very false narrative which says men are somehow privileged over women in our society.

As I have said repeatedly (and supported with facts) it is men who suffer the biggest obstacles and disadvantages as a result of their gender.

I challenged you to point out one male journalist who devotes his whole job to writing about issues concerning men and you didn’t respond. The very fact that male editors ignore men’s issues backs up my comments about politicians (male and female) devoting all of their time, energy and funding to women’s issues.

Men simply don’t matter in our world.”

Wendy: “Men matter Mark. Perhaps the ones who need attention the most don’t get it, I can only say as the daughter of a non ‘Alpha’ male and wife of same and mother of same X 2 that maybe it’s harder for the non typically macho men. That is a guess. Shoot me down if you want to.”

Mark: I don’t want to shoot you down. You seem to be a lovely person. It is just so upsetting to be fed this line of female suffering and inequality day after day in our media. You seem to accept my arguments with regard to male disadvantage but unlike female issues-there is literally no focus on these issues.

As I said-women have a voice-men have no voice in our mainstream media. You say men matter but whenever you write about family violence you focus exclusively on female victims, just as Rosie Batty does. How can this be justified?

I am passionate about the very real gender empathy gap in our society and will continue to voice my concerns whenever the opportunity arises. Here’s something I wrote about the gender empathy gap.

Thanks again for engaging in such a civilized manner.”

Wendy: “Mark, thank you for treating me civilly, unlike some men on Twitter, one of whom reacted to my column like this:”

abuse

Mark: That kind of language is totally unacceptable, Wendy. This type of abuse is often a result of deep frustration over the issues I have tried to outline in our discussion. Some men respond to the sense of injustice and helplessness (men have no voice in the public forum) with angry attacks.

I am not justifying or excusing it, but I have been abused in a most vile manner by feminists for simply presenting the arguments I have written to you. One group of feminists actually set up a website and posted pics of me and wrote lies about me being a hater of women and girls and someone who excuses DV. They said they wanted me sacked from my job as a teacher. They literally made stuff up. All because I asked why we don’t give the same attention and compassion to the suffering of males.

I know Andrew Bolt gets death threats and abuse every day. My point? Many female journalists hold up online abuse as some kind of male problem carried out by neanderthals who hate women. Men receive vile, abuse from women too. Clem Ford is a mainstream journalist who uses far worse language than that directed at you and as I said-there are no repercussions. Yet she gets a man sacked from his job for abusing her.

Perhaps if men had an opportunity to be heard in the media rather than be mocked or branded a woman hater for expressing concern for males there would be less anger and frustration in the community. You have never had to endure an almost daily assault on your gender for nigh on forty years, Wendy.

Anyway, I thank you again for engaging and allowing me an opportunity to express my views.”

A civil exchange without a trace of rancour, but you would have observed that neither here nor in her tweet does the journalist actually address the *facts* raised by readers.

Whilst Wendy Tuohy may well be a “lovely person”, both her work to date and her comments on this occasion, lend further support to the existence of a feminist mind-set characterised by:

  • a belief that the views of those speaking up for the rights of men and boys are unworthy of even the most superficial consideration
  • a belief that anyone who challenges feminist beliefs and/or champions the rights of men/boys is not only anti-feminist but also a misogynist
  • a lack of awareness of the male perspective on many, if not most, gender-related matters

How shall we ever move beyond this impasse and engage in an informed and constructive manner whilst feminists remain blissfully unaware of the male perspective, and react with visceral disgust and censorship upon encountering the views of non-feminists?

Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that in just a few year’s time western society will look back on 3rd wave feminism in a similar manner to that which we now look back on the hippie era? As something akin to a Dagwood Dog … a sliver of substance embalmed in a voluminous barf-inducing batter of self-indulgence and narcissism.

dagwood dog

Happy New Year.

#FireClementineFord: A case-study in feminist hypocrisy

In an earlier post I mentioned how feminists routinely assert – or at the very least imply – that women are continually abused by men online. They consistently neglect to mention that many women perpetrate online abuse, and that many of them appear to be feminists/SJW. I have also previously written about the widespread feminist proclivity for silencing those advancing alternative perspectives and/or wilfully dishing-out retribution.

Clementine Ford is a feminist journalist known for the virulently anti-male commentary she disseminates by virtue of her position with Fairfax Media. Should you wish to lodge a complaint in relation to a Fairfax journalist, the first step is to go to the website of the publication that published the offending article. Find and click on the ‘Contact Us’ link, and then send your complaint to the editorial team. For example, with regards to The Age website click on http://www.theage.com.au/support/ and then click on ‘Editorial Feedback’. The next step is to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council.

In late November 2015 Clementine received a message from some fellow called Michael Nolan, who called her a “slut“. She lodged a complaint with his employer which resulted in Michael being fired. Clementine’s version of events is detailed in this article, with a related radio interview here. The incident was also picked up by the international MSM (and note the more than 1,750 readers comments it attracted).

Clementine asserts that there are no consequences for men who threaten women online. That’s demonstrably untrue given that there are laws in place to address such behaviour, as well as actions that can be (and are) taken by ISP’s or web site providers. To the extent that such measures prove ineffective, then any such deficiencies would apply to both male and female trolls. As a consequence it seems pointless to single out men as being immune from repercussions, unless of course the intention is simply to demonise men and build further support  for the women-as-victims narrative.

The feminist response to Clementine’s action sought to have us believe that doxing and punishing people for making actual threats of violence was the focus of their fury. This is little more than a ‘red herring’ to win public support, as the true emphasis appears to be silencing those advancing opinions critical of the feminist narrative. We are talking here about comments that very rarely threaten violence, and whose impact is no more severe than one of hurting the feelings of the recipient feminist.

The feminist rage quickly grew and quickly manifested itself in the creation of an online blacklist of those people whom feminists consider to be trolls … essentially a vigilante response.

I don’t support people using foul or threatening language online under any circumstances. But neither do I champion those who respond to such messages by way of shrill over-reaction. Especially when they themselves have an established track-record of disseminating online abuse. And god knows, Clementine Ford falls well and truly into that category …

“Who among us hasn’t had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE?” (Source)

A sampling of some of Clementine’s other noisome literary offerings is provided below (with a few more listed in this post). I might also point out that Clementine recently saw fit to label another Aussie journalist, Miranda Devine, a f**ing c**t! This is mentioned part way through Miranda’s article about pro-feminist censorship entitled ‘So now banks are censoring columnists?’

Clementine Ford truly is a stunning hypocrite, and a potty-mouthed one at that. And if Michael deserved to lose his job then so too does Clementine. And given her prolific and protracted output of gender hate – far more so. So with that in mind, please consider signing this petition.

ford_hypocrisy8

ford_hypocrisy14

ford_hypocrisy6The response from the online community (to Clementine’s response to Michael Nolan’s comment) was certainly polarised.

Three examples of the anti-feminist response were:

If not for double-standards she’d have none at all, by Tim Blair (1 December 2015)

Rabid feminazi Clementine Ford brags about getting a man fired from his job on Facebook (1 December 2015)

No clemency for Clementine (10 December 2015) Radio interview involving well-known female men’s rights activists, the Honey Badgers

Examples of the voices of the demented feminist sisterhood who quickly rushed to Clementine’s defence include:

Tara Moss says we should stand up against this sort of behaviour (1 December 2015) BUT women are more likely to call women sluts than are men, the man that Clementine complained about did not say she should be “gang raped or murdered“, and as if calling Clementine a slut will “bully her into silence“. Oh please!

Why Clementine Ford is so important to women like me (2 December 2015)

A man lost his job for harassing a woman online? Good (2 December 2015)

Online abuse of writer Clementine Ford highlights how bullying can cost you your job (3 December 2015)

See also:

Controversial columnist Clementine Ford quits in spectacular, foul-mouthed tirade against newspaper (31 January 2019)

Hardline feminist Clementine Ford’s Lifeline speech is CANCELLED after thousands demanded the charity remove her as keynote speaker for tweeting ‘all men must die’ (15 May 2018)

Clementine Ford’s father is a member of One Nation Party (11 October 2017) ROTFL

Feminist Clementine Ford sparks walkout by refusing to answer schoolboys’ questions (31 August 2017) The Principal at Aquinas should be sacked

Feminist Author to Fan: ‘Have You Killed Any Men Today? If Not, Why Not?’ (27 June 2017) with a further article on this incident by Corrine Barraclough

You can dress her up but you can’t take her out (21 June 2017)

Clementine Ford bullies school boys after giving talk at school (8 May 2017) with related discussion in the ‘Toy Soldiers’ blog

Feminist Clementine Ford thinks her online abuse of a severely Autistic man was totally justified. Oh, and it’s all the fault of men, of course (12 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Clementine Ford leads the charge in the battle for feminism’s final frontier (1 October 2016) Oops, apparently I have this all wrong … Clementine is actually a hero and a champion to the downtrodden.

“Australia’s most prominent feminist” Oh god, if that’s the best the movement can offer up. Someone at ABC clearly has been hitting the Kool-Aid fairly darn hard.prominent

This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Clementine Ford teaching your children (18 July 2016)

Why you should never attack Clementine Ford (16 July 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Real change requires work – something not all men understand (1 July 2016)

Being blocked is not the same as being censored, by Clementine Ford (8 April 2016)

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) If men did this (in relation to female trolls) it would be denounced as evil, but women do it and it’s meant to be justice, right? Related reddit discussion thread here

#EndViolenceAgainstWomen: Thousands join social media campaign to name the men who troll them online (4 December 2015)

Opinion: Pricking the social and sexist conscience can sometimes hurt (7 December 2015) “… some commentators chose to remind readers that Ford had called people such as former PM Tony Abbott and columnist Miranda Devine crude names too. The huge difference is that Ford owns her words. She does not threaten violence.” Yoo hoo, Karen, Micheal Nolan didn’t threaten violence either.

Neither this article nor this one really say anything new, but do feature some interesting readers comments. This article, on the other hand, sees a male feminist author calling for compromise get shouted down by feminist readers (related discussion thread here).

And here you can read about threats made to a women who had the temerity to express her opposition to Clementine’s position

This earlier article, comparing the management response to reader complaints about Mark Latham versus Clementine Ford, is also quite relevant … as is this profile of Clementine by Mark Dent.

Clementine Ford’s Distorted Vision of Australia‘ by Jim Muldoon (13 May 2015)

‘The Misandry Choir’ (31 December 2012)

And in true feminist fashion:

ford_blockWell, at least I have plenty of company on Clementine’s BlockList – 133,000 other people as of February 2016 – many of whom are women.

ford_blocked

Many more examples of Clementine’s hate and hypocrisy can be found at www.clementineford.com, including this good article by Greg Canning.

ford_hypocrisy1

ford_hypocrisy3 ford_hypocrisy4

ford_hypocrisy7.png

ford_moresame

ford_hypocrisy11 ford_hypocrisy12

ford_hypocrisy13

DanielAndrewsMP Clementine with Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria prior to appearing together on ABC’s Q&A program. Politicians like Dan appear to care more about the number of followers that someone has on social media, than they do about what a person thinks, says, and stands for. His is an attitude that has no doubt played a big role in bringing about the abysmal and still declining state of politics in this country.

clems_slurs

clementine1clementine2

*That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

This blog post follows an earlier post of mine entitled ‘Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support‘. That item discussed the gender bias that is very evident in a particular WA Government web page promoting a domestic violence helpline service.

The same WA government web page was also the focus of this reddit mens rights discussion thread. Within that thread I came across an interesting post from someone with the moniker ‘dragonsandgoblins’. It’s interesting not just in relation to the information about domestic violence that it contains, but also because of how it demonstrates the censorship that occurs in relation to efforts to broaden the DV debate beyond the feminist-framed male perp/female victim model.

Anyway, this is what the author had to say:

“I actually wrote an article inspired by this exact webpage in 2013 that was published by http://rightnow.org.au/. Or at least it was published for about 4 hours before they pulled it. I’ll copy/paste it here because people may as well read it:

This webpage, hosted by the Government of Western Australia Department for Child Protection, contains two short paragraphs describing the domestic helpline services provided by this state government. The women’s helpline offers a range of services for women experiencing domestic violence. The men’s helpline on the other hand is more singularly focused, only offering counselling, and only for “men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive“.

The Government of WA does not offer a helpline service to male victims, instead assuming that women are the only victims and that men will always be the perpetrators. This is despite a growing body of evidence that males do suffer from domestic and family violence in significant numbers. For example, the Personal Safety Survey (2006) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that, 780,500 women and 325,700 men aged 15 years and over experienced violence from a current or previous partner in the last twenty years. In other words, 29.4 per cent of victims who suffered domestic violence were men. 92.5 per cent (301,400) of these male victims suffered this violence at the hands of a female partner.

The Publications and Resources webpage from the Government of WA provides domestic violence resources aimed at the general public and they are as gendered as the helpline services. Out of the “Freedom From Fear” resources, three fact sheets and one booklet are targeted at the violent party and, excluding the fact sheet “How do I know if I’m abusive?”, they all use gendered language that exclusively refers to the violent party as male and the victim as female. All of them bear subtitles describing themselves as being “for men who want to change”, with no reference to women who may want to do the same. The fact sheet aimed at victims also uses the same gendered language.

WA isn’t alone. For example, NSW Legal Aid offers a Domestic Violence Practitioner Service and a Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Program which aid women and children who are victims in legal matters such as getting Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) and victims’ compensation. The NSW Government Family & Community Services Staying Home Leaving Violence program “…aims to prevent homelessness by working with the Police to remove the perpetrator from the family home so that women and children can remain safely where they are.” If the NSW Government offers similar programs specialising in male victims, I was unable to find them.

The federal government also discriminates against male victims. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (The National Plan) paints a pitiful picture of the federal stance on male victims. Along with use of gender biased language The National Plan has seen the Commonwealth commit $86 million to support women and children who are victims and only $0.75 million to male victims. This discrepancy in funding is justified through the use of misleading statistics from the ABS Personal Safety Survey.

The section of the page that discusses male victims provides statistics that only 4.4 per cent (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey were assaulted by a current/previous partner compared with 31 per cent (73,800) of women who were physically assaulted. This is misleading because it doesn’t compare the quantity of male victims to female victims – instead it compares what percentage of all assaults against men were domestic violence to what percentage of all assaults against women were.

Looking at just these numbers – 21,200 male and 73,800 female victims – the divide in funding is twenty-five times greater than the divide in victims. The National Plan claims only “a small proportion of men are victims“, yet the ABS survey shows that they are roughly a quarter of all domestic violence victims. Is that really such a minority as to warrant less than one per cent of the funding committed under The National Plan?

Our state and federal governments are perpetrators of gender discrimination. Those discriminated against are not only men, they are victims. Victims who are denied services and support they need based on their gender.

(I apologise for the fact that some of the figures are out of date (for example I am pretty sure the funding disparity under the national plan has increased since 2013), and any dead links. This is presented unaltered from when it was written in 2013.)”

The author of the paper was then asked “Why was it pulled?” and responded:

“Well it was refined by 3 of their editors and myself before going up. After a while one of them was contacted by the editor in chief who pulled it and asked me to make changes such as explicitly mentioning that women are victims more than men (which I do already, since I actually state numbers), saying that I didn’t want funding for women reduced, and calling DV a gendered crime. He also said that I could be “more critical in relation to statistics”. Note that I only take stats from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, hardly a biased source. He also wanted me to mention that women under report DV. He also said and I quote:

…[the article] can be understood as arguing “men are being discriminated against in favour of women”.

I replied and said that I could make some of these changes but my word count ceiling would need to be increased. I said that I’d be happy to say women under report but I wouldn’t say that without mentioning that men under report too. I also said that I couldn’t avoid the theme that “men are being discriminated against in favour of women” because that is the thesis of the entire piece.

I get the feeling the editor in chief never wanted my article to go up at all because without further discussion he decided that even with changes my article shouldn’t be published because.

Your responses suggest to me that it is likely that even with changes, your article will not be suitable for Right Now. The primary reason for that is that you principally concerned with “the numbers”, as you put it, rather than the human rights debate. This means that you miss the point that these services for female victims of violence are not simply about statistics (the fact that more women are victims of violence in domestic contexts then men) but also about socio-cultural male dominance

In other words, these services exist not only because of the quantity of violence against women, but its gendered nature.

So there’s the rub.

Regarding online harassment

The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.

The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.

There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.

What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research. (see 2017 updated here)

Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?

Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?

The findings of a survey by Norton  painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.

So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?

There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.

Firstly there is the thorny issue as to what constitutes actual online abuse or harassment. One end of the spectrum is marked by behaviour that is criminal in nature and intent, for example clear threats to commit violence to the targeted individual.

Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.

At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.

More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable or even noble when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.

Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.

It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.

One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.

Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.

I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:

“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants.  The planning and  management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”

I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?

(As an aside, consider the suffocating anti-male gender bias evident in this article by another recipient of ARC funding. Is there a pattern here?)

The architect of the Cyberhate Project, Emma Jane, wrote an article entitled ‘Rape Threats and Cyberhate? Vote no to the new digital divide‘, published in a current affairs site called The Conversation.

As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.

I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:

“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”

Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.

As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.

stephanie

What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:

Sextortion: How young men are falling victim to a new kind of online blackmail (21 July 2019) UK

The typical victim of ‘revenge porn’ probably isn’t who you think it is (26 June 2019)

Revealed: Revenge porn mainly being carried out by women (1 March 2019)

Most victims of financial sextortion are men (6 February 2019)

Woman faces court accused of leaking lewd tape of ex-AFL star (4 February 2019)

Women allegedly bombarded online match with 159,00 texts after one date (1 February 2019)

The enormous $3.7 billion cost of Australia’s cyber-trolls (28 January 2019) The survey on which the article was based, apparently commissioned by feminist journalist Ginger Gorman, found that “women were much more likely to be harassed online”. But no mention in the article of the gender of most perpetrators. Gee I wonder why.

Double standards? Flirty sexts thought to be flattering when sent by a woman are described as ‘sexual harassment’ if sent by a man, study finds (16 June 2018)

‘How I took the female cyber bully who used Facebook to ruin my life to court. And won’ (13 November 2017)

Police drop investigation as story of racist death threats against Calgary trustee candidate unravels (14 October 2017)

Caleb Bond: ‘We can’t disregard the viciousness of girls’ (11 September 2017)

Woman charged for posting revenge porn after break-up (27 July 2017)

Male Tory MP’s got most social media abuse (24 July 2017)

Men as Likely To Be Harassed Online as Women (18 July 2017)

Women online are getting used to cyber hate. They need to get used to reporting it (18 July 2017) Emma Jane is at it again, viz. men suffer no online abuse/men are the problem/men have no right to protest online abuse/etc

2017 update to Pew’s 2014 online harassment survey shows, again, that men receive more harassment online than women (12 July 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy (December 2017 edition of ‘Personality and Individual Differences’) This study asserts that most trolls are male, but I suspect that the findings may have been compromised by one or more of the following factors:

* small sample size with 2/3 of respondents being women, and who were possibly self-selected
* incorrect assumptions (by survey respondents) regarding the gender of trolls
* differing and possibly gender-based judgments as to what constitutes trolling

The media dangerously misuses the word ‘trolling’ (3 July 2017) This article conveniently neglects to mention that this ‘problem’ has been primarily brought about through misusing the term ‘trolling’ to describe reasonable dissent against the prevailing leftist/feminist narrative.

Reddit mensrights discussion thread related to the June 2015 article in The Conversation (as mentioned earlier)

Revenge porn now affects more than one in five Australians (7 May 2017) with further detail provided in this article in ‘The Conversation’. Note how they try so hard to keep pushing the ‘men are worse’ line, even when the figures don’t support it.

Survey finds men and women equal victims of revenge porn attacks (4 May 2017) Australia

Women troll on dating apps just as often as men (13 March 2017) Australia

FactCheck Q&A: are there laws to protect against ‘revenge porn’ in Australia? (8 March 2017)

Jealous ex-girlfriend who posted revenge porn online threatened former partner’s new lover in terrifying 18-month harassment campaign (8 February 2017) UK. No jail time despite it being her second offence.

Men and Women Are Equally Vulnerable to Online Domestic Abuse: Study (19 January 2017)

Scheming revenge porn mistress avoids jail (13 January 2017)

This one-click ‘rape threat generator’ aims to counter online misogyny (6 January 2017) Another unhelpful and biased offering from Emma Jane

Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age (2016)

Scorned woman uses cop database to harass lover (21 December 2016)

TV star sentenced for stalking market trader she ‘became obsessed with’ (19 December 2016)

Bryce Cartwright was the target of social media posts from an ex-partner (13 December 2016) More on this incident here

Australia tackles revenge porn with new eSafety Commission (23 November 2016) AFAIK this agency’s brief was initially gender-neutral but it quickly assumed a pro-feminist stance, making its focus the online harassment of women and girls.

Charity worker who swapped sex texts with her boss posted revenge porn on his wife’s business page after he dismissed her (8 November 2016)

Real estate agent, 46, ‘sent graphic nude photos of herself to her ex-boyfriend’s teen son (29 September 2016) USA

Playboy Playmate could face jail time for body-shaming Snapchat photo (8 September 2016) See 2017 follow-up article here

London’s LGBT Police Are Harassing Non-PC Twitter Users, Naming Family Members In Tweets (22 August 2016)

Scotland Yard ploughs £2million into new ‘thought police’ unit to snoop on web users and hunt down trolls (14 August 2016)

$150,000 Facebook post that destroyed a former deputy principal’s life (8 August 2016) Australia

What bit about the wrongs of sexual threats against women do courts and men not get? by Emma Jane (4 August 2016) Australian feminist academic rejects court ruling and bays for the blood of young male troll. If we reversed genders there would be silence or support for fair judgement. You know I’m right.

Forgiving family reveal they WON’T press charges against teenage girl who posted embarrassing photo of their son, 15, online the night before he killed himself (25 July 2016)

The solution to online ‘harassment’ is simple: Women should log off (5 July 2016)

American woman guilty of threatening to kill Stephen Hawking (3 July 2016)

The top 20 Australian politicians, with respect to receiving online abuse, are all right wing males (1 July 2016) Australia. Typical feminist take on this issue, for e.g. mis-labels harassment as “online violence” and “sexual violence”, does not provide corresponding statistics for men/boys harassed online, nor divulge that much abuse is perpetrated by women/girls. The implication is, as always, men=bad & women=men’s hapless victims.

Female politicians (sometimes) receive more abuse than male counterparts, apart from when they don’t… (29 June 2016)

‘That Tinder girl’: Olivia Melville speaks out about online harassment (19 June 2016)

An investigation into the online stalking and harassment of female MHRA Jasmin Newman (June 2016) More about Jasmin’s situation in this article

Accused, 62, calls law heavy handed (14 June 2016) NZ

#ReclaimtheInternet: MP Jess Phillips validates worst fears regarding Reclaim The Internet, the UK’s budding government feminist Internet censorship campaign (6 June 2016)

Why does this forum have a feminist icon in the top left? (27 May 2016) The ‘Reclaim the Internet’ campaign was established by British MP’s. One forum visitor questions the appropriateness of using a feminist symbol.

Teal Deer’s analysis of the “online misogyny” data (May 2016) Video presentation

Twitter abuse – ‘50% of misogynistic tweets from women’ (27 May 2016)

When women can be misogynist trolls, we need a feminist internet (26 May 2016)

“It might be the best six months of your life.” Woman banned by judge from social media (11 May 2016) Australia

Virar man ends life as wife shows intimate pictures with lover (28 April 2016) India

Why outing senders of unsolicited dick pics is not the same as ‘revenge porn’ (27 April 2016) Plenty of feminist misrepresentation with nil sources cited to back up the usual women=innocent/men=guilty claims.

Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
Yvette Cooper calls for greater monitoring of online harassment (20 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Teen pleads not guilty to charges over livestreaming friend’s rape (20 April 2016) USA

Teenage girls traumatised by revenge-porn network aimed at ‘teaching us a lesson’ (19 April 2016) Australia. Both males/females are targetted by online abuse, including revenge porn, but you won’t read that in this gender-biased MSM offering.

The top secret internet groups where men are forbidden (18 April 2016)

Jilted boutique owner bombarded ex with dozens of naked snaps of herself and an explicit video after he dumped her (16 April 2016)

Candace Owens sought to create a hit-list of people whom she and others identified as trolls (15 April 2016) USA … but then read about how this ill-conceived project was subsequently sabotaged by feminists motivated by jealousy, at ‘How A Torpedoed Kickstarter Campaign Unintentionally Revealed An Unlikely Unit of Cyber-Terrorists‘. The story is continued and summed up nicely in this further article by David King.

The dark side of Guardian comments (12 April 2016) UK

Jilted saleswoman put her ex through revenge porn nightmare by posting explicit images of him online in first ever case of male partner being targeted (9 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Girl gets Instagram revenge on cheating ex (25 March 2016) Reverse the genders in this story and “one poor lass” becomes ‘online harassment by abusive former boyfriend’

Spurned ex-girlfriend, 51, sent explicit revenge porn images of her former lover dressed as a woman to his friends and called him a ‘tranny c***’ on the Facebook page of his car washing business (19 March 2016) UK. See related Reddit discussion thread here

Feminist bullies don’t understand the Internet (13 March 2016) Video which focusses on the Gregory Elliot court case.

Is accepting abuse just part of joining Twitter? by Australian feminist writer Tara Moss (13 March 2016)

“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?

Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.

Taking Steps Towards Online Safety This International Women’s Day (7 March 2016) Online vulnerability is not a gender issue, well not unless you are a high-profile tech company with a distinctly pro-feminist bias.

Social media trolling of female journalists is insidious, report shows (6 March 2016) Australia

Receiving online abuse has now become a badge of honour (2 March 2016) UK

Vaginal knitting – Ms Jenkins said the most hateful comments were surprisingly from women (29 February 201)

Emily Sears and Laura Lux: Why we shame the trolls who send us inappropriate messages (31 January 2016) I don’t support the guys sending ‘dickpics’, but the fact that these particular women flood social media with salacious selfies adds a certain irony, yes? #FeministLogic #Facepalm

An anonymous response to dangerous FOSS Codes of Conduct (24 January 2016) USA

Playing Politics With Online Abuse, by Cathy Young (23 January 2016) USA

Court Sets New Precedent By Ruling Against Woman Who Used Facebook Tagging To Harass Her Ex’s Family (21 January 2016) USA

Mum placed on sex offender register after sharing revenge porn videos of cheating boyfriend (18 January 2016)

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos: Progressives Shutting Down Discussion by Calling It Harassment (8 January 2016)

Online sexism is so out of control that we can no longer ignore it (17 December 2015) UK

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Sydney man fired after calling feminist writer Clementine Ford a ‘sl**’ (1 December 2015) And Clementine, just what consequences are there for women who “behave like this“? Absolutely none, right? (More on this issue in this blog post)

Domestic violence and Facebook: harassment takes new forms in the social media age (30 November 2015)  Australia. And again, this article ignores female perpetration and male victimisation.

100 Women 2015: Social media ‘fuels gender violence’ (26 November 2015) The suggestion here that women are 27 times more likely to be “abused online” is absurd.

One mother-in-law for sale! How angry wives are exposing their marital strife online (24 November 2015)

A Life Ruined By Feminists And The State: Only The Internet Can Save Canada’s Gregory Alan Elliott (19 November 2015) See also this article by Stephen Beard. See this video for how this saga ended (Greg won in court). An overview providing various linked sources is available here.

Education Department investigates report of students posting teacher’s nude photos on social media (18 November 2015) Australia

My doxxer knows how to use Google, has no idea how to “dox” (14 November 2015)

Politicians rally round MP who faced online abuse after criticising men’s rights debate request (31 October 2015)

Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)

Ashy Bines hits back at online trolls after they attacked her post baby body (27 October 2015) It’s laudable that the article makes clear that the trolls were female.

Fact-checking the UN: Is the Internet dangerous for women? (13 October 2015) Video

Women Who Write About Tech Are Still Being Abused Online (13 October 2015) Female author paints a misleading picture whereby only women online are attacked or criticised. Related reddit discussion thread here

Why Justin Bieber’s naked pictures highlight feminist double standards (12 October 2015)

New UN Plot to Make the Internet a Safe Space EXPOSED…and it was Hiding in Plain Sight (8 October 2015)

How can we stem the tide of online harassment and abuse? (5 October 2015) Australia

The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings (25 September 2015)

TIL that, despite popular belief, men get threatened to have their private photos exposed online more than women (12% vs. 8%) and have the threats carried out more often than women (63% vs. 50%) and related reddit discussion thread (21 August 2015)

Mean Girls: Why the Only People Women Should Fear Online Are Other Women (10 August 2015)

British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries (2 August 2015)

Christie Blatchford: Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech (14 July 2015)

Randi Harper, Part 2: The Fact and Fiction of the Troll Formerly Known as @freebsdgirl (2 July 2015)

Kiwi parliament passes ‘Harmful digital communications bill’ outlawing online nasties (1 July 2015)

Harping On: The Hypocrisy and Lies of Twitter’s Most Notorious ‘Anti-Abuse’ Activist, Randi Harper, Part 1 (29 June 2015)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Online Harassment (21 June 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread. But when the target of abuse is male … well, that’s different (See related reddit discussion thread here)

Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates? (11 June 2015)

Boston University prof in racist tweet flap accused of trolling white rape victim (18 May 2015)

Online harassment is a form of violence (8 April 2015)

US college student gets cyber-bullied after expressing concerns about a ‘Check your Privilege’ bulletin board in her Facebook page (2 April 2015)

#TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism (27 March 2015)

Emma Watson: Trolls threatened to publish nude photos of me (8 March 2015) This article quotes Emma as saying most of those posting threats were other women, yet this article (in pro-feminist news.com.au) claims that men were to blame. As mentioned earlier, this represents an all-too typical bending of the facts to suit the narrative.

Fake Tinder account proves men aren’t so bad after all (12 February 2015)

Measures taken to combat girls bullying girls online (3 January 2015)

The Good (and the Bad) of Twitter’s New Bid to Stop Harassment (7 November 2014)

Online harassment affects men too (4 November 2014)

Anglicare WA survey finds more than half of male victims of domestic violence were subjected to online shaming (28 October 2014)

Online harassment – PEW Research (22 October 2014) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread

oneway

Men are harassed more than women online (4 September 2014)

Men get more than twice as much abuse as women on Twitter (24 August 2014)

#RevengePorn: Real Numbers Show It’s Not Really A Gender Issue (29 July 2014)

Men and women are equally harassed online

Women troll each other online: How females are just as likely to be abused by their own sex as by men (15 May 2014)

Facebook bullying: 19-year-old men are most frequent victims of trolling (15 March 2013)

#womenagainstfeminism receive hundreds of threats (Scroll down their Facebook timeline to 16 August 2014 for details) Somehow I don’t think it would be men issuing most of the threats … but surely not women?

This June 2014 reddit discussion thread, and linked newspaper article, is about female Twitter trolls

Online Harassment in Context: Trends From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys (2000, 2005, 2010) Published 2013

Female Stalkers, Part 1: What is Stalking and Can Men Be Stalked by Women? (8 February 2011)

words_trigger

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

On the inability to cope with criticism in a mature manner (You disagree with me = You hate women)

Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

What did you call me? On labelling and language in gender discourse

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinion

Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?

Many among the media, and the political and bureaucratic elite seem to get quite a hard-on about awareness campaigns. Indeed, some have suggested that such campaigns are a favoured device of the prevailing leftist/feminist hegemony. This despite the fact that the effectiveness of such campaigns is often difficult to assess. Or perhaps it’s because of that.

The American political philosopher Thomas Sowell observed “We should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.” (Source)

Ah, but not all awareness campaigns are the same. Campaigns concerning issues that are pivotal to the feminist cause are beyond reproach. Mild criticism is however tolerated in the case of campaigns on less ideologically revered topics.

A very different reaction to two public awareness campaigns

It’s May 2015 and the Australian federal government has released its annual budget. It proposes substantial allocations to two separate public awareness campaigns. One relates to drug use, specifically crystal methamphetamine – or ‘ice’ ($9 million). The other relates to domestic violence ($7 million).

Plenty of people have lined up to criticise the first campaign on the basis, for example, that it’s unoriginal, focuses too much on scare mongering, is unlikely to be cost-effective, and might even be counter-productive.

On that last point, one article included the statement that “When an ad is on television for a particular illicit drug, we know afterwards young people think it must be really, really common and so therefore it can increase their perception of how normal it is.”

In contrast the only public criticism that the domestic violence campaign has been subject to, is that not enough money has been provided. It is probably no coincidence that the feminist lobby is heavily invested in the DV campaign, but not the other.

So just how many parallels, if any, are there between the two campaigns?

The drug campaign was also discussed in an article entitled ‘Awareness campaigns need to target the real victims of ice” (13 May 2015), which noted that:

“International evidence suggests such “awareness” campaigns are not the most appropriate way to address harmful methamphetamine use. In fact, fear-based approaches can increase stigma which possibly drives people away from, rather than towards, treatment.”

The article proceeds:

“Australian media outlets and politicians claim we’re facing a nationwide “ice epidemic” …  the most up-to-date research estimates that the proportion of Australians who have used any type of methamphetamine (ice, “speed” powder) in the previous year has remained relatively stable for at least the last decade.

Nevertheless, the government and media’s continued use of hyperbolic language – in addition to a tendency to ignore and sometimes dismiss public health experts’ advice on ice – has the potential to incite unnecessary fear and misinform the public about this supposed “menace”.”

So there’s our first parallels, for neither campaign will be targeted and in both cases Australian media outlets and politicians are making exaggerated claims about an emerging epidemic.

The article then goes on to question whether the personal and public threat posed by drug use (as compared to the extent of drug use) has also been exaggerated.

The article states: “We need to accurately define the issue, including the nature and extent of methamphetamine use and related harms in rural and regional areas, to allow the development and implementation of cost-effective, evidence-based and timely responses.”

A further parallel is that the debate about domestic violence likewise does not accurately define the issue, focussing as it does wholly on uni-directional violence by men against women. I would also argue that the policy response is not evidence-based but rather driven by the ideology of those most heavily invested in the issue.

The article then goes on to talk about the success of health-related public awareness campaigns, noting that some “are costly, ineffective and possibly even counterproductive”.

In one example cited “The findings of one study suggest that the Montana Meth Project might actually increase acceptability and decrease perceptions of risk relating to using methamphetamine.” Elsewhere it noted that “fear-based approaches can lead to stigma and poor health outcomes, such as from reduced treatment-seeking.”

The article concludes with a discussion of the value of an alternative or supplementary strategy, that of “harm minimisation”. It notes:

“Because people will choose to engage in drug use (both licit and illicit) regardless of the policies and programs in place, we need to encourage them to do so as safely as possible. We also must continue to inform the public about options for managing drug-related consequences and appropriate and available means for professional support, such as telephone and internet counselling”.

The concept of ‘harm minimisation’ also applies to domestic violence when we consider the prevalence of bi-directional violence, as shown in the diagram below, and the fact that domestic violence may persist from one generation to the next. Perhaps we need to resign ourselves, that in some situations it may be more effective to focus more on the provision of short-term shelter accommodation, the removal of children into care, etc.

IPV-Truthwgray

Assuming there are parallels between awareness campaigns for drug use and domestic violence, then why have the same criticisms not been raised in relation to the latter?

Indeed, why has no criticism at all been directed at those spending large amounts of taxpayer funds on domestic violence awareness campaigns? Doubly so, given that there have been many previous awareness campaigns undertaken, and that these all appear to have achieved little in terms of effecting a remedy for the problem.

Is this lack of criticism because those in positions of influence truly believe in the value of such campaigns, or is it simply a reflection of wishful thinking and/or the very real fear of feminist backlash against dissenting voices?

Do public awareness campaigns even work?

Many public organisations love awareness campaigns because for minimal work they provide maximum profile (i.e. ‘look at us doing something about the problem!’). Just engage a marketing consultant, agree on a logo, and begin advertising.

The jury is out, however, on their effectiveness – in part because many public awareness are not subject to proper evaluation. This is probably, in part, because of the factor noted above – they are often created at short notice for reasons of political expediency.

It is known however that some types of awareness campaigns are more likely to be successful than others:

“Some police agencies participate in domestic violence awareness campaigns and school programming, such as classroom instruction to teens about dating violence and ways to handle conflict. Domestic violence prevention messages may target the general population or specific populations. For example, campaigns may be designed to encourage victim reporting, deter potential offenders, or raise the consciousness of potential witnesses of abuse (neighbours, friends, relatives). However, the effect of these prevention strategies is unknown.

For instance, few of the programs developed to reduce teen dating violence have been evaluated, and of those that have, there have been mixed results. Although some report an increase in knowledge in the targeted population and greater familiarity with available resources to help victims, this does not necessarily translate into a reduction in the incidence level of dating violence.

† The Lancashire (United Kingdom) Police Constabulary placed messages about domestic violence on police vehicles, beer glass coasters in bars, utility bills, and lampposts, and used radio advertising to increase awareness of domestic violence.

As a rule, prevention is more likely to work if highly targeted. General campaigns are not typically effective. Highly targeted campaigns that focus on a specific target group or geographic area can have some impact. Offender-oriented campaigns, which are designed to raise potential offenders’ perceptions that there will be meaningful consequences to battering, are more likely to be effective than campaigns that appeal to potential offenders’ morals.” (Source)

See also:

What’s the point of sexual harassment training? Often, to protect employers (17 November 2017) This research found that sexual harassment training could actually produce the opposite result to what was intended.

Marriage vote: how advocacy ads exploit our emotions in divisive debates (13 September 2017) Now transpose the views expressed here across to domestic violence awareness campaigns, with the ‘yes’ lobby being those challenging the status quo by seeking a non-gendered approach to the issue. Again, “the ‘no’ campaign has many unfair advantages”. Though I suspect, most likely, not in the eyes of the typical reader of ‘The Conversation‘.

Feminist academics take issue with a women’s fitness awareness campaign (13 August 2017) Don’t exercise as men will look at you. A Mark Latham video

How Australia’s discrimination laws and public health campaigns perpetuate fat stigma (11 July 2017) “Fat-shaming” awareness campaigns don’t work and are reprehensible (… but male-shaming campaigns do/aren’t?) Of course this nothing to do with where the issue of focus falls on the leftist/PC acceptability spectrum.

What if Mandatory “Sexual Respect” Classes are Counterproductive? (21 September 2016)

What good is ‘Raising Awareness’? (21 April 2015) USA

Are social marketing campaigns effective in preventing child abuse and neglect? (October 2010) Australia

And what if the campaign message is inaccurate and/or biased?

Another reason why a campaign might be counter-productive is when the information it disseminates is inaccurate and/or biased. This is a real danger with a topic like domestic violence, the debate concerning which is tightly-controlled by one group who maintain a very particular and inflexible ideological stance on the  matter.

It is highly likely that the campaign that eventually emerges will focus solely, or almost solely, on men’s violence towards women. Issues like bi-directional violence, domestic violence in same-sex couples (especially women), and female on male violence will be ignored or minimised. The focus on gender and control will mean that other factors like social disadvantage and substance abuse will be played down. Political correctness will also rule out consideration of race, ethnicity or religion as potentially relevant factors.

What messages will this send? What biases and stereotyping will this reinforce?

Three examples:

Feminism, Domestic Violence & Spiderman Screenings (12 July 2017)

Video and discussion thread concerning a gender-biased awareness campaign in Victoria, Australia (17 January 2017)

The UK Home Office ‘Disrespect Nobody’ campaign included this TV advert which failed to acknowledge female perpetration of abusive behaviours.

Other sources that may be of interest:

‘Ice Wars’ message is overblown and unhelpful (14 February 2017)

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Just have one feminist organisation (a recipient of substantial public funds) evaluate the effectiveness of a program of similar allied organisation. What could go wrong with that?

Miranda Devine: Stop telling boys to act like girls, by Miranda Devine (24 April 2016) Australia

Some early reaction, on mensrights reddit, to the new Australian DV ‘awareness’ campaign (24 April 2016)

Get ready for some good old male-bashing (22 April 2016)

What about the mean girls? by Jasmin Newman (21 April 2016) Australia

Australia’s costly new national ‘violence against women’ awareness campaign and some articles that followed its launch:

Prevention of violence against women – finally, an idea whose time has come, by Mary Barry (20 April 2016)
Domestic violence ad campaign to focus on ‘influencers’ in bid to change attitudes (20 April 2016)
Where the new $30 million domestic violence campaign is missing the mark‘. This campaign ignores male victims and female perpetrators, and is based on the flawed assumption that the main cause of DV is attitudes towards women.

Branded for life? Sending the wrong message to young perpetrators of family violence (24 February 2016) Australia. Campaign devised by feminist group ‘Our Watch’ and article published in pro-feminist site The Conversation. Campaign only features male perpetrators, this issue ignored in article.

Fear-based health information makes new mothers anxious (23 July 2015) Australia. Now consider DV campaigns that demonise all men despite them having no control over the small minority of men who abuse. The community seemingly sees no problem with making men feel “anxious” in that situation, even despite the fact that four times as many men commit suicide as do women.

Not just a slick TV ad: what makes a good domestic violence awareness campaign? (23 July 2015)

National $30 million campaign to tackle domestic violence (5 March 2015)

Mark Latham on why Labor can’t get it right on domestic violence (16 May 2015)

$16m for dom violence but $1.2b for terrorism (14 May 2015)

Social Marketing for Preventing Violence Against Women: Making every action matter (June 2013) This paper is written from a pro-feminist pro-awareness campaign perspective, but provides a useful list of many previous awareness campaigns. It fails to provide serious/objective evaluations of individual campaigns or of awareness campaigns generally. Indeed, it’s telling that the only campaign against which it directs criticism is the ‘One in Three‘ campaign that draws attention to male victims of domestic violence. One in Three‘ is an ongoing target for feminist criticism.

 

 

 

Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence

gilmore1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In her article entitled The ‘One in Three’ claim about male domestic violence victims is a myth, Jane Gilmore launched a full-frontal attack on the integrity of Australia’s key advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence, and of the men’s rights movement (MRM) generally.

But more than that, Jane did exactly what feminists have long accused the MRM of doing, she sought to discredit the reality of substantial numbers of victims of domestic abuse on the basis of their gender. She sought to elevate the importance of the feminist-driven domestic violence industry by climbing on the backs of male victims.

Jane claimed that her action was necessary because “there’s a serious risk it [acknowledging significant numbers of male victims of DV] will alter the way governments approach the issue“. This is certainly one of the more absurd claims I have heard emerge from Australian feminists in recent times. And that’s saying something.

And the evidence in support of Jane’s fear is what exactly? None of the recent inquiries into domestic violence stepped outside the strict parameters of the DV debate as determined by the feminist lobby. Male victims of domestic violence are scarcely a faint blip on the political radar screen either federally, or in any of the state or territories. In fact, sadly, I see little evidence of politicians paying any attention to the ‘One in Three‘ organisation, or to the data it disseminates, or indeed to the MRM generally.

The relevant post in the Facebook page of publisher ‘Daily Life attracted a substantial number of responses from readers, fairly evenly balanced between supporters and critics of Ms Gilmore’s article. This surprised me given that Daily Life is generally avoided by those who aren’t ardent feminists, thanks to a combination of biased content and hostile moderation. Many of those writing in support of Jane’s article came across as extremely ill-informed and sexist, but don’t take my word for it – click on the link above and see for yourself.

Ms. Gilmore herself added a comment on 1 May 2015 stating:

“I’m not going to get into any pointless arguments here, but I’d like to remind everyone that I said more than once in the article that anyone who needs help should get it, and quoted Karen Willis on the topic as well. This is not about denying services for men or the fact that male victims exist, it’s about understanding the facts and directing services where they are genuinely needed. And most importantly, gender is relevant in prevention and must be considered if primary prevention programs are going to be effective in keeping both men and women safer.”

bigotbigot2

But of course Jane’s article does, and can only, undermine efforts to address the ongoing denial of recognition and support for male victims of domestic violence. Such efforts are underway not only in Australia but also, for example, in Canada, the U.K and the United States.

bigot3And indeed, within days of Jane’s article being published, the One in Three organisation was uninvited from presenting at a Forum on Family Violence hosted by Strathfield Council, and there will now be no voice for male victims of domestic violence. Although they do not provide front-line services to victims, the reason given for excluding One in Three, the pro-feminist White Ribbon Campaign will still be presenting. This course of events can only be seen as a further sad indictment of the misguided priorities of the feminist lobby.

gilmore

 

 

The degree of impartiality of Strathfield Council was further called into question when they removed a comment I made on 8 May from the timeline of their Facebook page (before and after screen-saves provided below)

strathfieldstrathfield2

One in Three published a rebuttal to Jane Gilmore’s article here, and which I recommend that you read. Jim Muldoon, an Australian MRA, also published a critique of the Daily Life article here. (Jim also wrote an earlier article about Gilmore’s biased position on domestic violence, entitled ‘Jane Gilmore should stop with the rubbish domestic violence games, in December 2014)

One in Three subsequently published a disturbing account of the bias and antagonism that they encountered whilst contributing to the Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence.

Later, on 29 November 2015, the misandrists at ‘Daily Lifelaunched another disgraceful attack on the ‘One in Three’ organisation and male victims of domestic violence. Not yet sated, on 3 December 2015 they went and took another swipe.

In closing, here are a couple of more recent examples of feminists seeking to undermine ‘One in Three’ and/or male victims generally:

  1. Poorly-regarded male feminist, Michael Flood, felt the need to lash out at ‘One in Three’ in his submission to the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence (refer top page 8)
  2. Director of the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Amy Compton-Keen, victim-blames and advances the myth that women are only ever violent in self-defence/after sustained abuse. See the reader reaction to that article.

clementine_DV

This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

And yet another example of feminist hypocrisy – Jane Gilmore derides mens rights activists for devoting too much energy to addressing issues raised by feminists rather than rendering practical assistance to men. Maybe if she could resist the urge to attack/undermine then more help could be provided to those in need. With another cookie-cutter version of earlier articles here.

This Australian feminist group has lobbied to have trans-women excluded from DV shelters, so clearly CIS men have zero chance of being offered support. Discussion thread and linked article here.

This MRA exposes a feminist pretending to be a male victim of domestic violence (1 December 2016) Video with related Reddit discussion thread here

Groups pressure BMO Vancouver Marathon to remove men’s charity from annual run (6 April 2017)

Feminists against men’s domestic violence shelters (24 May 2017) Video

Beware the dubious claims of this men’s rights group, by Sherele Moody (24 June 2017)

To end on a bright note, one hopes this Irish feminist group learnt a lesson.

Postscript January 2018: The organisation helping the male victims of domestic violence

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

More about the ‘moderation’ of comments at ‘The Conversation’

Long-time readers of this blog would be aware on my concerns in relation to the pro-feminist bias and censorship of dissenting views that routinely occurs at an Australian current affairs web site called ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve had many of my comments removed and am on final warning prior to being banned from the site. On 1 April 2015 a moderator at The Conversation removed yet another comment, one that I added to this article about sexual assault. This is what I wrote:

“It’s deeply ironic that the title of your article is “let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators”, but within the first sentence you exclude acknowledgement or consideration of all female perpetrators of sexual assault. On what basis? There’s less reported crimes involving female perps, so it’s OK to just airbrush them out?

I’m also troubled by you referencing the 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, which didn’t bother to ask respondents about their attitudes towards violence to men. Thus the questions about violence towards women were robbed of context and so we don’t know the extent to which the issue is men’s attitudes towards women, or Australians attitudes towards violence generally.”

As usual my comments were fairly benign in the overall scheme of social discourse. But this time, on impulse I wrote to the two authors of the article to see how they felt about the level and nature of the moderation that was taking place:

“Dear Nicola and Anastasia

I write to you this morning in relation to your article in The Conversation entitled ‘Everyday rape: let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators’.

I’m a keen reader of The Conversation and like many other readers often feel compelled to offer a comment on the article presented therein. Also, like many other readers, I am frequently frustrated by the actions of the moderators in removing many of the comments contributed – indeed sometimes most of the comments contributed.

You will have noted that as of now, about half of the comments concerning your article have been removed (including one of mine btw). On this, as on previous occasions, my comments were neither offensive nor irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

I have previously raised my concerns about moderation policy with the relevant people at The Conversation. On those occasions when the moderators do not intervene as readily there have been some very good and quite robust discussions played out with no hint of undue unpleasantness.

Rather than just grumbling about it on this occasion, I was wondering how you – as authors – felt about the situation. Are you being consulted about which comments are removed? I assume not. Do you believe that your article – and indeed your own professional development – would be strengthened by allowing a freer interchange of ideas? My own view is that if one can’t have an honest and robust exchange of alternative viewpoints within a web site run/funded by universities, then where can you?

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your views”

Dr Nicola Henry of Latrobe University, kindly wrote back on 2 April 2015:

“Thanks for your email. I think you raise a valid concern. I’ve read all of the comments that have thus far been removed (including yours). We of course have no say in this, but I did wonder why they were removed and personally wished they had remained on the site so that people can engage in debate about these issues. Sometimes there are very offensive personal attacks and inappropriate comments made on this site – so I can certainly see why moderation is important. In other words, I can understand why comments that contain vilification are removed, but not comments that pose an alternative view.

This is an issue that I discuss with my students who take my subjects – we discuss freedom of speech and censorship and the sometimes difficult lines that exist between offensive/discriminatory and opinionated speech (the latter I personally don’t think should be censored by the way).

I’m sorry I can’t offer you an explanation as to why your comment was removed from the Conversation site, but I can assure you that both Anastasia and I are always up for critical debate (that’s our job!).”

All good there. I wonder if other authors are mostly of the same view? If so then the problem lies with the attitudes of the management team at ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Conversation is a publicly funded forum for the discussion of current affairs and contemporary issues. It is operated under the auspices of Australian universities.

The Conversation should be about mature, free and open discussion (obviously sans expletives, threats and personal abuse).

The Conversation should not continue to be fettered by political correctness and ideologies du jour like gender feminism.

Here’s a relevant comment that appeared in an October 2015 reddit discussion thread concerning another biased gynocentric article appearing in The Conversation:

“I have opted out of The Conversation. Look at the number of “content removed by moderator” and you can bet that most of them were disagreement with the original article which Cory (the moderator) conflates with “breaching community standards” …

I have written several times to Cory pointing out that their editing is not ‘balanced’ and that they only publish a torrent of hate speech masquerading as academic “research”. His reply was to refer me the “community standards” which is a euphemism for a licence to censor opinions that they don’t like.”

This October 2015 Breitbart article provides an overview as to what is occurring in reader’s comments sections in left-leaning organisations like The Conversation.

And yet thankfully here and here we find evidence of a push-back beginning in some US universities. It’s been a long time coming & there’s such a long way to go.

(Update January 2019: ‘Why would ‘The Conversation’ reject a conversation about gender inequality?’ (UK)

Moderator zaps post, but for once it wasn’t (just) mine

Some of you may have read my earlier post about censorship and bias at a publicly-funded pro-feminist web site called The Conversation. I’m chuffed to see that post has attracted quite a lot of hits.

On 19 March 2015 they published an article entitled ‘Remove the burden of family violence from the victims, to the courts‘.

A comment contributed by one of their feminist readers struck a chord. It was pretty awful really.

barbara_roberts

And so I did something that I don’t recall having done before … I complained to the moderator:

“My main concern with Barbara’s comment was her unsubstantiated assertion that many of the people expressing concerns about the gender-bias in the debate surrounding domestic violence are perpetrators of abuse. This is an outrageous claim that is gender bigotry pure and simple. It is is like me saying that feminists are closet paedophiles because they remain silent about the now large numbers of female teachers who are caught having sexual relations with underage students. Hers was a completely inappropriate and inflammatory comment”

And lo and behold … Barbara’s post was consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

I can just imagine the gritted teeth of the resident white knight/SJW moderator as he pondered my request. But then, overcome with righteous fury, it appears he resolved to teach me a lesson. Something along the lines of “There’s no way I’m going to let this uppity MRA get away with this.”

And so it came to be that I was simultaneously advised:

Your comment on ‘Remove the burden of family violence from the victims, to the courts’ has been removed …  For your reference, the removed comment was:

“Rob, I haven’t read your report yet (but will do so shortly), so the following comment is based on what I’ve read in the media. It appears that your report talks about the need for more & better intervention and behaviour modification programs for perpetrators, but that your recommendations in this regard are limited to male perpetrators.

Can I ask why you would not adopt a gender-neutral approach in this regard and have programs that catered for both male and female perpetrators. I mean, it’s not as though there are so few violent women that we can afford to just wave them away.

Indeed I understand that the rate of increase in violent crime by women is exceeding that of men in many jurisdictions. See http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

As you can see, it was shamefully triggering stuff. To your average gender feminist anyway. And so I joined Barbara in the rubbish bin of history.

zapped

 

More feminist soliloquy interspersed with awkward pauses, than ‘conversation’ really.

I can’t tell you how satisfying it is to know that my tax dollars are helping to maintain this charade.

ABC Q&A program highlights gender inequality in the domestic violence debate

Click here for details of the ABC Q&A program – entitled The Family Violence Special – that went to air on 23 February 2015.

Feminists and their white knight allies raved about the Q&A program, unsurprising given that it was tailor-made for the feminist palate. I found it’s tone and content entirely predictable, and its contribution to the domestic violence debate largely unhelpful. The program’s focus – heterosexual men battering heterosexual women – was so narrow (in terms of the actual breadth of family violence – that it would have been more accurate to call it ‘The Violent Men Beating on Women Special‘.

A great deal of fuss was made about the fact there was a male compere and three men on the panel, but it did not make a lick of difference in terms of either the nature of material addressed and the manner in which it was addressed. The most significant thing about the gender balance of the panel was the revelation that ABC had pointedly turned down Dr Elizabeth Celi as a panellist. The details behind that move are addressed in Bill O’Chee’s article (linked below).

I just read the sentence below earlier today and, while it’s not specifically about domestic violence, it did remind me a lot of the Q&A program:

“The opposite of compassion is not hatred,” wrote one Florida prisoner, describing the violence he’d endured. “It’s indifference.” (Source)

ABC TV Q&A Family Violence Special – Question from Male Victim (24 February 2015) Video

Comment from Darne Blaik in the OneInThree Facebook page (24 February 2015):

“As a member of last night’s audience and I sat right behind Mr Coe I went home devastated as I realised the gender inequality within the DEBATE of DV is worse than I had originally anticipated. I left in silence and shock as I realised the when it comes to male victims of DV … they have no voice.

The rudeness displayed by the women in the audience towards Mr Coe particularly directly in front if him was disturbing, palpable and audible denigrating of this man’s experience could be heard. The notable agitation shown by Natasha was clearly evident and appalling for a person in her position.

Furthermore I don’t believe that the greater society do believe that men should be ignored. From what I am hearing, most people want NO ONE TO SUFFER DV NOT JUST WOMEN so why do male victims not even get a voice in the discussion. No one doubts that they are in the minority (but I would argue more equal statistics if you only take into account emotional and mental abuse and take the sexuality and physicality out of the statistics) HOWEVER WHEN DID START IGNORING THE MINORITIES IN THIS COUNTRY??? It is just not good enough in our sophisticated society, we need to be a shining light in the discussion of this appalling worldwide phenomenon that is DV.”

In addition to the comments contained within the Q&A Facebook page and Twitter stream, I would suggest reviewing the reader’s comments that follow the articles listed below:

We need to speak out for all victims of family violence, by Roger Smith (2 March 2015) Good concise article with many valid readers comments

Q&A slammed on Twitter for choosing more men than women to discuss family violence (20 February 2015)

Q&A tackles “Family Violence”, by Greg Canning (22 February 2015)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/jessticulate/jessica-rudd-family-violence-not-about-gender-20150222-13lmwt.html (23 February 2015)

Rose Batty heads Q&A panel discussion on family violence (23 February 2015)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/rosie-batty-launches-frank-and-heartbreaking-conversation-about-domestic-violence/story-fni6ulvf-1227236263041?from=google_rss (24 February 2015) with 235 reader’s comments

Q&A: Rosie Batty and Natasha Stott Despoja speak passionately on domestic violence (24 February 2015)

#NotAllMen Tweets Totally Slid Into Q&A’s Domestic Violence Special (24 February 2015)

Q&A domestic violence program ignored male victims, by Bill O’Chee (25 February 2015) Feminists should read and consider the comments that follow this article, comments like:

“Your comment makes me want to throw up. Not only am I a male victim of DV, I was also falsely accused of DV so that ‘SHE’could get an ouster order that effectively made me homeless and economically destitute. Because of HER committing DV, I lost my house and home, my business and income, my friends, cash, pets, car, and was introduced to the floor below the poverty line for a 2 year stint… I’m STILL here on this floor!!

My child under 3 (at the time) copped the biggest shock when HER greed and malevolence extended to the innocent and defenseless. The child’s outright rejection of HER as a mother had me playing defender from HER physical and psychological attacks with my child literally screaming “Don’t want mummy!” HER multiple, double digit bullying and harassment complaints against HER at HER work did nothing to convince he magistrate that something was very wrong as the court system swallowed HER lies, hook, line, and sinker and SHE played on societies expected role of her, the battered woman, when in reality, SHE is a rabid, sick werewolf dressed in Little Bo Peep clothing. A dangerous Narcissist by any standard.

The ease with which SHE has been able to manipulate the system, and lie successfully to the courts with breathtaking effectiveness, and the very keen willingness of police to accept HER “story” over mine for no other reason than I am male and here was violence involved, was a repugnant and contemptuous experience that no ‘person’ should have to go through. You should get your facts straight before posting such ignorant comments. Men ARE dying too, or didn’t you read that part? I’m not dead because of my child and my desire to fight this sexist idea that men are from hell.” ‘Roger’ (26 February 2015)

The ABC allows Feminists to use Q&A as a bully pulpit (1 March 2015)