I came across this fellow’s plea whilst web surfing the other day, and thought it was quite a good question:
“Is there a news source that doesn’t have a pro-feminist bias?
I order “The Week” and most magazine issues have at least one article discussing a women’s issue; 50-70% of the issues discussed are either non-existent, highly exaggerated, or are only looking at the female side where the issue can affect anybody, and I have yet to see a single men’s issue being discussed in that magazine. I’ve been getting issues of that magazine for about two years now. I’m stopping my order as soon as I can, but I’m still going to have to deal with this crap with EVERY news source except …..?
And I don’t want a source that is specifically anti-feminist, and I don’t want a republican source like Fox News either.”
The question has only attracted two answers thus far, but ‘Elana’ responded as follows:
“I think you’re going to find it very difficult to find something without bias unless it avoids a subject entirely.
Really the only way you can do it is by reporting lots of different points of view and how it effects lots of different people.
My problem with feminism has always been that it NEVER reports what effects its policies has on men. I’ve never thought that women don’t need advocacy – they most certianly do – but to claim that feminism is all about equality and THE ONLY people who are all about equality, when in fact they are nothing more than a rather single minded advocacy movement for women – makes them dangerous.
At least MRAs point out what they are doing and why.
As MRAs gain traction, I’m 100% positive we’ll be muttering the same things about them, but right now, the vast majority of them, at least in the West, are fighting an uphill against court systems, political systems and media systems that are singularly feminist.”
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review states that “Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
Some people call the notion of a gender pay gap a ‘myth’, but it does in fact exist. A certain mythical element arises however in the way that feminists blatantly misrepresent the pay gap to support and advance their peculiarly jaundiced view of the world. You see, feminists would have us believe that women earn substantially less than men for doing the same work, and that this is primarily the result of sexist bias by employers. Such a position is equal parts over-simplification and outright falsehood, yet it forms a key prop in the gender feminists’ claim of perennial victimhood at the hands of a cruel and unyielding patriarchy.
Indeed, all manner of people – even ex-President Obama – keep spouting this bunkum, and the mainstream media laps it up and repeats it ad nauseam. (Oh, and by the way, Politi-Fact rated the President’s statement as ‘mostly false’, with further comments here).
Feminists conveniently neglect to tell everyone that:
as you drill down into the data looking at particular segments of the workforce, one is increasingly likely to find that the wage gap favours women – not men
pay disparity is the outcome of many different variables, of which sexist discrimination by employers is just one – and a relatively minor one at that
Indeed the most significant variables affecting pay rates relate to personal choices made by individual employees, choices such as type of job, amount of overtime worked, etc.
“In Britain, lesbians are paid an average of eight per cent more than straight women, with the trend even more extreme in other western countries. In the US, the difference is 20 per cent …
Dr Nick Drydakis, senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in the UK who authored the World Bank report, said pay differentials were explained by the career and lifestyle choices that gay women were more likely make.
“Lesbians may realise early in life that they will not marry into a traditional household,” he said.”
So, does this mean that employers actively discriminate against straight women?
“Love the way it’s so obviously special pleading. Gay men earn less? Must be discrimination! Lesbians earn more? Must be lifestyle choices. Women earn less? Must be sexism. Men earn less? Must be lifestyle choices.”
Please take a moment to review some or all of the following sources:
The Factual Feminist‘ (Christina Hoff Sommers) looks at the wage gap issue Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3
“The easiest way to solve the ‘gender pay gap’ would be to make it a criminal offence for a man to financially subsidize ANY woman, even his wife. Then women would have an incentive to work to the best of their earning potential regardless of the wealth of their male spouse.”
Earnings inequality among men soars (13 January 2017) UK. There are many significant pay gaps other than all men v all women, but any gaps that don’t support the feminist narrative tend to be ignored. This study is just one of many examples.
Daniel Radcliffe: How can this still be happening? (25 April 2016) Harry Potter actor talks about how much more male Hollywood actors are paid. Neglects to mention factors inconsistent with feminist narrative – like the pay differential for fashion models for e.g.
“Here is a list of the ten most remunerative majors compiled by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Men overwhelmingly outnumber women in all but one of them:
1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male
And here are the 10 least remunerative majors—where women prevail in nine out of ten:
1. Counseling Psychology: 74% female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97% female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
5. Social Work: 88% female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
7. Studio Arts: 66% female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female”
Re: “But they make less money no matter what the job”
Wrong. “In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” (See ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm)
That’s just one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts.
A thousand laws won’t close that gap.
In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is another feel-good bill that turned into another do-nothing law (good intentions do not necessarily make things better; sometimes, the path to a worse condition is paved with good intentions)…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.
That’s because women’s pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:
Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)
As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)
The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:
-accept low wages -refuse overtime and promotions -choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html) -take more unpaid days off -avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay) -work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time instead of full-time (as in the above example regarding physicians)
Any one of these job choices lowers women’s median pay relative to men’s. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.
Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.
This last reference is also quite dated, and is not about feminist misrepresentation per se, but just shows how easily incorrect statistics can be created (in this case by Australian politician Joe Hockey) and then go into circulation:
Both feminist literature and articles in the mainstream media (which is heavily biased towards the feminist perspective) make common use of various ‘facts’ to support their arguments. Some of these include:
That 1 in 4 women will be raped.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid for equal work
1 in 3 women suffer from domestic violence
90% of the world’s poorest people are women
The conviction rate for rape is 6%
These are not facts. They are examples of what is a sustained effort to mislead the public, with the aim of building public (read: political) support for the feminist cause.
Some of the common ‘red flags’ in relation to pro-feminist statistics include:
lack of citation of the original source, with countless instances of incorrect and debunked statistics being used again and again
no context being provided for statistics used, and in particular the comparable figure for males is very rarely provided
“While most men don’t perpetrate violence, approximately 90% of all violence committed against children is perpetrated by men.” So states the ‘Polished Man‘ web site. A complete lie that they subsequently amended after adverse feedback. Here is the related reddit discussion thread.
Fear: The terrible feeling every woman experiences by Melissa Hoyer (6 November 2014) and Pray for Clementine (4 December 2014) Two similar articles by Australian feminist journalists concerning their sickening level of paranoia regarding men. In the second article Clementine Ford is freaking out because a stranger in the street, a man, tried to talk to her.
News.com.au is a major online source of mainstream news in Australia, the CEO of which is David Penberthy who was mentioned in a reader’s post here. Some time ago a reader sent me a copy of an email that he had sent to the team at news.com.au after he had got fed-up with their ongoing sexist bias:
“As a frequent visitor to your site I am dismayed by the evident bias I see with regards to:
1. The types of articles that you choose to publish 2. The decision as to which articles you allow comments on and which you don’t 3. The decision of moderators as to whether comments are posted or excluded
In particular the type of bias that I find most annoying and which is particularly prevalent in your site is a stridently anti-male and pro-feminist bias.
I have read your FAQ page entries in relation to some of these points but I find that in practice your team makes decisions that are not necessarily in line with your guidelines. For example I myself on many occasions have sought to post comments that were in no way profane, etc etc but were not accepted.
Further some of the articles you publish, and also some of the comments, I (and I am sure many others) find to be in poor taste or offensive … it just seems that some positions are consistently deemed more acceptable than others … and lo and behold these seem to feature misandric themes that belittle and promote negative stereotypes concerning men. It’s tiresome and it’s wrong and you should improve your performance in this regard. If uncertain simply apply the test …. if this article or this comment was about women, would I publish it? If yes then go ahead. If not then don’t …”
News.com.au replied addressing a side-issue – but said nothing about the central issue of gender bias. This other blog post provides some examples of their biased journalism.
So how is sexist bias reflected in newspapers and web sites like news.com.au? It is done through a combination of the following measures:
Through the choice of which subjects are addressed in articles and which ones are ignored, and then whether the coverage of each subject is balanced or only provides a partial picture of the issue at hand
Through whether or not online public comments are enabled, and if so, for how long comments are accepted
Through the nature and degree of moderation of online public comments
Through the choice of loaded words within articles to reflect whether each particular view expressed, or person quoted is either good/valid or bad/invalid, as seen through the ideological filter imposed by the journalist or editor
Through the use of misleading or bogus statistics within articles to support a pro-feminist perspective
With regards to point 2 above, I have noted a recent trend towards not permitting readers comments in relation to topics for which there will likely be a reader backlash against the pro-feminist position being advanced by the author and/or editor. A ‘good’ example of this is an article entitled ‘Proof that men are bigger idiots than women‘. In this case not only were readers comments not permitted, but the article was also excluded from news.com.au’s Facebook page and Twitter feed. Thus those who objected to the obvious misandry of the article were effectively silenced, conveying an impression of reader acceptance.
This article is another example of how journalists change language depending on the gender of the victim. When a woman assaults a man (who doesn’t even try to defend himself) it is a “fight“, but if it was the other way around it would be reported as an “unprovoked attack“.
Ah, but news.com.au by no means has a monopoly on applying feminist bias and blocking material that portrays men and mens rights in a fair and balanced manner. No, Australia’s ABC is yet another citadel of femdom. This was amply demonstrated in the 2014 article entitled ‘A lesson for men’s rights activists on real oppression‘ by misandrist journalist Clementine Ford.
Despite the usual feminist moderator habit of binning the majority of posts contributed by those not supportive of feminism, there were still some interesting exchanges amongst the readers comments.
Still on the topic of Clementine Ford, perhaps have a look at this other paper. If you scroll through the readers comments, amongst the offerings of simpering sycophants you will note a contribution from another who stated:
“You lost any right to speak about equality when you attacked and demonise those who are attempting to act as a counterbalance to the feminist movement. The only thing this article resembles is propaganda. For every issue females suffer, and they were good points, you proceeded to ignore about a dozen which society is now suffering under because of feminism.
Like how masculinity is seen as a “problem to be removed” at the age of school children.
About how it is encouraged for females to become teachers now with no effort to do the same for males to balance the number of people from each gender tutoring students.
How abuse and sexual assault against males is often either ignored or used as a source of humour, especially in forms of media. To the point where the castration of a male is only laughed at and mocked by a female audience.
About how some laws in the US have changed for the worse. One in particular allowing females the right to charge a man with rape if they have consumed any amount of alcohol, even if it was consensual sex and she was the one who talked him into it.
About how university and college applications emphases upon getting more female students even long after they make up a considerable percentage of those entering each established teaching institute.
About how unemployment rates are far higher for males than they are for females; with “stay at home dads” being encouraged as a good thing while the very thought of a “housewife” staying at home and cleaning is regarded as offensive.
About how homeless the number of homeless men is staggeringly higher for males than it is for females, yet in many countries with this problem there are far more women’s shelters than there are those devoted to men.
About how divorce courts favour women over men, allowing them to leave with far more of their former husband’s possessions than the other way around. Similarly how unemployment is grounds for the divorce with a man while it is not for a woman.
About how any research which feminists deem “offensive” causes those who research it to be blacklisted. Such as one scientist who showed produced a paper showing findings and statistics which showed that for women, the hormone transfer from semen provides a number of health benefits, including anti-depressants.
Or how about how any attempts by masculinists to counterbalance and correct where feminism has gone too far and men’s rights are suffering is scorned as being “chauvinistic” or childish?
All that and far more you simply ignore and choose to portray MRA’s as acting irrationally and out of fear of equality? I’m not sure whether to laugh or weep.
Equality has not been achieved, that is something you got right, but it is not simply the female populations suffering. Some points you made were good, as I stated, but you seem blind to the idea that females might be dominating aspects to society and equality might come from them losing power as much as males.
Next time attempt to think about what you are talking about. Or better yet, why don’t you show some of that supposed interest in equality you kept mentioning and try to discuss the problems each gender is facing.”
And how did Ms. Ford respond to this thoughtful observation? By typing “TL;DR” (i.e. too long/didn’t read). Definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and clearly not the least bit interested in considering alternative perspectives.
“I think many feminists have unfortunately become as inflexible and unlistening as they say men are largely because of the media’s selective reporting.
When reporting on gender issues and the male-female dynamic, as on all other issues, the media are supposed to objectively reflect all views. But over the past four decades they have reflected ideological feminists’ views almost exclusively.
The effect of this long-running lack of objectivity is, I think, to create in our collective mind an entrenched and immutable perception that no other view is possible and that gender issues and the male-female dynamic as portrayed by these feminists are not foolhardy concepts but widely accepted fact that is completely beyond dispute.
Thus, the ordinary woman — even the woman who may disdain feminists — can hardly be blamed for believing she is taken advantage of by men and must endure such oppressions as poorer treatment by male doctors and lower pay than the men at her company doing the exact same work.
Many if not most women are subjected to these oppression stories virtually very day of the year in the still-unobjective (liberal) media. The stories are convincingly told by intelligent, sophisticated members of such groups as the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), which says in the very first sentence of its position statement on equal pay:
“American women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.”
If such educated, sophisticated groups as the NWLC — and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the subject of the following commentary — believe women are unfairly paid less, it must be true. Why would they lie?
This article informs us of an “alarming” (11.7%) increase in the number of women over 55 facing homelessness. It was based on a study by the University of Queensland’s Institute of Social Science Research. There is no mention that this demographic is a small percentage of homeless people generally, who are predominantly male. In fact there is no mention of men at all. Funny thing that.
“It is fairly annoying to constantly hear men make up the majority of x, therefore we need to help the female minority, but when the roles are reversed, the answer is still to aid women. Men are the problem when they comprise a majority that women want to be a part of, and men are ignored when they’re the minority or the majority of something women want no part of”
See this article for an example of how feminists don’t acknowledge gender when the story doesn’t fit their victim narrative (i.e. in this case six boys rather than six “students”). In this October 2014 BBC story note how no mention was made of the gender of the murdered students, guess they must have all been male (they were). This article addresses the same issue.
“Read the tone and language in this article about a man who threatens his female partner with a knife, then read the tone of these two articles one about a female stabbing her male partner the other of a female murdering her partner by stabbing him. Great examples of the sexism and bias in the media”:
Everyday sexism at the Australian State Broadcaster: When airmen die in training and combat they are labelled “crew” and “people”. When two thirds of the workforce making the aeroplanes are men, the article notes that “one third were women” (19 September 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
How many men are paedophiles? (29 July 2014) Coz everyone knows there’s no female paedophiles right? Now they couldn’t have written an article called “How many people are paedophiles?” could they? ah, because … misandry
Blogged down in polarities (7 July 2014) This article isn’t about pro-feminist bias, it is about a broader issue of media behaviour that see views deliberately (and irresponsibly) polarised to attract reader interest and involvement. This is sometimes known as “click-bait journalism”.
MHRA stands for ‘mens human right activism’ or ‘mens human rights activist’. It’s an acronym that the community is going to encounter more and more often in the media. Another commonly used term is ‘Mens Rights Activist’ or MRA.
As with feminism, the non/anti-feminist sector has a number of discernible groups within it as shown in the diagram below. MHRA’s/MRA’s represent just one of these. Another significant subset of the mens movement is known as MGTOW (Men going their own way).
I once thought the Mens Rights Movement consisted of guys running naked together in the forest, or weird stuff like that. Maybe it was once upon a time, but back in those days I wasn’t paying much attention as I still thought that feminists had a valid point. Now, many years later, I can appreciate the chasm between the cuddly all-inclusive (we’re only interested in equality!) variety of feminism that’s presented in the mainstream media, and what the self-appointed leaders of this insidious movement are actually saying and doing.
The feminist/media portrayal of those people interested involved with mens rights is very much based on an image of ill-tempered, right-wing, portly and socially-inept white middle-aged men. In actual fact there is enormous diversity amongst MRA with regards to age, gender, and the political and religious viewpoints that are held. There is also a major division between the ‘trad-cons’ (traditional conservatives) and the those that believe that men need to create a new social construct based on egalitarian principles. This article by Dean Esmay discusses the tradcon perspective.
Interestingly, many MRA initially identified as feminists but then became disillusioned due to the hypocrisy and corruption of that movement. Warren Farrell was a high-flier in the feminist movement before becoming a pioneer and leading light in the mens rights movement, here he talks about certain aspects of this transition.
Both this discussion, and this article, are about the relationship between the Mens Rights movement and feminism and whether it is feasible to have a foot in each camp. This feminist blog post asks the same question (see also interesting comments about domestic violence late in the readers comments section). This reddit discussion, on the other hand, looks at how feminist women stifle input from men who join their movement.
The MHR movement involves men and women who are committed to taking action to address the hypocrisy, deceit, and increasingly anti-male bigotry of current day feminism. Yes, I said men AND women. One of the refreshing things about most mens rights organisations and web sites is that ideas and input by women are welcomed and encouraged.
These two reddit discussion threads concern women who are sympathetic to the mens rights cause (thread 1 and thread 2), with both containing quite a number of interesting comments. This is a great article (August 2014) about women who are active in the mens rights movement, and here’s another.
This article advises that CAFE Canada was subject to exclusion from the 2014 Pride Parade. Clearly feminist elements within the LGBT community applied pressure due to CAFE’s activities in advocating for men and boys.
This is a fabulous rebuttal (by Victor Zen) of a young feminist’s complaint that she felt threatened by the creation of a men’s rights advocacy group at her university. And here is a follow-up post by Victor.
One of the standard taunts of the feminist movement is that MHRA organisations are “hate groups”. They largely pin this claim on a statement made by an organisation known as the ‘Southern Poverty Law Centre’. Read this article by that organisation, and as always, be sure to look at the readers comments. Too bad, too sad, that the FBI recently distanced themselves from the SPLC.
In actual fact, mens rights groups have an exemplary record in relation to using non-violent means to make their point. Indeed in one recent situation, various branches of the men’s rights movement raised a reward in order to try to find a person who was alleged to have attacked a Canadian feminist. Various feminist groups were approached to match this amount, but chose not to do so.
Many men in western countries believe that their only choice is between celibacy and submitting to the gynocentric strictures of the society in which they live. For these folks an epiphany can occur via exposure to life within another different culture, and I think this is evident in some of the material links to this post about cross-cultural marriages.
The issue of why many men are having difficulty appreciating the social changes that are seeing mens position in society being increasingly eroded, is addressed in this article. The other related factors slowing the growth of men’s rights activism are media bias, and feminist tactics such as shaming, censorship and disruption which have been reasonably effective in stifling open and organised group dissent up to this point in time.
“We care about men as human doings, not as human beings. We care about him as an individual like I care about the individual parts of my car – I care about its problems only when it’s causing me problems. Or I care about prevention only when lack of prevention will cause me problems. Even when a man’s problems are affecting his ability to be a protector, we often refer to his problems from the perspective of the problems they create for a woman (he cheated on her; he got drunk and hit her). Which is why the other men who make the front pages are the villains who are causing us problems.
In brief, men’s lives count only to the degree they are heroes who perform for us or save us, or villains who disturb our peace. Women’s lives count more for their own sake…a woman’s pain is every talk show.”
Now for those of you outside Australia, ‘Sunrise’ is the top-rating morning TV program. Harmless fluff mostly. Recently however the show fell foul of the feminist legions as a result of a brief interchange between the show’s male and female personalities. A storm in a tea-cup if ever there was one. It was significant, however, in how it clearly demonstrated the modus operandi of many feminist journalists.
Anyway I’ll let you now read the linked pages below for details about what occurred, and how people felt about it.
You would have noticed that many of those most upset about what occurred, would have described the issue as one of a strong woman (the author of the Mamamia article) being castigated for having the courage to speak out about misogyny in the media.
In fact the howls of protest that followed the publication of the Mamamia article did not result so much from WHAT was said in the article, but rather HOW it was said and the way that the crew at Mamamia handled the issue generally – in particular:
the fact that the journalist hadn’t watched the ‘Sunrise’ episode before writing the article
the fact that Sunrise staff were not approached for comment prior to publication
the personal nature of criticism contained within the article (it was basically a hatchet job on the show’s male host, Kochie), and
the failure by Mamamia to initially post Kochie’s response on their web site (or even to admit that a response had been received)
Those who have spent a reasonable amount of time in Thailand would have recognised a strange and intriguing dynamic between western men, western women and Thai women. It is of particular interest to yours truly as it provides an opportunity to examine – from a different perspective – the current state of play between the sexes in western countries. And it’s not a pretty sight.
What is happening is that increasing numbers of western guys, including both resident expats and tourists, are seeking Asian wives and girlfriends. This is occurring at the same time that many men are rejecting marriage entirely as discussed in this further blog post.
When this subject gets raised in an online discussion forum the same issues and the same progression of arguments tend to be represented. Alternatively, if there is a (caucasian) female moderator in the mix, the discussion thread is usually very quickly shut down.
Female contributors to these discussions accuse the men of (at best) having an ‘Asian fetish’, but more often than not as possessing one or more of the following characteristics:
latent paedophiles attracted to the petite stature of Asian women
socially inept losers who “couldn’t get a woman in their own countries”
ugly, fat, smelly and drunk
seeking a submissive slave, frightened of “strong, independent women”, and unable to cope with a partnership of equals
Female contributors invariably begin by feigning concern for the welfare of their Asian sisters, with comments about western men exploiting women of limited means and who are driven to consort with western men due only to economic imperatives. Once the men return fire, sometimes with a few barbs about issues of weight control, things turn nasty with many western women then turning on Asian women … labelling them scheming prostitutes who are only interested in ripping off western men (who deserve what they get).
Male contributors frequently reflect on their earlier unsatisfactory dealings with western women, frequently ending with costly divorce settlements. Sometimes men clarify that their attraction to Asian women is not racial objectification, but indicative of an attraction to certain personal characteristics that are more prevalent amongst women in Asian countries.
These attributes include gracefulness and femininity, loyalty, and a much reduced propensity for combativeness. Many men appreciate that women’s expectations regarding the roles of men and women is better defined and (importantly) more transparently and consistently applied.
At times interesting insights are offered by Asian women who have moved to western countries. With but a few exceptions they support the comments from western men regarding the selfishness and contempt shown by many western women (in their dealings with western men).
Discussions within feminist web sites are uniformly contemptuous towards western men with Asian partners. As an example, I came across this statement in a paper on the SPLC web site:
“The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women. “
Nice jibe. That article, by the way, was penned by a feminist foot-soldier by the name of Arthur Goldwag who is discussed here. And while we’re on the topic of feminist lapdogs, here’s David Futrelle with his words of overblown inanity on the subject of those men preferring foreign partners.
Yes indeed, feminists really do get quite a burr in their panties when it comes to white men partnering with women from another culture (another example). Ah, and not only are men attracted to Asian women because they are perceived to be submissive – the feminist author of this article suggests that the same motivation applies to men who partner with deaf women.
The depth of anger and bitterness felt by some feminists about a trend that they perceive as crafty western men bucking the system, is such that steps are being taken to address this ‘loophole’. There appear to be two main strategies now in train:
1. Apply progressively stronger pressure on governments in both source and destination countries to reduce the number of marriages between western men and women from Asian and/or developing countries. In particular this will involve increasing the cost and degree of difficulty associated with obtaining spouse or fiancee visas for foreign wives to achieve residency status in western countries. The argument put forward to justify this will be an alleged strong nexus between non-western partners (who will be painted alternately as either vulnerable ingenues or devious scammers) and organised crime or domestic abuse. Expect to see ‘woozles’ aplenty as well as heavy use of terms like ‘mail-order brides’, human-trafficking, and sexual servitude. (Example)
In Australia, as of April 2019, men will have to pass a character test to bring their spouse into Australia and any history of domestic violence (real or alleged) will be a obstacle to visa approval. Just as allegations of abuse have become weapons for use in child custody cases, soon ex-wives may be able to make remarriage of their former spouse more costly and difficult. There’s a further article here, but still no hint as to specifically what constitutes “a history of violence”.
This August 2019 article may also put fear into men considering marriage to a foreign national, in relation to the potential for false accusations to be made against them.
Even without altering the rules, people can be discouraged from taking this marriage route simply by making the process more drawn-out and expensive. This web site states that as of January 2019 the waiting period for a partner visa (with partner offshore) was 30-46 months, after submission of all necessary paperwork.
2. Dissuade foreign women from entering into long-term relationships with western men on the basis of scare tactics, i.e. an alleged high level of personal risk to them.
An example of this can be seen in an August 2014 article in the Bangkok Post, entitled ‘Australia’s hidden abusive migrant marriages‘. This article seeks to send a strong message to Thai women that they face grave risks should they relocate to a western country. Yet typical of feminist attempts to manipulate public opinion, it is heavy on claims and very light on actual information that would put threat levels into a meaningful context. In this case the actual information provided is quite inadequate in helping women assess the actual degree of actual risk. See also readers comments.
Further sources of information and insight regarding this theme:
Foreign Women Are Not the Answer (NAFWALT) (9 May 2016) One would be foolish to suggest that marrying a(ny) foreign woman is a good strategy for a(ny) caucasian man dissatisfied with western women. Then again, too many are willing to rush in and forego getting to know their future partner, her family and her culture, so a reality check is probably in order.
I was approached by a western girl in Phuket who was obviously having a hard time with the lack of attention. She almost threw herself at me and said quietly in my ear that she and her mate were out looking to get laid. i was in the star wars nightclub at the time in patong surrounded by few hundred thai lovelies. back in England obviously i thought it would be a dream come true to get a girl acting like this. however in Thailand we have the upper hand so i decided to use it. I told her if that was the case that she was maybe in the wrong place and perhaps she should try her luck elsewhere. She looked like i had thrown molten metal in her face. This was beginning to give me far more enjoyment than shagging her ever would.
‘What do you mean’, she responded.
“I mean look around you’ I replied and pointed to all the thai ladies.
I continued to tell her how the arrogance of the western female had become increasingly offputting and thats why most males in the know were now coming to thailand. She then tried to come over all softly, softly and tried to explain she wasn’t one of these types. She then put her arms around me and whispered ‘please’ in my ear.
I was loving this. I finally pushed her away and said that i wasn’t the slight bit interested.
I could see her the tears of humility rise in her eyes and then she stormed off.
I felt a feeling of power wash over me that i’d never felt before.
Western females do this to men all the time in the west and it was superb to be able to enact the same punishment.
She was lucky though. i could of got her to buy me drinks all night whilst pretending to be interested and then gone off with someone else and the end of the night!
(Mod: Ouch! No wonder many men consider Thailand to be the place where western womens chickens have come home to roost!)
“When-ever you read a news story that seems a bit hateful, reverse the genders. Then ask yourself: “would this have been published with the reversed genders?” Imagine a guy, travelling to a foreign country, complaining about the “less than average” women getting handsome men and the women’s resulting ‘inflated egos’. Then displaying the racist attitudes toward the locals that they dated. Would a main stream media organization DARE to print something as offensive?“