When men have a daughter (another tale of male-blaming and silencing)

At the time of writing the Weinstein affair remains an ongoing and evolving media phenomenon. The hypocrisy of this one does my head in.

Imagine … All men being demonised for being the same gender as the alleged perpetrator at the centre of a major scandal. Men offer comments supportive of female victims of sexual harassment, and condemnatory of male perpetrators, but are dismissed or even shamed for doing so. Meanwhile other men are shamed for not commenting.

Men subseqently re-frame/qualify their thoughts/feelings in the light of well-publicised research – research that proposes that men understand and empathise with women better when they have sisters, wives and daughters. Men are then shamed on the basis that their amended and qualified message of support doesn’t treat women as humans.

Men, the beasts that they are, just can’t seem to say or do the right thing.

Women are a different kettle of fish. It goes without saying that nowhere, nowhere are they responsible. For anything. Not for being victims or alleged victims. Not for helping Harvey trick/lure women into private meetings in hotel rooms (their excuse). Not for willingly following the casting-couch route to financial rewards. Not for remaining silent when they knew what was going on, in many cases accepting payment for doing so. And absolutely not, for they themselves harassing others.

Note that I have addressed the topic of harassment in the workplace in another blog post. This current post is more about feminist shaming, bitterness and hypocrisy set against the backdrop of the media furore surrounding Harvey Weinstein’s real and alleged misbehaviour.

Feminists have long been telling men – even feminist men – that they have no legitimate right to talk about feminism, or about specific topics that they (feminists) consider to be women’s issues. They typically assert that men have no understanding of women’s lived experience, and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Here’s a recent Australian example.

As a consequence men are most reluctant to offer up public comment on such matters. This situation is addressed in the following blog posts:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
Karen Straughan and others on feminist shaming tactics

The media informs us however that men move one rung up the ladder when they have wives and/or daughters. See for yourself – just do a google search using terms such as “when men have a daughter” or “men change after having daughter”. Year in and year out, article after article based on this assertion:

Why the best words a dad can hear are… It’s a girl! (7 June 2017)
Men Really Do Get Less Sexist When They Have Daughters (3 June 2017)

This is the backdrop to the emergence of the Weinstein affair. Or at least the October 2017 version thereof. Because, as we are finding out more each day, plenty of people were ‘in the know’ before now.

The first development after the publication of the initial allegations was men being blamed for not speaking out against Harvey Weinstein. See for example:

Hollywood men silent over Weinstein allegations as women speak out (11 October 2017), with a later contribution being … Men who are silent after #MeToo: it’s time to speak up (20 October 2017)

Sure enough, after being given what they assumed to be the media’s ‘green light’ to enter the debate, more men spoke out to condemn Weinstein and/or to condemn the problem of sexual harassment generally.

Thus the next wave of outrage was in relation to men speaking out against Weinstein, especially those mentioning that they were motivated to do so, in part, because they had wives/daughters. Some examples of the media coverage include:

You don’t need to be a father to stand up to abusers. You need to believe women (13 October 2017)

Some questions for the “Fathers of daughters” condemning Harvey Weinstein (13 October 2017)

Men don’t need to have daughters to be concerned about women (13 October 2017)

People Are Dragging Men Who Say They Care About Rape Culture Because They Have A Daughter (12 October 2017)

Does any reasonable person seriously believe that men referencing the girls/women in their lives meant women any disrepect? Think of any other instance where this ‘logic’ has been proposed, because I can’t. I can think, for example of discussions regarding childhood disability or illness whereby parents comment along the lines of “as a parent of a child with autism …“. Were those parents insinuating that their autistic kids were less than human?

Then there was the push-back against the push-back. Men are mostly guilty and should do more to stop themselves and their brothers, including but not limited to public self-flagellation:

Dear Men: It’s you, too (19 October 2017) by Roxane Gay & attracting 1,397 readers comments

How men can help after Weinstein and #MeToo (22 October 2017)

“After the flood of #MeToo posts, critics charged that the hashtag continues to put the onus on victims to speak up while letting men off the hook. In response, some have shared lists of tips on how men can stop this behaviour from flourishing.”

And to remove any doubt about who’s wearing the pants in this debate, the usual feminist voices pressed long and hard on the ‘all men are responsible’ button:

It’s not the job of “Hollywood women” to ‘fix’ sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

The men who kept Harvey Weinstein’s secrets safe are all around us (11 October 2017)

Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Men In Hollywood Staying Silent? | The View (10 October 2017) Video. Reddit discussion thread here

Oh, and for any other men who dared offer an opinion, because “… some people – and more particularly, men – seem to think that it’s not the feelings of the alleged victims that matter. No, it’s actually their feelings that are important.”

Men of Hollywood – don’t make this Harvey Weinstein situation about you (13 October 2017)

‘Cancel the Christmas party’: 2017’s the year of the ‘confused’ man (16 November 2017) Rather than working with men to resolve confusion about what constitutes appropriate behaviour, feminist journo prefers to mock for what she sees as a weak ‘excuse’. Anything but helpful.

As is usually the case, any rebuttal was muted and provided by male-positive writers like Martin Daubney and Kathy Gyngell:

This #MeToo witch-hunt will destroy women’s happiness (23 October 2017)

Weinstein’s actions are revolting – but don’t tell me all men are to blame (11 October 2017)

So male voices were silenced again and the debate wrested back into the hands of feminists/liberals satisfying their ongoing imperative to control the narrative. But things didn’t entirely go their way, as derailments followed (and continue to this day), namely:

Articles highlighting the hypocrisy of the Hollywood democrat/leftist elite in turning the backs for so long, and regarding Harvey Weinstein as an archtypical nice guy & supporter of feminism, for example:

“Weinstein, the reports noted, had been a prominent donor to causes that address gender inequality, especially in the entertainment industry” (Source)

Harvey Weinstein and Feminism (19 October 2017)

Watch When Barbara Walters and The View Coverup For Harvey Weinstein Types (15 October 2017)

Jane Fonda: I knew about Weinstein, and I’m ‘ashamed’ I didn’t say anything (12 October 2017)

Ah but of course the feminist lobby will never admit weakness or fault, so their strategy here is to double-down on their ongoing ‘feminist men aren’t feminists’ offensive (example, with more in the opening section of this blog post).

Articles highlighting the elements of dog-piling, misandry, vengeance and hysteria that is occurring, for example:

#MeToo: A moral panic about men (18 October 2017)

Male Victim Erasure and Backlash in #MeToo Campaign (17 October 2017)

The hysteria in the Harvey Weinstein scandal (12 October 2017)

Finally, I note that mention has yet to be made of sexual harassment perpetrated by influential women. There has, however, been some limited and peripheral acknowledgement of the harassment of men/boys by men:

Corey Feldman celebrates ‘turning of the tide’ on Hollywood sex abuse (17 October 2017)

Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys (16 October 2017)

Weinstein saga leads James Van Der Beek to share personal story of sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

Actor Terry Crews recalls being sexually assaulted by Hollywood exec (11 October 2017)

In closing, Cathy Young has written an excellent article that touches on a number of the issues mentioned above.

See also:

Paul Elam’s take on this topic from a Red Pill perspective
This piece by Gideon Scopes entitled ‘Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence’, This article by D.C MacAllister in the The Federalist

Women in politics fear #MeToo moment will backfire — and they’ll be the ones punished (12 December 2017)

A panic is not an answer: We’re at imminent risk of turning this #metoo moment into a frenzied rush to blame all men (26 November 2017) by Christina Hoff Summers

Kathy Gyngell: The silence of the males (13 November 2017)

Knee-touching MPs? I took advantage of men to get ahead at Westminster: By Spectator columnist MELISSA KITE, who admits flirting shamelessly to get scoops (14 November 2017)

Other posts in this blog related to this topic include:

Don’t look at me! No wait. Look at me!
Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?
#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
On Gender Traitors, White Knights and Manginas

I don’t want no menfolk near my daughters, you hear?

“The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.” (Source)

Thanks largely to the pervasive influence of feminism, anti-male bigotry has been accorded a level of acceptance well in excess of that applicable to other significant segments within the community. This has been reflected in an increasing number of rather biased articles in the mainstream media, examples of which can be found in the following posts:

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators
A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men
On the issue of traveler safety
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Today I wanted to address an article by Jane Gilmore entitled ‘Be outraged at the abuse of children, not at one mother’s efforts to protect her daughters‘ (2 March 2017). Jane’s piece focuses on an earlier article by Kasey Edwards,  ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children‘, and the public reaction to it.

After Kasey’s piece appeared I read three well-intended, but somewhat insipid, rebuttals. These were penned by Ben Pobjie, Melissa Hoyer, and Louise Roberts. Still, the fact that any rebuttals were published is indicative of feminism’s gradual slide from the pedestal of public opinion. A considerable amount of material also appeared on social media, most of which was critical of Kasey’s position.

Jo Abi, on the other hand, wrote an article in Mamamia supporting Kasey’s stance. Interestingly, even in that feminist forum many readers held a different view.

From an MRA perspective this was pleasing to note, the only negative being an unfortunate tendency by some to personalise the issue via referencing the potential danger posed by Kasey’s family.

Jane stepped in at that point to address those taking umbrage at what they perceived as the gender bigotry inherent in Kasey’s position. What follows now is Jane’s article (shown in italics) with my comments inserted in relevant places (and shown in blue font).

A wave of outrage broke and splattered across social media this week over an article by Daily Life columnist Kasey Edwards about the choice she and her husband have made to keep their children safe from sexual abuse. In it, Edwards pointed out the following statistics:

“…the ‘best case’ scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.”

“Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males.”

These disturbing facts should indeed provoke outrage. But they didn’t.

This is the page in the Australian Institute of Family Studies web site where Kasey sourced the statistics noted in her article (scroll down to ‘How many Australian children are sexually abused‘). The author describes the difficulties compiling these statistics and their consequent limitations. Note too the basis for the “1 in three girls” statistic mentioned in both Kasey and Jane’s articles.

Kasey’s chosen strategy does not “keep their children safe from sexual abuse”. This is because a) men aren’t responsible for every instance of sexual abuse, and b) her daughters would still have contact with men at other times. Remember that the definition of abuse used here does not require actual physical contact. Kasey’s approach only theoretically reduces the likelihood of sexual abuse occurring. Not all personal threats and dangers. Not even all child abuse. Sexual abuse only.

You see, sexual abuse is just one of the four types of child abuse (and in fact it’s the least common variety). Sexual abuse is the only form of child abuse wherein surveys consistently identify more male than female perpetrators (although there are still plenty of those).

No surprise then that this is the form of child abuse that feminists keep the media’s focus on. A similar thing happens in the realm of the domestic violence debate, whereby all those forms of DV other than heterosexual male-on-female violence are air-brushed out of the picture. 

Instead, the backlash was in response to Edwards’ acknowledgment that men are the most likely perpetrators, and the resulting decision she and her husband made to not have men care for their children without a woman present.

Cue articles and endless anger about how hurtful and offensive this is for men. Followed by strawman arguments about Edwards’ husband caring for their children without supervision, despite her article clearly stating this was a decision they reached together.

Likewise, suggestions that her children would miss out on male role models and have a warped view of men. (Edwards clarified on The Project this week that her daughter has a wonderful male teacher).

Writer Amy Gray, who skilfully moderated a long and mostly respectful debate on this topic, said, “The uproar over this article hasn’t been about how to combat rape culture, community enablement, lack of law or police reform, or suitable therapy or support for victims. The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do. The uproar should be tackling the overwhelming male presence in sexual assault of children.

It’s hardly surprising that the focus of feedback provided by readers mirrored the narrow scope of the article. Kasey did not address the issues above, nor did she indicate that she would welcome dialogue on those issues. If Kasey expected more holistic feedback then she should have written a broader and less injudicious article.

And it’s curious that no link was provided to that “long and mostly respectful debate”. Don’t tell me it reflected poorly on team feminism?

“I want men to examine their role in this culture,” she added. “I want them to actively combat it and question men who refuse to participate in that.”

On the contrary, the volume of feedback generated by Kasey’s article clearly demonstrated men’s *insistence* in participating in the discussion whilst rejecting the demonisation of an entire gender based on the actions of a very small minority.

The real difficulty with Edwards’ article was that she outlined a single approach to preventing child abuse in her own family. But if we are talking about preventing child abuse at a community level then we need to talk about a community-wide response.

Which comes back to the perpetrators. Again, they are mostly men, and yet men are so rarely part of the discussion about prevention, other than to object to the facts being discussed.

Why is it that men are so much more likely to commit violence and abuse? What happened to those men, where did they learn this behaviour? How can they change?

Clearly there is a problem with violence in our community, and a lot of that is due to men. A very, very small minority of men. A point that seems perpetually lost on feminists. And where are all these men objecting to the “facts”? Alternatively, where are all the feminists discussing prevention with regards to issues like circumcision, the sexual assault of men & boys, male suicide, etc?

What positive outcome/s are borne from the incessant criticism of men and the manner in which they are portrayed in the mainstream media? The consistent lack of recognition for the contributions made by men in terms of the well-being of the community? The paucity of government funding support for addressing men’s health and other men’s/boys issues? The bias of the legal and justice system against men?

The active support of the feminist lobby sure wouldn’t hurt, but their pointed indifference to date is hardly encouraging.

Turning our attention now to women, which occurs all too rarely other than in relation to some issue of perceived victimhood, why are there so many violent and abusive women? (NB: trending upwards). Why is this not being acknowledged and addressed? esp. bearing in mind that they are producing the next generation of not just child abusers, but perpetrators of domestic violence generally.

Exploring this, without defensiveness and with a genuine desire to find solutions, is the most valuable way men can participate in protecting children. It’s disturbing that many men are so aggressively unwilling to do this, leaving the burden of finding solutions to everyone else.

Seriously Jane, imagine if an article appeared wherein the husband set out his strategy to prevent his sons being killed by only having male carers. The reaction from your ilk would not have been merely “defensive” – they would be livid.

And Jane, what of the many instances where people do demonstrate “a genuine desire to find solutions”, and are attacked for doing so simply because they dare propose solutions that are contrary to leftist/feminist dogma? Want examples? 

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
White Ribbon campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)
Sallee McLaren must write on the blackboard “I must not challenge the feminist narrative”
Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence (Here Jane Gilmore sabotages Australia’s only advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence, only to then criticize the men’s rights movement on the basis that it doesn’t do anything but criticize feminists)

This is why mothers are so often vilified when they do something as simple as wait outside while their children go to the toilet, and conversely, vilified again if they acknowledge the facts of child abuse and act to protect their children from possible perpetrators.

The author was not criticized for wanting to protect her children, but for making a decision of dubious efficacy in the absence of an objective and unbiased consideration of all relevant factors. 

It’s not surprising given how fraught it can be to navigate the issue that parents like Kasey Edwards and her husband look for solutions that don’t depend on community-wide protection. Their choice is not right for everyone – indeed for some, it’s very much the wrong choice. But for them, it’s the best way to keep their children safe. And given the deep, lifelong trauma caused by child abuse, it is both justifiable and understandable.

Their solution, however, only works for their circumstances. It relies on them always having options for childcare that fit within their parameters, which is not readily available to many parents.

There is no proof that this approach “works” for anyone, full stop. As to whether it’s practical for parents to even attempt, your point is taken.

It also assumes that they, their family, and their children’s friends are always in partnered, heterosexual relationships. In the Edwards’ policy, children of single fathers, or in families that do not include people who identify as women, already suffering exclusion and stigma, are excluded even further.

Even for families who do have the option to have women always present, it places an extra burden on those women, who are already taking on the majority of (unpaid) emotional and domestic caring labour. This is particularly difficult in the context of the systemic economic disadvantage women suffer, which requires men to take on an equal share of parenting. It’s a quandary that can’t be solved by making women the “abuse police”. Men have to take responsibility for prevention and commit to unambiguous action on the causes and realities of abuse.

Please, jettison the male-shaming and #HeForShe nonsense. Both men and women parent children. Both men and women abuse children. Everyone has an equal role to play in reducing the incidence of abuse.

While there are undeniable problems with the Edwards’ choice, the outraged criticisms of it are equally problematic, and frankly blind to the realities of how abuse occurs and its effect on victims.

Pot-Kettle-Black (big time)

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a paper this week describing the grooming practices of abusers. Grooming is not something abusers only do to victims. They also deliberately create relationships with parents and caregivers that involves trust, friendship and dependence. And they make sure their victims know about it.

Was this specific to male abusers? The paragraph that follows implies it was.

As feminist writer Cecilia Winterfox told Fairfax Media, “Every time we say, ‘but my male friends are so lovely’ we make it harder for victims to speak out. It reinforces and demonstrates clearly to them the reflexive disbelief they will almost certainly face. It’s a kind of cultural gaslighting to victims, and a signal of protection to abusers”.

And every time feminists say ‘men can’t be raped (by women)’, ‘domestic violence is men’s abuse of women’, ‘women are only violent in self-defence’, ‘men don’t suffer negative effects from domestic violence as much as women do’, etc etc etc. That also makes it more difficult for “victims to speak out” right? But that doesn’t seem to deter feminists from making these statements. More equality-when-it-suits?

The royal commission paper was specifically about institutional responses to child abuse, so the recommendations were focused on cultural change to identifying and reporting grooming techniques. Which may work in well-monitored organisations, but it’s not something any individual parent can enforce in their social group.

Deanne Carson, co-founder of Body Safety Australia says a blanket ban on men caring for children is not the solution. “We need to empower adults to be a champion for children. This means debunking myths around childhood sexual abuse, teaching them to spot grooming techniques and supporting them in being able to address concerns about any individual’s concerning behaviour.”

It also means broadening the debate beyond child sexual abuse, firstly by considering all other forms of abuse. We also need to consider related issues such as the sexualisation of children, and again, both men and women play a role in this process.

The problem with these strategies, as Carson acknowledges, is that they don’t keep all children safe, they just protect the children whose parents can implement them. And not all parents feel able to do this.

Which is why the solution needs to go back to the community and the abusers, not victims or their carers. And we can’t do that while men are still refusing to discuss the source of the problem.

As Edwards told Daily Life: “Of all the people who have told me how ridiculous and offensive I’ve been, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to keep children safe”. <end of article>

Jane expands her views on the matter in an item in her personal blog, asserting that Kasey’s response was understandable and should be respected:

… often the responses are emotional because there is no other way to respond to such trauma. Those emotions are real, valid, complex and demand respect.”

Jane says this even though there is no suggestion in Kasey’s article that her children had previously been subject to abuse (and I sincerely hope that is not the case). Jane then adds:

“That respect is not present when men who have never been forced to feel those emotions are simply offended by the facts.”

Cheap shot. Because men have never been subjected to abuse as children, or fathered children who have been abused by others, right? And because I didn’t notice any reader feedback wherein the “facts” (presumably the quoted abuse statistics) formed any part of that individual’s objection to the article. Seemed to me people were upset about inference, opinion, and plain old bias.

And wait a minute. The feedback on Kasey’s article that Jane found so objectionable was contributed by men and women in roughly equal measures. It’s just as valid or invalid therefore to suggest that women are also “still refusing to discuss the source of the problem“. Unless Team Feminism has bestowed honorary bloke status on the largely silent majority of women who choose to hold a non-feminist-compliant opinion.

Earlier we noted Amy Gray’s haughty dismissal of the negative reaction to Kasey’s article: “The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do.”

Let’s not detour to talk about single dads, yard work and the like. Let’s pretend Amy is right and proceed on the basis that men’s feelings count for nought. As presumably then, in the interests of gender equality, so too for feminists’ feelings.

Because rest assured, men certainly do want to be a part of the solution to the scourge of child abuse, but it seems most unlikely that it will be on feminists’ terms.

See also:

Safety around dogs: Half of all kids get bitten by dogs, so don’t let one near your daughters.

Reddit discussion threads in relation to the Kasey Edwards article:(r/mensrights thread #1) (r/mensrights thread #2) & (r/australia). The latter thread also provides links to several other threads on this topic

Feminism: The demonization of males, by Stacy McCain (2 March 2017)

Gender bias and wasted opportunities at the 2017 National Family Violence Summit

Today was the second and final day of the National Family Violence Summit. The Summit was facilitated by the Tara Costigan Foundation and sponsored by BaptistCare. An extract from today’s program is shown below:

And no, in case you were wondering, there was no corresponding session to discuss what women could do to help reduce family violence.

How would this aspect of the program be interpreted by the average Joe or Josephine in-the-street? They would probably see it as implying that men were responsible for family violence, and that therefore it’s men’s duty to eradicate it.

This is the equivalent of having every man in Australia stand at the front of the classroom with a dunce’s hat on. Except the domestic violence lobby is not saying men are stupid, but that they are evil.

This is an affront to men everywhere, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where women are now smeared and disregarded in such a manner.

And this despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of men never commit acts of violence, and that male victims of domestic violence are rarely acknowledged.

Look, I understand that the basis for establishing the Tara Costigan Foundation was the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a bestial man. That man is now in jail and sadly we cannot undo what happened to Tara. But the Summit is, or at least should be, about addressing domestic violence in its totality.

The ‘big picture’ of domestic violence comprises substantial numbers of abusive men and women, and of both male and female victims of that abuse.  There is also a considerable (yet rarely acknowledged) element of bi-directional violence, where both partners perpetuate abuse.

And what of women’s role in addressing domestic violence, not only as empowered and autonomous individuals, but also in recognition of the fact that many women are also abusive. Not only is there a long-running problem with child abuse by women, but there is also a growing problem with female violence generally. These issues are alternately either excused away (“women are only ever violent in self-defence“), minimised or ignored altogether.

The agencies that deal with domestic violence are heavily imbued with feminist doctrine. They continue to falsely portray domestic violence as heterosexual male on female violence, despite this constituting just one slice of the pizza (albeit probably the largest one). Feminist agencies address domestic violence in the context of a theoretical approach known as the Duluth Model. The validity of the Duluth Model is hotly debated, and its success is questionable.

There have been so many talk-fests and inquiries in relation to domestic violence. Almost without exception their value has been severely compromised by a failure to open the floor to all ideas, especially those contrary to feminist dogma. That appears to have also been the case with the Summit, given that none of the speakers represented a men’s rights group, a father’s group, or an advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence such as One-in-Three.

Why is this allowed to continue particularly considering the amount of public funds being expended, and the miserable progress being made?

The situation in the U.K is similar to Australia in this regard, but some progress is being made via vigorous lobbying by groups and individuals such as GenderFreeDV and Philip Davies MP.

Here is Australia we have balanced views on DV being expressed by a small but dedicated number of journalists such as Bettina Arndt, Miranda Devine, and Corrine Barraclough. As far as sitting politicians go however, there is little cause for optimism just at the moment. One outcome of this situation is that there is almost no funding provided at all for male victims of domestic violence – or indeed for addressing men’s/boys issues generally.

Please can someone finally take some real leadership on this issue?

I did not attend the Summit and await the report that is to be prepared for submission to the government. I will re-visit this post at that time and make any necessary adjustments. In the interim I stand ready to be corrected by an organiser or an attendee if what I have stated is in error. Should such a person wish to detail their experience at this event please submit a comment below.

Here are some links to related news coverage:

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Former army chief David Morrison calls for national day for domestic violence victims (28 February 2017)

The good thing to come out of horror of Tara Costigan’s murder (1 March 2017)

 

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

On 21 October 2016 the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled ‘Domestic violence: Perpetrators would receive warning texts and videos‘.

I have reproduced the article below with my own comments inserted and shown in blue, and with further comments following the article:

DOMESTIC violence thugs would be sent texts messages and videos to remind them not to hurt their wives or drink too much under a Baird government trial to overcome the “existing service gap” for serial offenders.

A large percentage of perpetrators of domestic violence are female – see an abundance of research listed in this post

The bid to “break new ground” in the war against domestic violence comes as new figures show “almost half of those who reoffend do so before the court case is finalised”. The average court time frame is about four months.

“This means a large proportion of DV offenders reoffend before they have had any contact with Corrective Services NSW or access to any programs provided to them,” government documents say.

Female DV offenders don’t have access to programs regardless of the “average court time frame”, because the NSW government only provides programs for male offenders

 

The Department of Premier Cabinet’s “Behavioural Insights Unit” is calling for a “digital solution” to “support behaviour change in domestic violence perpetrators”.

Just out of curiousity, how many staff in the Unit are self-professed feminists versus others?

It said there was growing evidence “timely prompts” via apps or “digital channels” can help stop serial behaviour.

Can someone please provide links to this evidence? Who undertook it? Was domestic violence specifically included in the definition of “serial behaviour”?

Examples that should be looked at included “videos showing the impact of DV on victims”. One example contained in the documents shows a text that reads: “Hi Rick, if you’re going to the pub tonight don’t forget to make a plan for where you will sleep. Remember you are doing this for Matt and Susan.”

The Baird government wants to cut domestic violence reoffending by five per cent by 2019.

Opposition Family and Community Services spokeswoman Tania Mihailuk said a mobile phone app was a “waste” of money.

“This government has got its priorities wrong, its focus should be on secure accommodation for women and children fleeing violence,” she said.

For a fleeting moment I thought the Opposition might have had something sensible to add there. Bad luck about the men fleeing violence huh? Tania, everything mentioned in this article is a “waste of money”

Domestic Violence NSW chief executive Moo Baulch said “well resourced non-government specialist services” were needed.

With substantial emphasis on ‘more money for private organisations‘ and ‘only for womenfolk’. Read more about Moo and her gender-biased organisation here

A DPC spokeswoman confirmed it was testing the market to “gauge interest, ideas and cost for developing resources to support behaviour change in DV perpetrators”.

Wait, you mean behaviour change in male DV perpetrators, right? Because the NSW Government is apparently happy to look the other way re: female perpetrators.

**article ends here**

Conclusion

I can’t believe that the NSW government or any government would be associated with such an asinine proposal as this. It just highlights the gynocentrism, anti-male bigotry and the arrogance of all involved.

Can you imagine a proposal to send out text messages to female teachers about not interferring with their students? to mums about not neglecting or abusing their kids? or for that matter to aboriginal youth about stealing cars or breaking into homes? No? Now why would that be?

But more than that, I just cannot believe that it would make one iota of difference to the incidence of DV.

We so need a new approach to tackling DV – and a whole new team of people to drive the process. People who can think above and beyond their cherished feminist ideology, and who would be willing and able to recognise and address the whole issue.

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear. 

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

CFMEU

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men.  At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

harassed

 

Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes

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

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

The article tells us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.

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

One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.

There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.

Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?

And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:

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

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

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

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

See also Australia urged to put women and girls at centre of foreign policy (17 April 2017)

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

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

globalgoalsSee globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs

See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same

See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”

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

“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”

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

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

Gender Equality in Humanitarian Assistance (March 2015) Sweden

“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:

•  Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently;
•  Existing power inequalities  between women and men exacerbates during crisis;
•  Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms;
•  Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and
•  Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”

Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.

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

“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being.   
 
We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”

Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why?  Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?

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

Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… The research by Lara Stemple at the University of California doesn’t only show that male sexual violence is a component of wars all over the world, it also suggests that international aid organisations are failing male victims. Her study cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. Only 3% of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically,” Stemple says, “as a passing reference.””

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

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

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

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

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

Women attack first responders yet omitted from ‘awareness’ campaign

“The government is spending more than $1.3 million on an education campaign to remind the public not to treat health workers as punching bags, after 3300 assaults in the past year alone.” (31 March 2016)

Click here and scroll down the page to watch two of the ads subsequently aired on Australian TV.

Strange thing though … no violent and abusive women are featured in the ads, despite the fact that such people most certainly do exist in real life. I very much doubt that was an accidental omission. Think about why such a decision might that have been made.

There might well be fewer incidents involving women, though I would be interested in seeing the stats in relation to the sex ratio of males v females treated/transported and then the percentage of each that were abusive.

Personally, I suspect that the decision to only show violent men is less about patient ratios and more about social conditioning with respect to how society perceives men and women, and the threat they pose.

Here are three incidents in the first half of 2016 involving female perpetrators assaulting paramedics:

“A WOMAN has stabbed a paramedic on Fraser Island after trying to force him to hand over drugs.” (Source)

“A 21-year-old woman has been charged over the alleged assault of a paramedic sent to a Brisbane pub to help her. The 41-year-old female ambulance officer suffered cuts her arms and swelling and bruising to her face in the alleged drunken assault at Toowong’s Regatta Hotel.” (Source) (Postscript: This case went to court in August 2017 and the perpetrator was found ‘not guilty’)

“As the ambulance passed through the Legacy Way tunnel en route to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital she allegedly attacked the 51-year-old ambulance officer, kicking him in the groin and punching him in the head.” (Source)

Anger after two Cairns paramedics allegedly come under attack while on the job (31 October 2016)

ambos

 

 

Melbourne mothers beg magistrate to spare them jail after attacking paramedic (8 September 2017)

“Experienced ambulance worker Paul Judd has not been able to return to work since the violent attack in April 2016 and has required multiple surgeries on his foot.

Amanda Warren, 31, and Caris Underwood, 20, have admitted punching and kicking Mr Judd as he and another paramedic tried to treat a patient in Reservoir.

They have both pleaded guilty to intentionally causing injury, while Warren has also admitted criminally damaging the ambulance by ramming it with a car.”

See also:

Mums’ ‘vicious’ assault on paramedic lands them in prison (12 December 2017)

Other posts in this blog relevant to this post include:

On violence carried out by women and girls

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

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

On the punishment of women and the notion of a ‘pussy-pass’

On chivalry

Australian 2016 Federal Election: No party willing to step up to the mark for men & boys

The Australian federal election was held on 2 July 2016, and was ultimately (narrowly) won by the Liberal Party/National Party Coalition.

This post concerns those gender-related policy positions adopted by the three main players during the campaign: the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the Liberal Party/National Party Coalition (LNP), and The Greens.

In another blog post I provide details regarding the relevant positions adopted by some of the minor parties.

Gender issues did not feature amongst the key issues debated during the election campaign. The one specific gender-related issue which was aired was domestic violence. With that in mind, let’s look at what the major parties had to say on that topic:

The Domestic Violence statement provided in the ALP web site can be found here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0

The Domestic Violence statement within the Liberal Party web site is accessible here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 1. That sole mention refers to the contentious ‘Mensline’ counselling service – read more about Mensline here.

The Domestic Violence statement in the National Party web site is here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0

The Greens Domestic Violence Policy is here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0. By way of contrast, the word ‘women’ features 31 times.

None of the major parties have shown any interest in addressing issues that detrimentally affect men and boys. None of them have issued significant statements in support of male victims of domestic violence, nor have they made reference to female perpetration of violence.

The major parties are essentially all in lockstep with the feminist movement, the only area of divergence being the amount of money that each is willing to relegate to/waste on feminist causes.

Amongst the major parties, the Greens offer the most ardently pro-feminist perspective, with the ALP running a close second. It was the Greens, for example, who were the driving force behind the current federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality.

The federal budget released by the Government in May 2016 represented the first salvo in the election campaign:

“In this Budget the Government has allocated $100.0 million over three years for Domestic and Family Violence: New Initiatives To Break the Cycle of Violence. This builds on the $101.2 million provided for a Women’s Safety Package announced by the Government in September 2015 (detailed in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Year Outlook 2015–16). This measure will draw on the recommendations of the Third Action Plan (part of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–22), due for release in mid-2016. [Footnote]” (Source)

Further details of what were proposed and some related background information are provided at:

Domestic and family violence budget review 2016-17
The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0. Again, by way of contrast, the word ‘women’ features 28 times.

Budget Paper No. 2. Part 2 Expense measures. Social Services (See Domestic and Family Violence — new initiatives to break the cycle of violence)

With respect to media coverage, the first relevant item I noticed discussed one particular funding measure announced by the Government … see ‘Family violence legal aid boost of $30 million won’t solve crisis: Lawyers‘ (12 May 2016). As is essentially ‘par for the course’ , the article implies that all victims of domestic violence are female.

The next cab off the rank was the ALP in ‘Federal Election 2016 Campaign: Bill Shorten promises $65 million funding boost to family violence services‘ (14 May 2016)

“Labor will provide funding certainty to frontline family violence organisations if it wins government, Bill Shorten has promised. The Opposition Leader has committed $65 million over six years to ensure 1800 RESPECT, Our Watch and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) can continue their work in tackling family violence.”

Again, each of the major Australian political parties is unambiguously pro-feminist, regardless of how overtly they choose to express it. At this point none of these parties have chosen to raise awareness of, or to provide practical support for, male victims of domestic violence.

During an otherwise tedious and predictable campaign at least Mark Latham entertained via poking pins into feminist/white knight thought bubbles.

Further coverage of gender issues during the campaign:

Feminist group ‘Fair Agenda‘ compiled their own scorecard on how the parties stack up in relation to domestic violence. You can probably guess that their criteria differ from my own.

Here is the election wish-list of another feminist group, the ‘Australian Women Against Violence Alliance‘. They sent me a tweet stating “All victims should have access to support” yet there is no mention of male victims here.

Suicide prevention funding not reaching men says Labor senator (16 June 2016)

Bill Shorten speech launching Labor’s gender equality policy (11 June 2016) Bill uses the word ‘men’ five times versus 55 times in the case of ‘women’. Whilst Australian women get reassurance, support and encouragement, the men get this:

“men who have harmed them and their children”
“men rely on women for childcare”
“childcare remains a responsibility that Australian men too often unfairly leave to Australian women”
“25 per cent of women nominate a lack of childcare as their reason for leaving the workforce. In the case of men, it is 3 per cent.”
“It is primitive and wrong that women are paying the mortgage on houses occupied by men who have harmed them and their children”

The ALP sees providing a myriad of policies to support women whilst providing none to address men’s issues as “gender equality”. But wait, there’s more.

Bill goes on to state that “Australia cannot afford six Liberal years of ‘budgets for blokes’.” Seriously Bill? You mean all that money lavished on the Ministry of Men’s Affairs? Oh wait, there isn’t one is there? In fact all I can see is hundreds of millions poured into organisations like these.

**I challenge Bill or any other ALP politician to add a comment to this post providing examples of current federal budgetary allocations which they feel only benefit “blokes”**

Bill has also promised a hand-out for women’s health. Real men don’t get sick right, mate? {insert gratuitous joke about ‘man-flu’ here}

What might political parties include in their electoral platforms if, you know, they gave a damn about men and boys? In this paper a fellow put forward some ideas in relation to the  2015 UK election.

Female journalists expose barrage of federal election sexist abuse (1 July 2016) With just one example of alleged abuse provided in this and the linked article, and no details provided regarding online abuse of male reporters, it’s hardly convincing case of a campaign of gendered trolling.

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016) The word ‘women’ appears 17 times in this piece by rusted-on feminist Eva Cox (‘men’ = 0 btw). But it’s ok, as we are reassured that “feminist issues are about a better society for all, not just advancing women in a male defined world”. And while feminists want more, they are being offered a veritable buffet compared to the situation for men/boys.

“While both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have issued women’s policy documents, these are strong on equality rhetoric but short on the continuing gender inequities, instead offering some funding to fix service problems.” What a shame that the dog chewed the corresponding men’s policy documents.

Election 2016: Labor commits $88 million to provide safe houses for domestic violence victims (11 June 2016)

The f-word enters the campaign and trips up both major parties (8 June 2016)

Malcolm Turnbull declares himself a feminist and chokes up over his family history, Turnbull finds it easy to declare himself a feminist, and Grandfather PM talks up the power of girls (6 June 2016)

Australian Brotherhood of Fathers election campaign round-up (2 June 2016)

Gender differences in voting intentions in the current campaign as of 16 May 2016

Gender differences in voting patterns in previous Australian elections

Powerful coalition of women call for both parties to stop their war on women‘ (17 May 2016) The election campaign demands of one feminist organisation (WEL)

Why neither party should ignore gender in this election (13 May 2016)

Domestic violence: Rosie Batty launches Australian election campaign push (5 May 2016)

Finally, a quick glimpse of what’s happening in the U.S Presidential campaign: here and here. This UK article is entitled ‘Why are men’s issues consistently ignored in electoral manifestos?‘  (29 May 2017)

Postscript July 2017: Here is Bill Shorten’s take on domestic violence – notice how much attention he offers re: male victims.

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in the following posts:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

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

Dealing with mens issues – The current situation in Australia

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

 

 

 

 

A couple of queries concerning ‘Balancing the future: The Australian Public Service gender equality strategy 2016-19’

The Australian Government recently launched ‘Balancing the Future: Australian Public Service Gender Equality Strategy 2016–19‘.

The Strategy “sets out actions for driving high performance and boosting productivity in the Australian Public Service (APS). It is a strategy for harnessing the best talent, changing cultures, and challenging assumptions that hold us back.”

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 I sent the following email to diversity@apsc.gov.au:

“The statement below extracted from your report only provides one supporting reference, a dead hyperlink to a WGEA paper. The WGEA is notable as an organisation that employs almost no men (despite espousing the need for gender balance), and for its strong feminist bias.

“A growing body of research shows that:

  1. organisations with the most gender equality outperform those with the least,
  2. increasing the proportion of women in leadership roles is associated with better financial performance, and
  3. gender equality in teams promotes an environment where innovation can flourish.”

Are you able to provide any concrete examples of this “growing body of research” you speak of? I am not aware of any studies that show anything more than some correlation between, for example, business performance and the presence of senior female managers. Refer http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/companies-with-women-at-the-helm-perform-better-afeministsaidso/

The other factor that I would appreciate some feedback about is the practical meaning of “gender equality” in the report. It seems that the meaning used only considers the female side of the equation, that is gender equality exists at any point beyond 50% female participation.

Therefore, for example, an organisation comprising 75% female staff is portrayed as gender equal, despite the fact that from a male perspective the situation is not equal at all. Moreover it would seem that even when more than 50% staff overall are female, unless the most well-remunerated ranks of the organisation are also 50%+ female, then there is still not gender equality. This certainly does give the impression that the report itself suffers from a significant degree of gender bias.

I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience. Thank you”

Now, dear readers, let’s sit back with a cup of tea and see what (if anything) they come back with.

Check back later as I’ll post any response here.

On 17 May 2016 I received the following response:

“Thank you for your email and interest in the APS Gender Equality Strategy. The link you referred to has been updated and further links added.

In relation to your other query, the Strategy seeks to address gender imbalance across the APS, at all classifications and in all agencies—no matter the direction of any current imbalance. Agencies are expected to set stretch targets for gender equality across all leadership levels and business areas in the context of their existing gender distribution. The Strategy also emphasises increased access to flexible work arrangements for all employees, regardless of gender.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Diversity Policy – Employment policy Group
Australian Public Service Commission”

A number of the additional references cited are already listed in my blog post referred to earlier, and are not considered as providing conclusive evidence that female management was the *cause* of improved organisational performance. I look forward to reviewing the additional references provided, of which I was previously unaware.

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).