On Spousal Maintenance / Alimony

Much of the information in this blog post was previously included in an earlier post entitled ‘We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

The topic does, however, warrants its own post given that it is a significant issue in a number of regards, including:

  • alimony represents a major financial burden which impacts primarily on men
  • as the number of cases of men claiming alimony rises the divergent manner in which the media reports the issue is highly illustrative of enduring gender stereotypes
  • the debate and political machinations surrounding alimony is a prime example of the extent to which feminist organisations oppose gender equality reforms that would benefit men.

The issue is also quite topical in the United States at the moment particularly in relation to the recently quashed legal reforms in Florida.

Both the terminology and nature of spousal maintenance/alimony varies from one country to the next, and even within the same country there may be significant variation from one state to the next. The primary focus on this post is the situation in the UK, Australia and the USA.

Camille Grammer Awarded Half of Ex-Husband Kelsey Grammer’s Retirement Fund (3 November 2017) See reader’s comments

Why do most men want their wives to help their economic progress, but not ensure anything in return? (12 June 2017) This thread looks at the argument in favor of alimony.

I’m fighting my ex-wife for every person who’s been shafted by Britain’s divorce courts’ (4 June 2017) UK

Men ‘bullied’ out of generous divorce settlements by breadwinning wives (4 March 2017)

‘I’m NOT a gold digger’: The ex-wife vilified as a cold, cunning chancer after winning a huge rise in maintenance payments 15 YEARS after her divorce blasts back and says it’s all her ex’s fault (13 February 2017) UK

Divorced men doomed to life as a cash machine‘ by Martin Daubney (12 February 2017)

‘Reliable honest’ husband who handed his wife, 51, all of his ready cash in a divorce 15 years ago is told he must up her maintenance after she blows the lot on ‘unwise property investments’ (7 February 2017) UK

Fashion tycoon’s ex-wife wins £2.7m slice of his fortune more than a DECADE after they divorced as judge condemns him as a liar (26 January 2017)

Wife’s Capability To Earn No Reason To Reduce Maintenance Awarded To Her (20 January 2017) India

Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States (2016)

Cancer center founder’s ex-wife seeks $400K/month as divorce trial opens (19 October 2016) USA

Men will only get equality in custody cases when women face some hard truths(26 August 2016) Ireland

“The family law researcher observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in 2010, which are ordinarily held in private. But she couldn’t find a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse, and had only seen the courts order joint custody in two cases.”

Don’t Blame Divorce on Money. Ask: Did the Husband Have a Job? (28 July 2016) Men, get ready for a triple whammy … employment redundancy->divorce->divorce rape/alimony (->suicide?)

Rich wives being told to get a job as judges clamp down on ‘meal ticket’ divorces – lawyers (20 July 2016) UK

Former millionaire brands UK laws unfair to men after divorce judges gave ALL his money to his ex-wife and threatened him with jail if he didn’t pay maintenance (15 July 2016)

A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death (2 July 2016) The flip side of this coin – the exploitation of many men begins long before they get divorced.

Supermodel Christina Estrada Wants Ex to Pay for Her $262 Million Lifestyle (29 June 2016) and she only gets 75 million pounds. Boo hoo! “The legal process had been “incredibly bruising and distressing,” she added.”

Father’s dying ‘wish’ voids woman’s divorce payout, say judges (11 June 2016) Australia

Are all women gold-diggers? (27 May 2016)

Johnny Depp protects $400 million fortune as he rejects Amber Heard’s request for spousal support in divorce papers (26 May 2016) No pre-nup … what were you thinking Johnny? And Amber, married only 15  months and already wealthy yet still feels justified in sticking out her paw for $50,000/month spousal support … ewww. Apparently she burns through $43,000/month (further details here). Hard on the heels of Johnny’s rejection of spousal support came Amber’s accusation of domestic violence (see here, here, and here) – but might this be a lie? Never fear, Clementine Ford knows who’s naughty and who’s nice (hint: vagina=nice). Alyssa knows he’s guilty too. So that’s at least two feminists. Jail the cad! And as for those women close to Johny speaking up in his defence – clearly, suffering from internalised misogyny.

David Hasselhoff No More Alimony!!! I Want to Retire (18 April 2016) Fair? Of course it isn’t – the word parasite springs to mind

Florida alimony profits and child custody litigation preserved by governor’s veto (16 April 2016)

Rosenblum: As times change, should alimony change, too? (25 March 2016)

Afeni Shakur And Whether Or Not Men Deserve Alimony (18 March 2016) USA

Florida Bar Association says it no longer supports alimony-reform bill it helped write (16 March 2016)

Divorcee wins 90 per cent of husband’s wealth in bitter court battle (14 March 2016) UK, with related Reddit discussion thread here. See Janet Bloomfield’s (a respected female MHRA) response to this judgement here.

Group pushes male-dominated S.C. Legislature to change permanent alimony law (1 March 2016) USA

The 11 richest women in Britain who mostly got their wealth through marriage (9 February 2016)

Family court robs men and demeans women by splitting property equally when a marriage ends (6 February 2016) Australia

Report: NJ woman sued for writing ‘bum’ and ‘loser’ on ex-spouse’s alimony checks (19 December 2015) More on this case in this discussion thread and linked article

John Cleese feels ‘free to do the things that interest him’ after paying off £12million divorce settlement to ex wife Alyce Faye Eichelberger (26 November 2015)

Breadwinning Women Are Driving Alimony Reform (18 November 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Even though 37% of women earn more money than their husbands, only 3% of divorced men receive alimony (30 June 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Retired farmer must pay more in alimony than monthly income, Nebraska Supreme Court rules (27 June 2015)

Divorce Math: She gets 60%, plus alimony, plus “child” support, plus probably attorney fees (April 2015) Reddit mens rights discussion thread

Jason and Amanda Dufner divorce after three years of marriage (31 March 2015) Amanda gets a million a year … for what exactly?

Construction tycoon left ‘homeless’ after ex-wife wins 80% of his property in divorce (26 March 2015)

Forced to pay for a child that DNA proves isn’t his (24 March 2015)

Wife seeks more alimony over ex’s new lookalike girlfriend (20 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Former hippy wins right to claim ex’s post-divorce wealth (12 March 2015) The same court ruling is also discussed in this article (15 March 2015)

Are Moms Less Likely Than Dads To Pay Child Support? (26 February 2015)

Divorced wife told to get a job and stop living off her ex-husband (23 February 2015)

Woman sues ex-husband for a share of wealth he made years after they divorced (9 December 2014)

Why Do So Few Men Get Alimony? (20 November 2014) USA

Working woman in /r/legaladvice divorcing and is horrified that she has to give part-time-working ex-husband half her assets (15 November 2014)

Ex-wife of US oil baron to appeal $1 billion divorce award (13 November 2014)

State Orders Man to Pay $30,000 in Welfare Benefits for Child Both Mother and DNA Test Say isn’t his (24 October 2014)

Deadbeat moms? Should mothers be required to pay child support? (20 April 2014) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony (27 August 2013)

Halle Berry’s Child-Support Fight: Female Breadwinners Can’t Have It Both Ways (20 October 2014)

Businessman is ordered to pay £28,500 to ex-girlfriend in landmark court ruling because he led her to believe he would look after her for life (17 October 2014)

Veteran chooses jail over giving his disability money to ex-wife (17 September 2014)

Alimony is broken – But let’s not fix it (1 September 2014)

Who’s the Daddy? (23 October 2010) and related reddit discussion thread. Paternity testing should be mandatory where child support is sought – why is this idea being opposed?

The New Art of Alimony (31 October 2009)

I just love how a “prominent family lawyer” recently emerged from the woodwork to call for new pre-nuptial laws in Britain: “Lady Deech said on Radio 4’s Sunday Programme: ‘Lots of young women these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young man who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with him a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for.”

Oh, extremely Baroness! Presumably you’ve silently observed countless men get fleeced over past decades, but now that some women have moved into the position of primary bread-winner in the family, it’s suddenly time to act. Oh and have a read about what happened to Ms Luckwell.

And now for a bit of male-shaming:

“Bristol’s rep David Martin slammed Meyer for seeking child support despite being a decorated member of the Marine Corps that has received the Congressional Medal of Honor. “My values are such that a real American hero doesn’t ask for child support,” said Martin.” (Source)

Now consider the gall/hypocrisy of this feminist journalist as she berates a man who obtained a court-ordered settlement upon divorce (+ related reddit discussion thread).

See also:

On spousal maintenance in Australia

Give Your Money To Women: The End Game of Capitalism (10 August 2015)

13015483_1670762316519609_5131932421538353567_n

Release of the Final Report of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children

The final report of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children was provided to COAG on Friday, 1 April 2016. See this page for a link to download the report, and this page for background information concerning the work of the panel.

Yes, add this to the already long list of Australian government inquiries into domestic violence. The mind boggles at the combined costs of these reports. It would surely be enough to pay for – oh, let’s see – behaviour management programs for female offenders in each state plus a network of refuges for men and *their* children.

It would be one thing if these inquiries were reaching out to different groups and generating new and different ideas – but in the case of gender issues like DV the reverse is true. It’s always the same faces on the panels, consulting the same groups, bringing forward the same ideas based on the same ideology. And all the while with no concrete progress being made save for a succession of costly PR-value-only campaigns farmed out to the same ‘old girls club’ consultancies.

The Panel delivered its preliminary advice to COAG in July 2015. The Australian Government adopted all of the Panel’s recommendations through the $100 million Women’s Safety Package.

The Panel delivered its second report in December 2015 and recommended priority actions which were all endorsed by COAG. This included a national domestic violence order scheme, the development of national outcome standards for perpetrator interventions, and a national approach to dealing with technology-facilitated abuse.

The members of the Advisory Panel are Ken Lay (Chairman), Rosie Batty (Deputy Chair), Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Maria Hagias, Darren Hine, Dr Victoria Hovane, Ms Tracy Howe, Mr Edward Mosby, Ms Julie Oberin, The Hon Bess Price MLA, and Ms Sue Salthouse.

“The Panel recommends that a new approach be adopted by all governments to achieve generational and lasting change:

  • Men must be held to account for their actions and supported to change
  • Responses must focus on empowering women and their children to make informed choices
  • Political leaders, businesses, industry and the broader community all need to commit to collective, long-term action to improve gender equality and change violence supportive attitudes
  • Children and young people must be recognised as victims of violence against women
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities need trauma informed responses, and
  • Integrated responses are required to keep women and their children safe.

The Panel’s Final Report includes 28 recommendations for COAG’s consideration, with innovative, practical and deliverable options for further joint Commonwealth, state and territory work to reduce violence against women and their children.”

This is the first I had heard of this report, and even then I only became aware of it via reading the Twitter stream of a feminist politician. So much for publicising the exercise beyond the feminist encampment.

“In developing its advice, Panel members undertook over 120 separate consultations with stakeholders and experts in primary prevention, victim support services, perpetrator treatment, technology, law enforcement, research and education, and the business community.

Targeted consultations were also undertaken to discuss specific issues in relation to children, women with disabilities, women from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children.”

How many such consultations were with father’s or mens rights groups or advocates? I have scrolled through the list in the report, and I can’t recognise any. Of those groups and individuals who were approached for input, were there many that did not subscribe to the dominant feminist view of domestic violence? Was there even one?

Based on my first glance at the report it appears to ignore male victims entirely. In fact I just word-searched the report using the term ‘male victims’ and got not one hit. Not an encouraging sign, yet not unexpected. The report also clearly implies that all perpetrators of domestic violence are male. And irony of ironies, there is a section on gender bias amongst people working with DV victims which only acknowledges gender bias against women.

Just to remind readers, if it were even necessary, that at least one in three victims of domestic violence are male.

I honestly cannot fathom how the panel members, all of whom would probably have fathers/brothers/sons, can sleep at night knowing they were complicit in an exercise wherein the basic human rights of so many were so cruelly disregarded.

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

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

When banks divert from banking to social engineering

Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.

The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.

“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.

What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”

So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.

Since then various related ‘initiatives’ have emerged such as ideologically correct videos (below), and a decision to contribute an additional $500 into the superannuation accounts of female staff based on the feminist misinterpretation of the gender paygap.

Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:

“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers. 

ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.

Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors.  However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.

ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.

ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.

Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).

 ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”

I wrote back to the bank:

“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.

1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.

2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assests were accumulated prior to the marriage.

3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into womens health and on the treatment of womens health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)

In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.

The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

And the bank duly wrote back:

“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Whereupon I said:

“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”

It’s not just banks doing this … it’s not just about financial benefits … and the implications extend beyond staff of the relevant company

Since forever many companies have wanted to do good in their local communities, or at least be seen to do good. Until recently they were content to do things like sponsor a local football team or make a donation to a charity. Although the worthy causes were usually unrelated to the business of the company, these were small benign gestures that troubled no-one. How quickly that has changed in the space of just a few years.

Now were are seeing companies expend large amounts of money and time on causes that can be polarising and contentious. The implications of adopting (often judgmental) public positions on these issues or causes can flow through to staff, customers, shareholders and then out into the broader community.

With the superannuation issue there was a tangible benefit for staff, well, for some staff. As this trends builds, and with these other issues, there are both carrots and sticks being employed. The sticks can include shunning/shaming or even dismissal for staff who don’t embrace the company line and engage in wrong-think.

Workplace intimidation silences lawyers critical of same-sex marriage (30 August 2017)

“Solicitors have complained of being intimidated at their workplaces if they publicly criticise the endorsement of same-sex marriage by their professional association and law firms … He said it was wrong for the Law Society and the Bar Association to express any view on same-sex marriage because it was peripheral to the central concerns of both organisations.”

The market for virtue: why companies like Qantas are campaigning for marriage equality (28 August 2017)

How James Damore went from Google employee to right-wing Internet hero (12 August 2017)

See also:

NAB promotes #EndToViolence (November 2017) with further details in their web site

Did Westpac just mansplain gender diversity to its competitors? (26 October 2017) Westpac learns, as have countless male feminists, that no matter how much you pander to feminist nonsense, you will still be subjected to harsh criticism.

Westpac under fire over same sex marriage email (5 October 2017)

“Westpac has been forced to defend an email from a staff networking group telling fellow employees to vote Yes in the same-sex marriage survey, erroneously claiming that doing so would prevent 3000 suicides a year”

What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men, by Corrine Barraclough (26 May 2017)

Why we’re backing women, by Lorraine Murphy, National Australia Bank (6 March 2017)

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey (14 February 2017) A very gynocentric article, but which does support the value of addressing financial literacy/skill to enhance post-retirement financial status.

Banks preaching about gender wage gap myth, by Rita Panahi (28 October 2016)

Female tech leadership to get $1m boost (4 October 2016)

Shareholders slam CBA’s ‘diversity’ bonus (27 September 2016) Australia

It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail

nab

I see that both ANZ and NAB have directors on the board of Diversity Council Australia. DCA are, amongst other things, the organisers of this feminist talk-fest planned for November 2016.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Angus Aitken out at Bell Potter after ANZ Michelle Jablko email (26 May 2016) with further background to this episode in this interview with Kate Jenkins

Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”

The Superannuation Gender Gap (21 April 2016) Australia. Related reddit discussion thread here

Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.

Australian bank ANZs new ad. Pushing the wage gap myth on children (March 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Blatant sexism’: ANZ’s #equalfuture campaign cleared of discriminating against men (4 September 2015)

ANZ pays women extra super (31 August 2015) A very long-running discussion in the Whirlpool online forum

ANZ bank giving female employees an extra $500 to correct gender pay gap (August 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees (29 July 2015)

ANZ pushes its new gender diversity measures in national campaign (29 July 2015)

This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.

Postscript (19 September 2018) Today Bill Shorten, Australian federal leader of the Opposition, announced a $400 million scheme to support women in relation to their retirement Super balances

Regarding the report of the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence

My initial blog post on this issue, which includes a copy of my submission, can be accessed here. The final report of the Royal Commission can be accessed here.

Men constitute a demographic group the same size as do women. The Commissioners admitted that one in four victims of DV are male (although that’s understating the correct figure). And yet here we see the discussion of male victims tucked away in a section of the report dealing with the needs of various minority groups. I recently observed the same approach being taken in the recent Queensland DV Inquiry.

Still it could have been worse, for male victims didn’t even rate a mention as constituting even a minority group in the Issues Paper produced by the Commission in March 2015 (refer clause 35).

And so in the final Royal Commission report a sub-section entitled ‘Male Victims’ can be found in Volume 5, which includes discussion of each of the following affected groups in the community:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (60 pages)
Older people (32 pages)
Culturally and linguistically diverse communities (32 pages)
Faith communities (10 pages)
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities (26 pages)
People with disabilities (38 pages)
Male victims (10 pages)
Rural, regional and remote communities (22 pages)
Women in prison (14 pages)
Women working in the sex industry (8 pages)

(Men in prison and men working in the sex industry are apparently exempted from involvement in family violence).

At ten pages in length the ‘Male Victims’ sub-section constitutes 0.48% of the bulk of this mammoth 2,082 page report, and features only two of the report’s 227 recommendations. The Commission’s report, by the way, cost $13.5 million.

Recommendation 180. The Victorian Government publicise and promote the Victims Support Agency in any information campaign relating to family violence as the primary source of assistance for male victims. The agency should also provide appropriate online resources for male victims [within 12 months].

Recommendation 181. The Victims Support Agency continue to receive all police referrals (L17 forms) relating to male victims, including after the establishment of the Support and Safety Hubs. The agency and all other relevant support services should develop joint arrangements to ensure that male victims of family violence are supported in obtaining the help they need [within two years].

Forgive me, but after reading these, the earth isn’t exactly moving for me. You’d think that if the Commissioners were only going to allocate two recommendations specifically in relation to the needs of male victims, then they might have come up with something a little more incisive and substantial than these.

One only has to read as far as the second paragraph of the ‘Male Victims’ section to see male victimisation being minimised. Do you recognise the following gem of many earlier pro-feminist reports/papers on domestic violence?

“Violence by women towards male partners is generally less severe than that of men towards their female partners.” (No citation provided)

On p209 I note the statement “A lack of data makes it difficult to determine the extent of the service gap for male victims of family violence.” And yet no subsequent recommendation that suitable research be undertaken.

Then on p210 “A number of men expressed a particular sense of injustice in connection with family violence intervention orders. In particular, some said the justice system was unable to differentiate between ‘true perpetrators’ of family violence and those men who were ‘set up’ by a female partner.

Conversely, the Commission heard that it was common for male perpetrators of family violence to blame their situation on unfair legal processes, rather than accepting responsibility for their own behaviour.” (The latter attributed to community legal service with no evidence provided of statistical validity)

My initial impression of the report prior to undertaking a more thorough reading?

I’m disgusted. By no means surprised. But most definitely disgusted.

With regards to its treatment of male victims, the Commission’s report represents nothing more than a token effort at providing a semblance of the level of support and compassion provided for female victims of domestic violence.

We really do still have a very long way to go to achieve gender equality and justice in this regard.

The most positive aspects of the report I can see thus far are that:

    • Some attention was given to the need for greater oversight, review and performance measures in the provision of domestic violence services. This is an issue that I addressed in both my submission, and in my blog post in relation to the Domestic Violence Industry.
  • Some attention was given to the significance of the impact of domestic violence (and presumably child abuse and neglect) on children with regards to its effect in creating a generational cycle of abuse. This is, I believe, a causal factor which is far more significant that gender inequality. (Postscript: Unfortunately however it seems that the rapporteurs have even managed to apply gender bias to this issue – see comments below from Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation)

See also:

Victorian budget 2017: record spending to break family violence (2 May 2017)

Video and discussion thread concerning a gender-biased advertising campaign (17 January 2017)

Victoria Is Spending More Money On Domestic Violence Than The Federal Government (15 July 2016)

Urgent Family Violence Investment Will Help Keep Women And Children Safe (13 April 2016) Only one mention of the word “men” here, and that is in relation to behaviour change programs fos abusive men. Male victims and/or female perpetrators? Erased

‘Silent victims’: royal commission recommends better protections for child victims of family violence (1 April 2016)

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence needs to think about her own family history (1 April 2016)

Family Violence royal commission proposes policing, social services, courts overhaul (31 March 2016)

neave

Royal Commission into Family Violence: fixing the culture starts now (31 March 2016)

Royal commission calls for complete overhaul of Victoria’s family violence services and responses (30 March 2016)

Family violence: Portrait of an abuser (30 March 2016)

Royal Commission into Family Violence: what you need to know (30 March 2016)

Gendered, gendered, gendered: The word that fuels the feminist machine

Few of those reading this would be unfamiliar with the feminist proclivity for labelling a plethora of issues as ‘gendered’. Like many terms it doesn’t mean much without considerable qualification. And even then it may not mean much. But if something can’t be portrayed as being gendered then feminists and their beloved narrative lose traction.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘gendered’ as “reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other.” The problem though is that in real life there are relatively few things that only (or even predominantly) affect one gender. In most situations both genders wield a significant influence and/or are significantly affected. We’re all in it together. One topical example would be online harassment.

Let’s now look at an even more contentious issue, child abuse. Most non-sexual child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women. Most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by men (although there are still plenty of sexual abusers of children who are female). So is child abuse gendered? And in terms of framing remedial action, is it more or less productive to attack child abuse as a gendered issue?

The straw that broke this camel’s back today was an article entitled Australia’s most shocking statistic: Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women with disabilities by Ginger Gorman. The tagline was the shocking announcement that 90% of disabled women have been sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Ginger’s article tells us that most abuse takes place in institutions, yet makes no mention of the abuse of disabled men/boys. She then provides some examples of incidents of abuse involving male perpetrators in non-institutional settings. The actual gender mix of perpetrators of abuse, in either institutional or non-institutional settings, is left unstated.

In the absence of further details it’s highly likely that readers would have assumed that most victims of abuse were female, and their abusers male. Such is the inevitable outcome of persistent gender bias in the media on top of decades of gynocentric conditioning.

This is despite that fact that there are certainly instances where research has found most perpetrators of abuse to be women. One such example can be found in the Adele Mercier incident, whereupon a feminist academic wrongly denied female perpetration of institutional abuse.

This selective presentation of statistics – only showing the extent to which women are affected, and in the absence of comparative statistics for men and boys – is extremely common in feminist literature. This problem is discussed further in a separate blog post about feminist research and their misleading use of statistics.

The source document for the 90% abuse claim was a submission by the Australian Cross Disability Alliance. I found the relevant reference in the section entitled ‘Incidence & prevalence data on gendered disability violence‘ (page 37). Despite asserting that the abuse was gendered, this section provided no comparative statistics whatsoever in relation to the abuse of men/boys.

How is that appropriate in terms of either compassion or academic rigour? I mean, is this a case of just ‘trust me, I’m a feminist’?

I then took the matter up with the author of the article in a series of exchanges on Twitter including the following:

gorman3

Look, don’t get me wrong, the most important thing here is to effectively reduce the incidence of child abuse. The rest is second-order stuff. But I honestly don’t see that goal being significantly advanced via the blinkered and self-serving approach taken by feminists. As with domestic violence, framing a solution to half a problem translates into no solution at all.

Oh, and colour me surprised – see below for how this episode ended.

How could anyone take feminism seriously when one is constantly reminded how infantilised its followers have become?

oldwhitemen

gorman

 

 

See also:

UK charity for the homeless, ‘Shelter’, doesn’t specify gender of the homeless – 90% of whom are male (9 November 2017) Hardly a coincidence

How to make anything a gendered issue, by Blaise Wilson (30 April 2017) Video

The following are some of the other posts in my blog that are also relevant to this issue:

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
More assaults at aged care homes
The unbearable lameness of being
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

whitemaleold

 

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

In an earlier blog post I briefly examined a number of pro-feminist organisations in Australia, noting (in part) the extent of public funding received by each. My post on the Domestic Violence Industry also identified another substantial sump for both government funding and private donations.

Despite the fact that I only scratched the surface in relation to identifying such organisations, the extent of state and federal funding involved already amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could tally up all the public funds that are directed towards the welfare of women/girls? And then go through a similar exercise in relation to funding for men/boys. To what extent do you think the two amounts would be comparable?

Well, until 2013 the Australian federal government did something a little similar. It was called the Women’s Budget Statement. I’m not sure why it was terminated, but perhaps it was found that the data it provided was unreliable and/or otherwise unhelpful in comparision to the annual cost of compiling the Statement. Another possibility was that it identified so much expenditure directed towards women that it’s value as a sop to the feminist lobby was eclipsed by the potential it posed for an angry voter backlash.

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes.

By way of background here are some links to historical information concerning the Women’s Budget Statement:

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/grb_sharpbroomhill_australia_updf_final_copy_copy.pdf

http://www.gender-budgets.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=112

http://apo.org.au/research/budget-2014-15-gender-lens

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2013/dfh035_13_budget_tagged.pdf (Women’s Budget Highlights as mentioned in this article)

What prompted me to write this post today was the publication of ‘Gender neutral policies are a myth: why we need a women’s budget‘, by academic Miranda Stewart. I would recommend taking a moment now to read that article and the readers comments that follow it (or at least those that were not removed by the moderator).

Miranda thinks that the community would benefit from the re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement. The author justifies this gynocentric bias, at least in part, on the existence of the much-discredited gender pay gap. I believe it would be far more equitable and effective (as a policy development tool) if there was one combined document that considered the impact of federal expenditure on both men and women.

Another point of difference between what Miranda has in mind, and what I envisage, relates to the nature of the information provided. Miranda wants to see an assessment of the economic impact, on women, of a wide range of government policies. I am not convinced how accurately such impacts could be assessed, nor to the extent it could be kept free of the gender bias and ideological tweaking that is now rampant across the Australia public service.

I would be satisfied with something simpler, merely a listing of specific programs or allocations that were directed towards (or could be determined to benefit) alternately either boys/men or girls/women. This in itself would be a difficult task, as many such allocations are hidden, for example, deep within departmental budgets.

In other cases, allocations which would appear to be gender-neutral could be determined on closer analysis to strongly favor one gender in relation to the other. An example of this would be funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This suggestion is noted in another article (refer point 5), although I think Claire Moore, Shadow Minister for Women, probably has different priorities in mind.

So where would one make a start on creating such a spreadsheet? Well I’ve already mentioned the various organisations listed in my blog post about misandric agencies. We could expand that initial list by considering each of the members of the Equality Rights Alliance, Australia’s largest network of organisations with an interest in advancing women’s equality. From then on it would be a matter of relentless burrowing through budget papers seeking relevant allocations.

The intention would be to combine the total funding received by each organisation and compare that figure with total annual funding for boys/men’s groups and issues. Although larger in magnitude I imagine that the women’s budget would be somewhat easier to compile given that there are specific ministries and sections with agencies that deal with women’s issues.

I would wager that there is absolutely no chance that the expenditure ratio would match the ratio of males/females in the Australian population, with an overwhelming bias towards the welfare of girls/women.

As an aside bear in mind that men, both individually and through the corporate entities they own, contribute far more than 50% of the government’s income. Click across to this blog post and scroll down to ‘taxation’ to see some relevant sources. Would it not be more equitable if the default setting was that half of government expenditure was subsequently utilised to support the interests/welfare of men and boys?

I believe that such a process of financial analysis would not only identify a massive and inequitable gendered imbalance in government funding, but it would also identify enormous waste and duplication. I wonder just how many indulgences like this are out there waiting to be uncovered?

If I am correct and there is a substantial favouring of females over males, how can this be justified? Barring the absence of incontrovertible evidence of overwhelmingly greater need, across the board, this would be indicative of neither gender equality nor prudent governance.

Certainly priority should be given to the area/s of greatest genuine need. And of course there will be areas where women’s needs are greater than mens (and vice versa). Thus note that I am not suggesting for a moment that one would seek to religiously apply a 50% split to every government program in Australia.

But humour me and suppose that a detailed and objective analysis did find that vastly more support was accorded to women/girls across all of government? And that meanwhile funding was urgently required to meet the demonstrated needs of men/boys?

Let’s find out. Otherwise, sorry, not good enough. Not by a long shot.

See also:

How the Australian Budget process is failing women (2 April 2019). Apparently we need “Gender responsive budgeting” and “women’s economic needs demand more frequent and intense intervention”. Yes, and for men/boys … oh, let’s not go there right?

Women’s Economic Security Statement (19 November 2018)

“A priority for the Australian Government is to create the right economic settings for women to help them participate in work, increase their economic security and give them meaningful choices about their lives.”

The Queensland government produced a Women’s Budget Statement (6 July 2017)

Women’s group call for gender aware budget (22 May 2017) Australia. They are not calling for a “gender aware budget”, they are calling for a female-aware budget … no mention whatsoever is made of looking at the impact of the budget on men. More of the same here and here.

Gender Lens on the Budget 2017/18 (undated) Australia. We need something like this to look at the impact of the budget on men (shame this one didn’t address both genders)

Interview with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop (24 January 2017) The financial analysis I spoke of earlier would need to encompass foreign aid, which is increasingly gender-focused towards women/girls.

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video. On the issue of the gendered impact of the current taxation regime see also this blog post

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (8 September 2016) Wouldn’t it be interesting to run a rigorous financial analysis here in Australia to see if the same pattern was evident?

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016), by Eva Cox

Women left behind by a budget that does little to redress inequality, by Eva Cox (5 May 2016) Well if women were left behind in the Budget Eva, what say you about men and their issues?

The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand (2013)

On suicide

One of the defining features of the present-day feminist is their lack of compassion for the welfare of men/boys. This was again driven home to me this morning when I read an article ‘Suicide isn’t just an older man’s problem‘ (sub-titled ‘Suicide is increasing among young people, especially women‘).

The topic of men is dispensed with in a single paragraph (para 8):

“Historically, suicide in Australia has been largely seen as a male problem, with men, particularly middle-aged men, frequently identified as a high risk in our national strategies. Projects have focused on workplaces such as the construction industry, and men’s information resource centres. In men over the age of 25, rates are higher than those among younger women; however, with the exception of men aged between 55 and 64, these rates appear to be relatively stable.”

The bulk of the article is about women and young women, and how serious the problem of suicide is for them.

In this article today the authors only acknowledge the issue obliquely, by way of saying that ‘yes it’s a thing, but it’s not just about men’ … before proceeding to make it all about women. Seriously?

And so we have a serious social problem that disproportionately affects men, but which is largely ignored in feminist literature. On the odd occasion the male suicide issue is mentioned, the problem is essentially blamed on men, for e.g. masculinity, and the pressure imposed by gender roles.

A common theme is that the key to better means mental health is men opening up and talking to people. Oftentimes this is expressed in a simplistic and sometimes condescending way, viz. if only men would act more like women … problem solved.

Yes many, but not all, men might benefit from verbalising their concerns, but much more than that is needed. Systemic and cultural changes that acknowledge the value of men, and initiatives to address the myriad issues raised elsewhere in this blog. Measures that would act as a counterweight to the prevailing gynocentric bias. That’s the scale of action required to make substantial progress towards a remedy.

Oh, and take a look at this article in The Guardian … “Figures show more than one in 10 prison suicides are by women”. The other nine? Nothing to worry about.

See also:

White-washing the truth about why men kill themselves, by Bettina Arndt (10 July 2019) Recommended reading

Research confirms 5 uncomfortable facts about young male suicide (March 2019) Australia

Feminist, Chidera Eggerue, doesn’t have time to worry about male suicide (Tweet dated 14 March 2019) See also this tweet dated 13 March.

What makes a man suicide? Rambling on traditional expectations and suicide (9 March 2019)

University accused of hiding suicide data is UWE Bristol – the same Uni that last month blocked a men’s officer who wanted to campaign on male suicide. Draw your own conclusions (28 November 2018)

Regarding the suicide of Anthony Bourdain – most probably linked to his relationship with Asia Argento (13 September 2018)

Julia Gillard achieves the impossible (22 June 2018)

QLD Election FactCheck: are ‘up to 21 fathers’ dying by suicide every week? (15 November 2017) “Suicide is a complex phenomenon that has multiple causes and should never be attributed to one factor alone” and so is Domestic Violence, and yet feminists are content to blame that on gender inequality alone.

Note the readers comments incl. this one:

“It does not surprise me that suicide among men is increasing. Forty a week is a national disgrace and the Family Court of Australia is a big part of this problem.My divorce took all my capital and reduced my ability to pay maintenance. It took my super, used to pay off the mortgage, after saying I could keep my super if my wife could keep hers. I put her through university, typed all her assignments and even writing some so that she could become a lawyer and use the system to screw me. When my wife failed to allow access to my daughter for weekends and holidays, I was told by the Family Court of Australia that it did not enforce court orders, “and especially not for men”.

I have not even spoken on the telephone with my daughter for more than fifteen years because her mother hangs up when I ring. I have a court order specifying alternate weekends and weekly phone calls. My daughter is now in her twenties and until two months ago I was still paying maintenance. I was down south a few weeks ago and was roundly abused as an MCP by one virago because I stepped back and allowed her to enter the lift first. In a modern society where few people seem to have any knowledge of good manners, life is sometimes confusing and disadvantaged.”

Dozens of construction workers dying or facing serious injury each year because of suicide attempts (9 July 2017)

“Griffith University-based clinical psychologist Jacinta Hawgood said the macho culture of mining and construction was playing a key role in the stark statistics. “While women will talk to each other about difficulties, men often will not ask each other ‘are you OK?,’’ she said.”

Male suicide has nothing to do with politics. Apparently, by Corrine Barraclough (6 July 2017)

7 Truths Feminists Must Accept About Male Suicide, by Corrine Barraclough (26 June 2017)

Michelle Carter found guilty by judge in text message suicide case (16 June 2017) USA

Corrine Barraclough: Piecing together the pain of loss for men after abortion (3 June 2017)

Australian men aged over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, ABS data shows (30 May 2017)

The Truth About Custody Disputes, Suicide And Compassion, by Corrine Barraclough (22 May 2017)

The rise of the ‘sad dad’ is not a divorce trend, but a gendered one (21 May 2017) Feminists say men should be more like women and express their emotions, but when they do they are mocked and accused of playing to the audience.

Men, Prisons, Separation and Suicide (12 May 2017)

Deaths of despair stalk millennials in an unforgiving job market (19 April 2017)

Maine Democrats at ‘Values and Vision’ gathering erupt in laughter at white male suicide (14 April 2017) USA

Suicide, Ms Gillard? You can’t handle the truth, by Corrine Barraclough  (4 April 2017)

Women’s Day Off, by Karen Mac Fly (March 2017)

“I do not think the high rates of suicide and depression in men can solely be attributed to unjust laws that put men into situations where they see no reason to go on living, or the general misandry spread in the media. These are but the tangible results of modern women’s callous attitudes towards men.”

We must not allow suicide to become normalised (16 February 2017) See readers comments, particularly in relation to author’s decision to focus on young women.

Time to Talk Day: the mental health statistics you need to know (2 February 2017)

Stop telling men to show their emotions (3 December 2016) Excellent Reddit discussion thread with more than 200 posts

In 2015, there were 3,027 people who died by suicide — 2,292 were men and 735 were women. Guess which of those two numbers the ABC finds more worrying (28 September 2016) Australia

Women’s mental health needs ‘not considered adequately’ (25 September 2016) UK

1mhvywj

In Men, Depression is Different: Symptoms—and help—are unlike what women experience (19 September 2016)

The rules men live by are killing them: Here’s how we can help, by Shae Elise Allen (19 September 2016)

Let’s talk about male suicide, by Corrine Barraclough (10 September 2016) Australia

Why Our Suicide Prevention Strategies Are Failing To Stop Male Suicide (9 September 2016)

Making sense of male suicide in Australia (27 July 2016)

Does the NUS have a man problem? (31 May 2016) UK

Seven ways to understand male suicide in Australia (26 May 2016)

Facts and stats about suicide in Australia (March 2016)

What do we do now that suicide rates among young women are on the rise? (14 March 2016) It must have burned Jenna Price (‘Destroy the Joint’) to mention the word men (once) in a role other than as perpetrator of evil. Jenna thinks there needs to be more kindness shown, but presumably not the variety of kindness that radfem’s of her ilk shower on CIS-Het white men who constitute the bulk of suicides.

NewAccess can help Aussie men in pain (11 March 2016) Australia

Hard times: the suicide scourge among Australia’s tradies (5 March 2015)

No. of suicides in Japan drops below 25,000 for first time in 18 years (18 January 2016) Of those who killed themselves in 2015, 16,641 were men and 7,330 women.

International Men’s Day Debate in UK Parliament 2015 (23 November 2015)

Robert Whitley: Why men commit suicide (19 November 2015)

Male University of York Student Commits Suicide on Day His University Ditches International Men’s Day After Pressure From Feminists (18 November 2015)

Tactical burying of men’s issues (16 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and here is a deleted comment from that thread

Male suicide now a national public health emergency, MPs warned (5 November 2015) UK

Gender, gender everywhere…but not in this study (3 November 2015) Reddit post pointing out yet another example of a MRM article where gender is not specified as men are the most detrimentally affected

Middle-aged male suicide rate rises by 40 per cent since 2008 (30 October 2015)

A record 564 people committed suicide in New Zealand in the past year (6 October 2015) Male suicides trending up, women down

TIL in the UK the most common cause of death for men under 50 is suicide, and related reddit mensights discussion thread

Man shaming and victim blaming: The A-Z of male suicide in the UK (14 April 2015)

‘A silent issue’: Researchers say 1 in 3 teen boys attempt suicide after being sexually assaulted (13 April 2015)

Fatal silence: Why do so many fortysomething men kill themselves? (13 April 2015)

It’s society, not biology, that is making men more suicidal (24 February 2015)

Men and Suicide: The Silent Epidemic (21 February 2015)

Robin Williams one of many: More middle-aged men committing suicide, and experts don’t know why (15 August 2014)

If as many women killed themselves as men, we’d never hear the end of it (30 January 2015) Article and related Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Suicide surpassed war as the military’s leading cause of death (31 October 2014)

Suicide among men four times higher than women (2 December 2014)

Extreme family violence: trying to understand murder-suicide (7 November 2013)

“Murder-suicide is most often perpetrated by men – but this is hardly surprising. Men are generally the perpetrators of murder, and men make up the majority of suicides in Australia, too.” Only a feminist would hold up the fact that many men kill themselves as proof that men are inherently violent.

Male suicide rates and causes (19 April 2011)

Divorce and suicide risk (2003) (with details concerning an actual case of a divorce-related suicide here)

Eye of Woden – Addendum on male suicide

male_suicide

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

On men’s health: The statistics and the underlying factors

Is it my imagination or does media coverage of mens health initiatives usually focus on male shaming?

If the central tenet of feminism is equality then what mens/boys causes have feminists championed recently?

I thought women were meant to be more empathetic?

Gender bigots elevated into positions of considerable authority: Some examples

Initially in this post I’ve elected to profile Vera Baird and Alison Saunders (UK) and Mary Koss (USA).

With regards to prominent femocrats in the UK, I know that Mike Buchanan’s web site offers a huge amount of relevant background material. One of the things Mike does is write to these women – sometimes by way of a Freedom of Information request – demanding answers to some very pertinent and pointed questions. It can make for some very interesting reading.

In relation to Australia, in previous blog posts I have already profiled Elizabeth Broderick and Natasha Stott Despoja.

** This post remains a working draft only at this point in time **

Vera Baird

Baird’s Police website doesn’t provide a single support resource for male victims of domestic abuse – she’s Twitter blocking such organisations instead (7 January 2016)

Poster campaign row: We’re here to support ‘all’ victims of domestic abuse, says under-fire PCC (5 January 2016)

How feminists and a Police Commissioner’s Office conspired against male victims of domestic violence on Twitter (5 January 2016) Absolutely outrageous!

Police Crime Commissioner Vera Baird will block you on Twitter if you bring up male domestic abuse (29 December 2015) UK

Northumbria police accused of sexism in domestic abuse poster campaign (29 December 2015) UK

Vera Baird has now posted a second sexist hate poster on her police force’s Facebook page (26 December 2015) UK

Vera Baird, a British regional ‘Police Commissioner’, disseminates a Christmas message implying that men who budget their finances carefully do so in order to “economically abuse” their partners (25 December 2015)

This reddit discussion is about Ms Baird’s unethical and possibly corrupt conduct

This detailed submission is by Mike Buchanan, and here is a link to a list of other items about Vera in Mike’s web site.

Alison Saunders

Top judge launches attack on Alison Saunders over acquittals in ‘drunk rape’ cases – but she hits back claiming he is ‘victim blaming’ (27 March 2017) UK

Alison Saunders should be sacked – for the Janner case, and for her absurd views on rape (29 June 2015)

Mary Koss

Mary P. Koss thinks that it is “inappropriate” to consider men who have been raped by women as rape victims, because “their penetration experience is not similar to what women are reporting”. She calls it “unwanted contact” with related reddit discussion thread here (27 December 2015) USA

Cunning Stunts of History: Mary Koss and rape culture (9 November 2013)

Mary Koss doesn’t think women can rape men and boys (5 September 2015)

Mary P. Koss, Feminist Rape Apologist (21 April 2013)

Male disposability – Mary P. Koss, rape apologist, defines male rape victims out of existence (30 January 2013)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in also reading:

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

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

 

 

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015.

There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. In the interim several articles on the issue emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).

Sex discrimination commissioner job still vacant as government continues to stall (6 January 2016) This article again implies that the role is purely to advocate for women, and assumes that a women will be selected for the role.

Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.

This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.

This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:

“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”

Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:

“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)

Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:

Children’s Rights Commissioner urges national focus on children affected by domestic violence (7 December 2015)

“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. 

Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.

Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.

Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.

This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.

This page, from within the AHRC’s web site, is aptly entitled ‘About Sex Discrimination’. And it sure is.

jenkins

The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damselling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.

This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.

#ICYMI Watch: Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner @Kate_Jenkins_ outline her plan for the role #auspol https://t.co/480sShMTuc

— ABC News 24 (@ABCNews24) February 14, 2016

In ‘What should the new sex discrimination commissioner do? Make ‘women’s issues’ everyone’s issues’ the author suggests a #HeForShe approach, because “like it or not, men are making the lion’s share of the decisions in this country“.  Not terribly original given Ms. Broderick’s much-trumpeted ‘Champions of Change’ project.

Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.

Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.

Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:

I didn’t imagine we would still need a sex discrimination commissioner in 2016′

I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.

On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).

In ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men‘ (15 September 2016) we learnt that Gillian Triggs has allowed the ABS to hire only female interviewers as “men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women.” Meanwhile they ignore the flip-side that male victims would be more likely to tell their stories to male interviewers – thus perpetuating the statistical erasure of male victimisation.

Please also read the related media release from the ‘One in Three’ organisation, as well as this article from Jasmin Newman.

On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?

kate

kateandclem

The Hunting Ground & the campus rape study

Now in the light of all the preceding evidence, one would hope that the AHRC would consider the most appropriate course of action to be a gradual pulling-back from their position of anti-male bias. But no, they doubled-down instead through their involvement with a project that sought to justify, and to continue, their focus on women’s rights through the feminist lens.

The images above show Kate proudly promoting book sales for misandrist radfem Clementine Ford, and then applauding the screening of much-debunked feminist anti-male hit-piece ‘The Hunting Ground‘ (article/article). What a shame she couldn’t wield her influence to have the ABC screen The Red Pill. The cash injection provided by the team behind ‘The Hunting Ground’ gave rise to an unfortunate perception of bias and conflicted interest.

It was no accident that the promotion of ‘The Hunting Ground’ coincided with the conducting of the campus sexual assault survey, and the subsequent release of the results in July 2017 as discussed in the following articles:

Universities Australia defends $1m donation to ‘independent’ campus rape survey (2 November 2016)

Hardly on the hunt for facts (18 June 2017)

Manufacturing Australia’s next epidemic (26 July 2017) Video. First promote the (debunked) film ‘The Hunting Ground’ then a survey (with self-selected respondents) and now for the hysteria and demands for punitive action. Against … drumroll … men.

Mattress girl saga a warning to unis on sexual assault cases, by Bettina Arndt (29 July 2017)

Advocacy journalism (31 July 2017) Video

No rape crisis on our campuses: Official (2 August 2017)

No rape culture at Australian universities: No Rape Culture at Australian Uni’s: Even Seinfeld Knows AHRC Report is a Joke (4 August 2017) Video featuring Mark Latham

Flawed sexual harassment report undermines the change it seeks (12 August 2017) When even other feminists come out and say this study stinks, you know it’s bad

Restructuring the Australian Defence Forces

Army refuses men, WTF? (12 August 2017) Video

Army studying ‘how women shop’ for recruitment (12 August 2017)

The Royal Australian Human Rights Commission Air Force (2 August 2017)

See also:

Online abuse against women on Human Rights Council agenda (22 June 2018) No mention regarding harassment of men/boys … that facet of this problem appears to be seen as a non-issue. For some actual stats see my post here.

Unleashing the power of gender equality (November 2017) by Kate Jenkins. Men and boys are essentially missing in action in this document. Word search on the term ‘men’ then scroll through each of the 89 mentions to quickly confirm where the author’s interest (bias) lies.

‘Perverse outcomes’: How Australia is failing sexual harassment victims (18 October 2017) Ms Jenkins is interviewed on the issue of workplace harassment, but appears to avoid any mention of male victimisation/female perpetration. The author, Gay Alcorn, did thankfully at least note some comparative statistics.

It’s not just Hollywood problem: 1 in 4 Australian women have been sexually harassed at work (16 October 2017) Here Kate jumps on the Harvey Weinstein bandwagon. Oh, and wherefore art thou female harassers? For they are mentioned nowhere in this one-sided male hit piece. Hmm, when someone only ever identifies perpetrators of one particular gender, that’s discrimination right?

Financial rewards provided only to women are “smart”, even when part-time and/or low income male workers also retire with low Superannuation balances. Little wonder feminists hate the term “Apex Fallacy”.

This doesn’t happen (6 October 2017)

Sex Discrimination Commissioner should get real‘, by Andrew Bolt (1 May 2017) Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacts to Kate Jenkins gender quota proposal here, with a related article by Miranda Devine here.

Application to conduct a female-only gym (November 2016) This application linked here primarily as it contains links to other earlier determinations regarding the issue of gender segregation.

A positive development at the New Zealand Human Rights Commission (24 March 2016) Seeing this I thought perhaps in that organisation that mens rights were seen as important too. But after seeing this item, maybe they are little different from AHRC.

Here’s a project that Kate Jenkins could tackle. It concerns the lack of ‘Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Men’ (6 March 2016)

Queensland Government continues to ignore male victims of domestic violence

In October 2015 the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was quoted as saying that more should be done for male victims of domestic violence. At the time I wondered if this was mere lip service to test the PR waters … or was there actually something tangible in the pipeline? Many people, including myself, earnestly hoped for the latter.

And so on 2 December 2015 when the Queensland Government issued a media release regarding the provision of additional accommodation for victims of domestic violence, I was cautiously optimistic. That media release was entitled ‘New shelters opening for domestic violence victims

Well, for the sake of accuracy the title of that media release should have included the word ‘female’ before the word ‘victims’. There are many male victims of domestic violence, and yet there was nothing for them in this latest allocation of public funding.

Here are some extracts from that media release:

Two new 72-hour crisis shelters for women and children fleeing domestic violence will be opened in December.

Minister for Communities and Women, Shannon Fentiman and Minister for Housing and Public Works Leeanne Enoch said the two shelters – located in Brisbane and Townsville – will be open and accessible 24 hours a day.

Minister Fentiman announced in February that the two shelters would be established as the first commitment to a recommendation in the Not Now, Not Ever report.

“When women make the brave decision to leave a violent relationship, we must make sure we have the support and services there to help,” Ms Fentiman said.

“These new shelters will give women and children a secure haven where they can feel safe and get the professional support they need to start afresh.

“Shelter staff will link women with specialist services to provide support until they have safe, stable housing in place, as well as connecting them with ongoing support about court, health or other issues.”

“The new services will also provide mobile support to any women still needing to be placed in motels.” …

“One of the unique aspects of these shelters is they will cater for pets, which was a recommendation from the Not Now, Not Ever report, given women in violent situations can also have threats made against their pets.” …

The Department for Housing is also providing $21.8 million in 2015-16 for 56 specialist homelessness services to help women and children escaping domestic violence across Queensland.”

Male victims of domestic violence, who also sometime flee with their children, also need emergency accommodation and support services. As far as I am aware there are no beds in DV refuges available for men in Queensland, only beds in homeless shelters. These two types of facilities are not one and the same.

Minister Fentiman, why have the needs of male victims yet again been ignored despite the Premier being on record as stating that more needs to be done for them?

Will the Minister advise me that support is provided to women because the “overwhelming majority of DV victims are female“? Will she then throw in a sop about an increase in funding for Mensline, a telephone service about which feedback has been appalling?

The sum total of assistance provided by Mensline to men, many themselves victims of violence, is referral to an anger management program. See both this post and this one for background regarding the pronounced gender bias displayed by this and similar ‘help’ lines.

Despite a budget of almost $200 million, as of September 2016 the Palaszczuk Government has yet to provide any tangible targeted support for male victims of domestic violence, nor any program/s to address the needs of female perpetrators of violent or abusive behaviour.

Nothing. Nada. What a disgrace.

See also:

Men are not mentioned in the title of this Department (or any other QLD Dept), which says a lot about the Queensland Government’s priorities re: people of that gender (April 2019)

Video showing the unhelpful and biased manner in which the QLD Government responded to the One Nation proposal in relation to DV law reform (24 October 2017) See also this related article by Corrine Barraclough.

Watch the two QLD government ads showing on TV in July 2017, dealing with financial abuse and psychological abuse, neither of which show female perpetration

Brisbane DV shelter and services helping women live safer lives (4 July 2016)

“Ms Fentiman said the Palaszczuk Government has provided $1.1 million to Micah Projects to deliver the Safer Lives Mobile Support Service for 12 months, which has helped more than 800 women and 350 children over the last six months.

“This program has helped to increase the safety of women and children and the accountability of perpetrators,” Ms Fentiman said.

“Importantly, the service has also secured an agreement with Centrelink so women in motels due to domestic and family violence can access crisis payments.”

Micah Projects also receives more than $1.7 million to deliver additional domestic and family violence responses, including a perpetrator program.”

Key achievements in addressing domestic violence in Queensland in the six months to May 2016

Queensland domestic violence services get $6m boost‘ (15 January 2016)

Just how much of this allocation will be directed to supporting male victims of domestic violence Minister? Aside from more sexist and discriminatory screening of male callers to Mensline, any of it ay all?