Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

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

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

Eyeroll

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

vanbadham6

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

vanbadham5

 

 

 

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

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

vanbadham4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vanbadham2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

badham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this interview with Bettina Arndt, former politicians Peter Beattie and Peter Reith discuss the non-feminist perspective on domestic violence (10 October 2016).

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

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

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

Other blog posts related to this topic include:

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

#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:

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

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:

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

On being booted off Facebook

My Facebook account was locked last Friday. I think it happened because someone reported me to Facebook HQ as being guilty of promulgating hate speech and/or perpetrating other vile lapses of the Facebook Terms of Use.

I’d say it was no coincidence that it occurred the day after I had an encounter with a couple of aggressive/threatening women whilst I was commenting on an article in the Facebook page of The Guardian Australia. (Hi, Louise and Rebecca).

It’s not the first time this has happened to me, and I doubt it will be the last. But for the time being at least, I couldn’t be bothered persisting with Facebook.

I didn’t actually say or do anything hateful on that day, or on any other day. I didn’t upload porno. Or threaten anyone. Or even use profanity (unlike the two women in question). But those that reported me didn’t care about Facebook rules per se. They just wanted to stop me, and people like me, expressing our views online. And they sought to have all trace of that which had already been posted, removed.

You see, all of my posts using that Facebook account concerned gender-related issues. More specifically, my stance generally contrasts with the feminist position, and feminists don’t take kindly to dissenting views.

I could try to contact Facebook HQ (as I have attempted in the past) to discover what was alleged, and to rebut those allegations. But that would be difficult/impossible because whilst Facebook has streamlined the reporting process, they clearly don’t want to get involved in time-consuming dispute resolution. Read about another person’s experience with Facebook here.

Given previous feminist campaigns against Facebook, I suspect that Facebook is as wary of feminists as our politicians appear to be. And of course, those who made the allegations against me know this.

People reading this who have crossed swords with feminists online would be rolling their eyes at this point in time. They would be thinking “well what does this person expect? Everyone knows that feminists do that stuff all the time”.

The thing is though, I don’t think people in the broader community are fully awake to this. Not even those people sympathetic to what they understand to be feminist ideals.

So to those who don’t realise how real-world feminists behave, consider this post your very own ‘heads-up’. For I can assure you that many in the feminist movement make it their mission to consistently and persistently block the dissemination of messages that run contrary to the feminist narrative.

Feminists even discuss ways and means of getting people off-line – refer examples here and here. It’s always phrased in noble terms such as stopping “trolling” “online bullying”, etc. But the truth is that in the hard-done-by & perpetual-victim mindset of the fervent gender feminist, ANY dissent constitutes trolling, no matter how tactfully expressed.

And indeed I have seen this scenario played out more times than I care to remember. This blog post talks more about this issue, and indeed the theme is revisited in several other posts.

The various tactics that feminists utilise to try to deny their perceived enemies a voice, include:

  • Blocking specific people from posting on pro-feminist Facebook pages
  • Removing posts from pro-feminist Facebook pages when they disagree with the views being expressed
  • Blocking specific people from accessing/posting to pro-feminist Twitter accounts
  • Lodging exaggerated or false reports with Facebook or Twitter in order to have certain peoples’ accounts suspended/closed
  • Not uploading readers comments to blogs or web sites when they are seen as unsupportive of the feminist position on the matter
  • Removing readers comments from blogs or web sites (ditto)
  • Reporting posts to moderators when they are seen as negative towards the feminist position on the matter
  • Not allowing any readers comments to be posted

What does it say about the credibility of a social movement when its adherents devote so much time and energy to blocking debate and suppressing information, rather that doing the opposite?

The truth is that feminists of this ilk don’t want to engage in debate, and they don’t want to provide a ‘right of reply’ (even after they have attacked a specific organisation or individual). And they certainly don’t want information circulated that provides the contextual background the public needs to properly consider feminist claims/grievances, particularly when it serves as evidence of feminist double-standards or hypocrisy.

Why not? Well in part it’s because this unchecked element of the feminist movement carry such intense feelings of contempt and anger towards those who question their cause. And in part it’s because they realise that their position on many issues simply cannot be supported with facts and logic. Thus they far more to lose from enabling informed debate, than they have to gain.

So they stifle debate, censor, deflect and misrepresent. Because they can. Any way they can. And feel completely justified and exonerated in doing so. Like so many cockroaches scuttling about in dark places.

This is what feminist entitlement looks like.

censorship

See also:

Facebook Bans Clementine Ford From Own Account For 30 Days (21 June 2015) Finally some small consolation … a rare treat indeed … a misandrist ratbag has HER account (briefly) suspended

Guess What, Girls? You Don’t Deserve **** (4 May 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you will find these posts most relevant to this topic:

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
The Unbearable Lameness of Being
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

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.

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

I spent some time the other day browsing content within the ‘Facebook page of Domestic Violence NSW’. As a first-time visitor I was somewhat taken aback at the extent of anti-male and pro-feminist bias evident in the material posted there.

By way of background, Domestic Violence NSW is a Sydney-based charity that received over $6 million in government funding in the period August 2013 – August 2014.

During my visit I submitted a review of their site, noting that:

“When people google your organisation this is what they read: “Domestic Violence information site for Australian mothers seeking to leave abusive relationships, including contact details for various help services.” Yet when they arrive at your home page the message stated is that ‘domestic violence can happen to anyone, any gender, etc…’

My question is then, if you recognise male victims of domestic violence then why not amend the google summary to be consistent? ie. “information site for Australians seeking to leave abusive relationships…” The only reason to not do so would appear to be a desire to appease the feminists who seem to control the DV ‘debate’ in this country. Please consider and respect both sexes”.

At the same time I submitted that review, I contributed three comments in response to various items posted in the timeline. Whilst the review remained in place for a couple of days (I’m guessing they took a while to notice it), my comments disappeared within hours.

DV NSW then blocked me from making further posts on their Facebook page, and lodged a complaint with Facebook admin. Both of these moves are recognised as common feminist tactics used to try to silence those with whom they disagree.

I saw no evidence of dissenting views posted by others, and from that I assume that the timeline is regularly sanitised as is often the case with online feminist forums.

My crime? My crime was simply to put forward a view at odds with the material posted in the timeline. I can assure readers that my comments were quite cordial and offered free of malice, the most offensive terms included therein probably being “male victims” and “female perpetrators”.

Domestic Violence NSW forwarded this message:

“Hi Chris, All content DVNSW posts comes from credible media sources, using statistical information gathered by that source. We CLEARLY use descriptors when posting content that is an opinion or editorial. DVNSW does not prescribe to these opinions, we simply post the content. Our media monitors capture the daily media involving domestic and family violence and we share articles that meet our policy guidelines.

The issue with your post is that a) it comes from a source outside of Australia, which means it is not drawn from our ABS data collected here and b) it does not contain credible sources of information and references.

If you’d like to read about male victims of domestic violence, we would suggest looking into the work of Dr Michael Flood. He is well researched and knowledgable in this area and highly respected within our Australian context.”

I wrote back seeking clarification:

I’m afraid I’m a little confused as to how I have infringed your posting guidelines. Your message refers to my post, but it would appear that you have removed several of my posts from your timeline. As far as I recall only one of my posts included a hyperlink, and that was linking to an Australian blog. That blog page did in turn include further links to a variety of sources, most if not all of which I would categorize as “credible”. 

As I clearly have an interest in the subject and will no doubt visit your page again, I would like to better understand the nature of your concerns. Would you mind providing copies of the posts that you removed, in each case identifying the offending elements of each? Many thanks for your assistance. Chris

PS: I am aware of Mr Flood’s work and I regret to inform you that, outside of feminist circles, he is anything but “highly regarded”.

I’ll post their reply here should I receive one, but I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Postscript (later the same day): Oh (massive facepalm) this reaction is either juvenile beyond belief … or indicative of a generous measure of paranoia. Upon visiting the Twitter stream of Domestic Violence NSW I was alerted to the following announcement:

Dear followers,
Sadly we have become aware that our Facebook page is currently being targeted by troll groups who remain highly opposed to our exposure of latest boosts in media surrounding the current, credible statistics concerning the death rate of people (the majority women and children) from domestic and family violence this year and last. We are aware that these individuals are creating fake profiles and recruiting others to attack our page with spam from a particular mens rights website. As such, whilst we investigate this and proceed with a course of action, we are regrettably restricting all comments on our posts. We are incredibly disappointed by having to do this as we love your interaction and support of awareness and changing the culture that exists around Domestic and Family violence.
We have made this choice for several reasons, these are;
1. These individuals are posting links to websites and media that we believe could trigger and distress many of our audience who have had experience living with violence. We do not wish to risk the health and safety of any of our supporters.
2. Our media is unable to be monitored 24/7 and it is monitored by staff members, thus making it a work environment. As we would never allow our staff to work in an unsafe work environment, we feel that this content is inappropriate for staff members to have to work around.
3. We feel that whilst we investigate this behaviour, and possible breaches in legislation, we can actively end this continuing further and reach out to those who feel this behaviour is appropriate.
Please note: WE WILL STILL BE POSTING MEDIA AND THIS WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHARED BY YOU.
We can assure you we are still able to be contacted whenever necessary and you can contact us via the information on our website: www.dvnsw.org.au/html/contact.htm and we encourage you to do so.
We will aim to enable comments again ASAP and we thank you all for your continued support.
We all have a right to be heard and to present diverse opinions when this is done respectfully and with maturity.
Thank you and please be kind to one another.
The DVNSW Team

Assuming this is not droll humour, I’m embarrassed for these people.

Feminists reject the term ‘victim’ in favour of ‘survivor’. And yet dismissing those with alternative perspectives as trolls, and concealing or misrepresenting their message, embodies the very essence of perpetual victimhood. It is the behaviour one might expect from infantilized, narcissistic sissie-girls.

Those who are so invested in equality could begin by extending equality to others. You value inclusiveness? Then include others. You want to fashion meaningful reform directed towards achieving real social justice? Come back to the table when you’re ready to act like grown-ups.

Postscript 16 March 2015: A couple of days after DV NSW deleted my posts they inserted a statement in their timeline saying that they supported all victims of domestic violence (pictured). They also inserted a couple of posts about male victims and one about a girl bashed by her mum. In and of itself that’s a good thing, but I suspect it was done more ‘for show’ than to demonstrate real commitment to gender equality.

I also happened across an interesting post online which immediately struck a cord given that it mirrored my own experience with DV NSW:

“The fact is the people pushing this notion that Family Violence is a gendered issue know full well they are lying. I used to believe they were misguided or ill informed but I have had a couple of personal dealings with groups running online support and fundraising for the female victims of domestic violence. When I questioned them and presented some facts in a very polite, respectful manner, the same two things happened on three occasions. 1. My comments were deleted. 2. An article on male victims of DV was posted with a statement reminding everyone that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. When I scrolled down their page I discovered this was the only mention anywhere on their page of male victims. They only put up that one because they want to cover their arses in case another informed reader questioned their bigotry.” (Source – See comment from Mark Mooroolbark)

I posted a brief response noting my experience with DV NSW, and then things got even more interesting when Mark replied to me in the following manner:

“That is one of the mobs I was referring to! Just this week I wrote a polite comment on their Facebook page and someone responded with that false statistic that DV is the leading cause of death and disability in women between the ages of 15 and 49. I responded by simply stating that this was not correct and listed the five leading causes of death and disability before adding a few more points-all reasonable and polite. I returned to find my comments deleted and a post explaining that due to trolling from a Men’s Right Group they are blocking all comments -they said the women monitoring the site may feel unsafe and that the comments posted were disrespectful, immature etc…

I was so angry that I immediately wrote to Moo Baulch the CEO of the Domestic Violence NSW organisation stating exactly what happened and asking for an explanation. She responded to my email and said she would ring me sometime this week. If the call ever takes place it will be interesting to hear her defence of this censorship”.

Could it be that DV NSW interpreted two individuals independently offering feedback on DV NSW’s priorities as constituting a targeted attack by “troll groups“? Could they really be that stupid or delusional? What do you think?

See also:

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia (26 February 2016) Moo Baulch equates parliamentary debate regarding the value and appropriateness of a feminist-supported program in schools to “state-sanctioned hate speech“.

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

A most informative Powerpoint presentation on the nature and treatment of paranoia (Come on ladies, it can’t hurt you just to have a look at this)

The CEO of Domestic Violence NSW, Moo Baulch, is quoted in this article indicating her resistance to free and open discussion of domestic violence, and criticizing the nature of statistics provided by the Police.

As one reader subsequently observed:

“Interesting how bigots like Jenna Price bemoan the ‘lack of context’ and a ‘proper breakdown of the statistics’ when the greatest concern most non feminists have about feminists is their complete and utter disregard for context and the the proper representation of statistics. In fact, it is feminists who are the greatest abusers of ‘statistics’ through misrepresentation.”

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

Feminists. The things they do <facepalm>

I found out this afternoon that I had been blocked from a Twitter account – one belonging to an Australian journalist. The journalist in question is indeed a feminist, but by no means in the ‘barking mad’ misandrist league of Clementine Ford or Caitlin Roper, for example. Which makes her action all the more disconcerting.

I’m not sure how many others have blocked me from their Twitter accounts (and/or Facebook pages, etc), but there must be a few by now. Two that spring to mind are White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch, both of which are feminist advocacy groups.

Anyway, so there I was, reading a newly-minted article about domestic violence. More accurately, an article about that component of domestic violence involving male perpetrators and female victims. I posted a reader’s comment which failed to appear (other reader’s comments were uploaded). As I had some issues with both the article and certain comments that followed it, I sallied forth looking for another outlet through which to express myself. I turned to Twitter only to be greeted with the following message:

tuohy2

Had I been bombarding the poor woman with dozens of tweets? Nope, just one actually. Well, it must have been particularly vicious! Judge for yourself (by the way, that tweet became the basis for this blog post)

tuohy3

I haven’t ever blocked anyone from Twitter, etc, but I can certainly understand others doing so in situations involving persistent unwanted messages/posts of a threatening or obscene nature. But what I am talking about here and now are situations that are far more benign. Situations where it is simply a matter of ‘I don’t like what you have to say so I am not going to share information or communicate with you in any way, shape or form. So there.’

I have never sent or posted a threatening, abusive or obscene message to anyone, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I choose not to, and I certainly don’t need to, in order to achieve what I am seeking to achieve.

My blog post about feminist censorship included the fitting observation that:

Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”.

That blog post also noted that, despite the very different perception that feminists seek to portray as reality, more men than women are subject to online abuse and bullying, and substantial number of women/girls are responsible for this type of activity. I also noted the increasingly common tactic of feminists lodging false or exaggerated complaints with the intention of having other people’s Facebook or Twitter accounts suspended.

Whether feminists are blocking people from posting to their Facebook pages, from interacting with them via Twitter, or adding a comment to their article or blog post (that is, when they allow any reader’s comments at all). I’ve got to ask … what’s the point?

I guess it all comes back to the question of what are feminists trying to achieve via publishing material online. Sharing and persuading with/to the broader community, or simply seeking a platform to propagandise to the converted and to gullible ingenues.

What do feminists hope to achieve by blocking out alternative perspectives and information at variance with their own stated claims?  Do they not see any value in facilitating dialogue about gender issues? In being inclusive with regards to people who hold perspectives other than their own? Are feminists now so infantilized and imbued with victim-mentality that they see any disagreement as an attack?

I know. Call me biased. But the feminist response seems so juvenile, pointless and counter-productive.

Just … lame

Snap#1: Another feminist – @misskylie77 – just blocked me from her Twitter stream after I replied to one of her tweets (26 February 2015)

Snap#2: The organisation Domestic Violence NSW blocked me from posting to their Facebook page the very first time I posted there – and then employed another common feminist tactic by lodging a complaint against me with Facebook (12 March 2015)

Update 15 April 2015: Care to guess which feminist journalist ‘spat the dummy’ this morning and deleted ALL the readers comments (about a dozen of them) because not one of them supported her convoluted sexist perspective on violence in the community.

Footnote in relation to the following comment from the author of the article

tuohy

 DV-deniers? Really? Readers raised concerns about the fact you had built your case on a series of crimes in which none of the alleged perpetrators had yet been convicted. That’s not denial, simply fact. Readers raised concerns that you based your article on events within a period of just a few weeks, which could greatly misrepresent the reality over (say) twelve months. Again, not denial, just conventional wisdom in the realm of statistical analysis.

Readers also raised concerns that you had not provided any statistics in relation to the number of men killed by their female partners (or alleged to be killed by partners) during this period. And indeed, you admit that you had not researched that topic. Surely both the actual nature of the problem, and the most appropriate remedial action, might be quite different were similar numbers of men being killed?

It looks a lot like you didn’t research the issue and then form an opinion, but cobbled together a somewhat dubious statistic that supported your pre-existing conclusion.

In fact the only denials about DV that I am seeing in this and in so many other articles, involve feminists denying men’s right to raise legitimate concerns about ongoing anti-male sexism and misrepresentation. Denials in particular about both the extent of male DV victimization and the substantial and growing level of female perpetration of violence.

See also:

Reddit mensrights discussion thread related to this blog post

Blocked: Silencing the public opinion (19 February 2015)

Facing the challenge of online harassment (8 January 2015) Jacques Cuze, when discussing this article in the context of his concerns about feminist groups suppressing free speech, suggested that “Twitter (and other sites) should be transparent and specific about who is banned and why. Transparency in who is blocked or banned and why is a critical part of making sure anti-harassment strategies are not abused” (10 January 2015)

Readers might also be interested in reading this related post within my blog:

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

camille

I am not a feminist

 

“I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I … am … a … man!” wailed Joseph Merrick in the film ‘The Elephant Man‘ when cornered by a heckling mob.

Times have changed and social progress means that the sick and disabled are no longer subject to torment such as this. No, nowadays such treatment is only meted out to high-profile women who have the temerity to say “I am not a feminist!

I am aware of at least two examples in as many months, both senior politicians, namely Julie Bishop (Australia) and Louise Upston (NZ). Lots and lots of sneering comments in a multitude of  articles, tweets, and Facebook comments. Only strong bad girls break ranks with the feminist sistahood.

You rock ladies!

See also:

Finally, powerful women are speaking up for the rights of men. Equality just got a step closer (11 September 2017)

Scientist wins Miss USA, slammed for ‘conservative’ comments (15 May 2017)

Why I’m Not A Feminist: a takedown of the ‘narcissism’ of modern feminism (7 March 2017)

Feminism associated with being ‘anti-male’ and ‘pro-abortion’: Kellyanne Conway (24 February 2017)

Karen Straughan explains why she is not a feminist (31 January 2017) Video

As A Mother Of A Son, Kellyanne Conway Gets Why Feminism Has Become Toxic (31 January 2017)

Why Do We Care If Kim Kardashian Is a Feminist? (16 August 2016)

13 female celebrities who have bizarre definitions of feminism (12 August 2016)

Lisa Haydon Spoke Out On Feminism And Pretty Much Everyone Wishes She Hadn’t (23 May 2016)

International Women’s Day 2016: What women who don’t identify as feminists have to say (8 March 2016) UK

10 prominent women who don’t identify as ‘feminists’ (8 March 2016)

Q&A recap: Alan Jones ‘hopes’ he’s a feminist, but Michaelia Cash rejects label (8 March 2016) Australia

Former Femen activist Sara Fernanda Giromin backflips, declaring war on feminism (31 December 2015)

The Feminine vs. Feminism: Strong Women Rejecting Weak Ideas (1 October 2015)

Lena Dunham and Lorde on the “gotcha” feminist question (21 June 2015)

Lauren Southern tells: Why I am not a feminist (2 May 2015)

Angry Feminist Backlash Not Enough To Get Young Hollywood Star To Change Her Views (24 March 2015) The same actress is discussed here and here

‘Big Bang Theory’ Actress Asked If She Is A Feminist, Her Response Made Feminists FURIOUS! (1 March 2015)

I am not a feminist because … A response to Laci Green’s ‘I’m a feminist because …’ (19 January 2015)

Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting forced to apologize for saying she’s not a feminist (4 January 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and linked article

What’s made Julie Bishop so afraid of feminism? (12 November 2014)

Is the Pope a Catholic? (3 December 2014)

Meet the woman who took on Kate Winslet: Fathers4Justice manager Nadine O’Connor (29 January 2014)

10 Celebrities Who Say They Aren’t Feminists (17 December 2013)

Susan Sarandon Says She’s Not a Feminist: Why She Dumped the Label (8 July 2013)

Other posts in this blog most relevant to this topic:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

#womenagainstfeminism

White Ribbon Australia acknowledges male victims and invites communication (credibility trigger warning)

White Ribbon Day (25 November), and the days before and after it, saw quite a flurry of activity on the White Ribbon Australia Facebook page. I visited the page a number of times during this period to monitor discussion, occasionally contribute some comments, and generally check out what was going on.

I was interested to note the unexpectedly large number of posts from people drawing attention to the fact that many men were victims of domestic violence, that support services for male victims were inadequate or non-existent, and so on. I was also surprised to see a number of occasions where moderators sought to hose down dissent by uploading posts like this one:

“White Ribbon Australia believes that all forms of violence are unacceptable and acknowledges that domestic violence is experienced by both men and women. However, we also acknowledge that the majority of victims of domestic violence are women. We are aware that there are other organisations working to stop violence against men and we commend any work they do to stop violence. If you’re a male experiencing violence, please contact MensLine on 1300 78 99 78 bit.ly/wrmensline. Similarly, the White Ribbon Campaign has a central focus; end violence against women.”

Another post, from a WRC ‘ambassador’, was similar but also earnestly invited communication with those who held views that differed from those espoused by WRC.

I was surprised because I haven’t noted comments like this in the WRC web site, or in their literature or submissions to inquiries, etc.

But alas, the positive spin ends there.

For at the same time that WRC were proffering soothing words, they were progressively removing posts from people who questioned their female-only focus or were in any way critical of their mission or their claims. They didn’t do this straight away however. I guess that would have amounted to too-obvious censorship. No they waited a half a day or a day before they quietly disappeared those troubling and clearly unacceptable posts. I’m guessing the rationale was to preserve the ideological purity of their message for the benefit of future generations. But they didn’t stop there. Oh, no. In my case, and I doubt I was alone in this regard, they banned me from making any future posts on their Facebook page.

When later I saw a particular comment posted, I simply had to respond and so I used an alternate Facebook account. The one comment to which I responded was “1 woman per week dies at the hand of her partner or ex in Aus – what a sad stat”. All I said in response was “and every ten days a man dies at the hand of his partner or ex – also a sad stat” and provided a link to a web page in which that stat was discussed. 

The next day I discovered that my final comment had also been removed AND my Facebook account was locked – presumably as a result of a complaint to Facebook HQ. Given that I had not used that account for some time or for any other purpose, I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that the complaint came from WRC.

See also:

Comment on the White Ribbon Campaign (13 July 2012) Old habits die hard it seems!

Other posts in this blog most relevant to this topic:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses part of the problem Vs. The White Ribbon Campaign that addresses all of the problem