Feminist myth: Women usually only commit domestic violence in self-defence

I was reading an article the other day that included comments concerning domestic violence made by recently appointed Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Within it I noticed the following quote from an outspoken Australian feminist academic and female violence enabler by the name of Dr Michael Salter:

“In the context of intimate relationships we do see women use violence but it’s predominantly self-defence. We have to reaffirm everyone has the right to defend themselves against violence”.

Sadly this is by no means the first time I have come across a feminist proposing this shameful nonsense as a truthful reflection of reality.

Well at least Michael can bring himself to admit that women can be violent. This is certainly the case, and in many jurisdictions such crimes are on an upwards trajectory.

The dominant theoretical framework employed by the Domestic Violence Industry is known as the Duluth Model. A paper attempting to defend this approach, included the following statement:

“The vast majority of women arrested in Duluth for domestic assaults are being battered by the person they assault. Most, but not all, are retaliating against an abusive spouse or are using violence in self-defense. The notion that battered women share responsibility for the violence used against them because of provocative words or actions is a dangerous form of collusion with men who batter (Mills 2003). We do not accept that these women should complete a batterers’ program. We do agree that there are a small number of women who use violence resulting in police action against their partners without themselves being abused. This is not a social problem requiring institutional organizing in the way that men’s violence against women is.” (Source)

A selection of sources that argue either in support of, or against, the notion that women only perpetrate domestic violence in self-defence and/or after experiencing sustained abuse:

Dividing the Sexes: Misrepresentation of Domestic Violence Statistics in Australia (18 March 2018)

‘Understanding domestic abusers’ (undated) from the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. See “responsive violence”. Sure women are violent but only in order to “attempt to forestall attack, defend self and others, or control the situation”

From the web site of the Canadian Association for Equality:

“Fact: Self defence is no more common a reason for female violence against a partner than it is for male violence against a partner

Sources:  Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40(1), 51–57.
Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. C. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practitioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment (pp. 59–87). New York: Springer (also available at http://pubpages. unh.edu/∼mas2”

Open letter to the Victorian Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, by the One in Three organisation (17 August 2015) Exaggerating the extent to which female violence is attributable to self-defence

The Gender Paradigm in domestic violence research and theory (2005) Includes coverage of the claim that women engage in violence mainly due to self-defence.

Deconstructing Self-Defence in Wife-to-Husband Violence by Dr Sotirios Sarantakos (Australia)

selfdefence

On masculinity and ‘real men’

Hyper-masculinity? Toxic-masculinity? What is this masculinity thing that is painted as such a blight on society?

But why is there is never any mention of toxic femininity when (to varying extents) many of the same issues apply? Just look at my posts on for example, female violence, lack of empathy, sexual abuse by women, and damseling and the shameless exploitation of male chivalry.

The articles below all address the concept of masculinity, alternately either from a feminist, egalitarian, MHRA or some other alternate position:

Well, America, Gillette’s idiotic ad may have finally turned the tide on ‘toxic masculinity’ (22 January 2019) USA

Masculinity isn’t a sickness (16 January 2019)

Traditional masculinity has been dubbed ‘harmful’ by a major health body (16 January 2019) with related tweet her

Psychology as indoctrination: Girls rule, Boys drool? (15 January 2019)

Barbara Kay: American Psychological Association declares masculinity an “ideology” (12 January 2019)

You can’t help men by attacking masculinity, by Dr John Barry (27 November 2018)

Male authority – Be a “Man”, by Rollo Tomassi (13 November 2018)

Brown University Offering Programs for ‘Unlearning Toxic Masculinity’ (25 October 2018) See related tweet from James Woods

The fact that we’re considering making misandry a hate crime should concern everyone who believes in equality (17 October 2018)

The mysterious invisibility of men’s good deeds, by Mark Dent (14 July 2018)

Feminism: Toxic Masculinity (26 June 2018)

Why men are refusing to help women and children (6 June 2018) Video (and also take a look at this Jim Muldoon article on the same theme)

How feminists developed ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (14 June 2018)

Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence (25 October 2017)

Charts – Where You Fall on the Alpha / Beta Scale (9 October 2017)

Does the NRL have a culture problem? (13 September 2017) Video

Duke recruits men for program to fight ‘toxic’ masculinity (13 September 2017)

Houston Rescuers Prove the Lie of ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (1 September 2017)

Andrew Cadman: We are paying a high price for the feminisation of Britain (3 August 2017)

Delingpole: Too Much ‘Maleness,’ Complains Feminist Reviewer of ‘Dunkirk’ (2 August 2017)

We’re doomed and only women can save the day (20 July 2017) How men think of, and treat other men, is part of the problem.

SJW DYLAN MARRON GETS OWNED l Response to Unboxing Trump’s America and Masculinity l SJW Cringe (6 July 2017) Video

First police officer at London Bridge attack “was rugby player who took on all terrorists until forced to ground” (4 June 2017) UK

Study: Most Women Like ‘Manly’ Men, Don’t Worry About ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (13 May 2017)

The epidemic of sexless marriage is symptomatic of the modern emasculated husband (undated/2017)

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Trend Blames Boys For Being Born Male (12 April 2017)

Missed a spot, by Dalrock (1 March 2017)

Feminists wage war against romance on Valentine’s Day (14 February 2017)

Gender wars: Is masculinity toxic for boys? (9 February 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked video

Toxic masculinity: Will the ‘war on men’ only backfire? (28 January 2017) Australia. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

‘Toxic masculinity’ is ruining men’s lives, by Corrine Barraclough (26 January 2017)

Dear Feminists, male vulnerability isn’t a virtue (3 January 2017)

Today (30 December 2016) I noticed two articles that took a now common approach of using/portraying generally positive attributes associated with masculinity (protectiveness towards women & risk-taking behaviour) in order to mock or criticize men:

Men are weirdly concerned about trans women’s use of female bathrooms according to new study and Drownings blamed on men’s risky behaviour

Male college students to undergo ‘critical self-reflection’ of masculinity (3 January 2017)

Feminist Prof: Cats are the solution to ‘Toxic Masculinity’ (15 December 2016)

To what should males aspire? (15 December 2016)

No Gender December: When did ‘gender’ become such a dirty word? (13 December 2016) Australia

The miseducation of young men, part 3 (9 December 2016)

Why women can’t complain about men (4 December 2016) Video

Masculine white men more likely to be mentally ill, says new ‘study’ (22 November 2016)

Why Colleges Should Stop Teaching “Toxic Masculinity” (16 November 2016)

The False Dichotomy of Feminist Ethics (11 October 2016)

‘Toxic White Masculinity’: What is it all about? (10 October 2016) USA

If gender is a social construct, why aren’t women ever accused of exhibiting toxic masculinity? (9 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

What will feminists accomplish by defining masculinity as toxic and pathological? (8 October 2016)

This Woman Never Looked At Her Fiancé The Same Way After He Abandoned Her During A Violent Mugging: Toxic lack of masculinity? Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

‘Effeminism’ and the War on Boys (23 September 2016)

It’s not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it’s men, by Janey Stephenson (28 July 2016)

Oddly, there has recently been other articles very similar to this one published in different countries, but with ostensibly different authors. See ‘What mass killers really have in common’, by Rebecca Traister (17 July 2016) and ‘One group is responsible for America’s culture of violence, and it isn’t cops, black Americans, Muslims or rednecks. It’s men‘, by Melissa Batchelor Warnke

And here is an MRA response to the type of article listed above: ‘The bizarre feminist response to Islamic terror in Orlando‘ (27 July 2016)

I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out (11 March 2016)

Joy of Masculinity (9 June 2016)

YouGov Poll: Only 2% of men aged 18-24 feel masculine (20 May 2016) UK

The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis (9 May 2016)

As a female college student, what can I do to empower my male friends who are (seemingly) very emasculated and don’t stand up for themselves? (9 May 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Masculinity isn’t toxic — our attitudes to it are’ (8 May 2016) UK

Violence in Men vs Women. Things aren’t how they seem (6 May 2016) Reddit discussion thread

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

39 Things Women Will Just NEVER Understand About Being A Man (14 April 2016)

Shaming Men Doesn’t Build Healthy Sexuality (9 April 2016)

New York Times: ‘Teaching Men to be Emotionally Honest’ (4 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Toxic Femininity and Heroism (14 March 2016) Australia

Female counselor says men are increasingly ashamed of their masculinity (28 January 2016) UK

European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings (27 January 2016)

How the European male was turned by the feminist into a “WIMP, PUSSY, AND MANGINA”, is it on it’s way here? (25 January 2016)

European men now being criticized for their lack of masculinity (25 January 2016) Video

Although the vast majority of people who risk their own lives to save others are men, this BBC article doesn’t mention that this is mostly a male behaviour. Every time there’s a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, feminists blame “toxic masculinity”. Why they don’t talk about ALTRUISTIC MASCULINITY? (5 December 2015)

Audio: Karen Straughan’s brilliant lecture on “toxic masculinity and toxic femininity” at SFU (21 November 2015)

Question to feminists regarding “toxic masculinity” (29 July 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Male Definition of Masculinity Is a Surprise – Toxic Masculinity Debunked (2008) with reddit discussion thread here

Feminism’s Real Target is Masculinity (December 2014)

It’s time to do away with the concept of ‘manhood’ altogether (29 October 2015) Nauseating pieces penned by mangina journo for The Guardian, but which attracted plenty of reader’s comments

“Toxic Masculinity” is hate speech. Full stop. It pathologies maleness and attempts to link violence to men’s culture. Feminists discussing “toxic masculinity” is little different than white supremacists attacking “ni**** culture” and “black violence” Reddit mensrights discussion thread (15 October 2015)

‘Real men don’t hit women’: The big problem with Malcolm Turnbull’s anti domestic violence message (10 October 2015) Australia. I agree with the prolem with the ‘real men’ message, but much about this article is wrong, not least the assertion by Michael Salter that female violence only occurs in the context of self-defence, and that the fact that most people in jail are male is proof that men are responsible for most crime.

Salon blames Oregon shooting on ‘traditional masculinity’ (9 October 2015)

Are today’s standards for being a ‘real man’ leading to violence against women? (8 October 2015) Australia. But what of violence BY women?

How to stop mass shootings (2 October 2015) and related https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3n8xmn/new_from_milo_yiannopoulos_on_the_root_cause_of/

Vanderbilt Women’s Center to Lecture Men on ‘Healthy Masculinities’ (31 August 2015)

Masculinity and Violent Behavior: A Complex, Combustible Relationship (25 August 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Masculinity is more than a mask, by Christina Hoff Sommers (13 January 2014)

What would happen if no men showed up for work today? (17 September 2013)

masculinity

Further sources yet to be reviewed:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dx2xLaLHZocC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=sociopathy+and+hypermasculinity&source=bl&ots=QVAdycmNbP&sig=mvQqp40-RZyqI1E3bF9Px4oAPEY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BXd7VK7ZAsfh8AWm9YK4CA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sociopathy%20and%20hypermasculinity&f=false

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6760256&fileId=S0140525X00039686

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=sluqacUK9mQC&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=sociopathy+and+hypermasculinity&source=bl&ots=OayNvsrL8h&sig=c9B_araQjFku6qB7DU7IZlefCqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BXd7VK7ZAsfh8AWm9YK4CA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sociopathy%20and%20hypermasculinity&f=false

built_by_men

Further posts within this blog that may be of interest:

On being male or female (incl. innate differences, stereotyping and so on)

The Elliot Rodger tragedy co-opted as a feminist bandwagon

No place for feminist propaganda in our schools or universities

I was reading an article the other day about the ongoing push to have feminist propaganda introduced into our schools under the guise of ‘respectful relationships’ programs (or some other similar label).

The article in question, entitled ‘Bid to teach anti-violence to schoolkids‘ (Jessica Marszalek, Courier-Mail, 30 July 2015) included the following statements:

“She (QLD Minister Shannon Fentiman) said both teenage boys and girls would benefit from positive messages as they began in the dating world.

“We know that there are attitudes with particularly young men who think it is appropriate to pressure a woman for sex,” she said.

So as part of challenging those attitudes, those respectful relationship-type programs really help combat those views held by teenage boys. And for young girls, what they should and shouldn’t put up with.”

“We need to be running programs around respectful relationships but also we need to be running programs about how we view women, so tackling those attitudes is going to be central,” she said.

Queensland is not alone in this regard, with other states considering similar moves. This article concerns such a proposal in New South Wales.

In September 2015 Prime Minister Turnbull announced that “$5 million will also be provided as a longer-term measure to change the attitudes of young people to violence, through expanding the Safer Schools website to include resources for teachers, parents and students on respectful relationships.  This will build on the $30 million national campaign (jointly funded by the Commonwealth, states and territories) to change young people’s attitudes to violence, which will commence in early 2016.” (Source)

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the concept of ‘respectful relationships’ programs in schools, but I am concerned when the focus is wholly on the need for boys/men to respect girls/women. This is the very type of school program that has been provided and/or vigorously lobbied for by many pro-feminist groups such as the White Ribbon Campaign.

I believe that children should not be put in a position of being alternately shamed or absolved of responsibility due to their gender.

A gender-neutral approach, on the other hand, sends the correct message that people need to respect one another regardless of gender, and that harm can be caused by both males and females alike.

Postscript February 2016: And now, ladies and gentlemen, please put your jazz hands together to welcome the ironically-labelled ‘Safe Schools‘ program. A program which the feminist lobby formulated and then rushed to defend when mainstream Australia voiced their disquiet. This is a progressive social engineering project masquerading as an anti-bullying program.

Janice Fiamengo mentions another male-hate campaign aimed at boys. It’s called ‘Man Up’ (9 April 2019)

Teacher takes on male-bashing Respectful Relationships propaganda (March  2019) Australia

Ward departs La Trobe following program’s scrapping (19 June 2017)

An epidemic of transgender children is Safe Schools’ legacy (16 April 2017)

Safe Schools program to be overhauled and founder Roz Ward removed (16 December 2016)

Girls who are girls but not girls — It’s time to stop the Safe Schools subterfuge (24 July 2016)

Miranda Devine: Marxist agenda a red flag for not so safe schools, by Miranda Devine (29 May 2016)

Flag slur underlines concerns: Turnbull (28 May 2016) What’s the bet that Premier Andrews eventually comes to regret getting into bed with these leftist radfem nutters?

Victorian Labor Government deceives on Safe Schools (19 March 2016) Australia

Does Imposing Queer Theory Really Lead to Safe Schools? (14 March 2016)

Bullying linked to gender and sexuality often goes unchecked in schools (3 March 2016) “Gender-based bullying”? Oh please! Desperate feminist author tries to invent nexus b/w ‘Safe Schools’ program and as many topical issues as possible to make it look like a great idea.

Trojan Horse gay claim laughable, by Wendy Tuohy (2 March 2016) Australia

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia, by Moo Baulch (26 February 2016) Australia

See also:

Let’s make it mandatory to teach respectful relationships in every Australian school (28 May 2019) and related Twitter thread

Feminist School ‘Punishes’ Boys by Curtailing Their Recess on International Women’s Day (16 May 2019) Spain

Teacher takes on male-bashing Respectful Relationships propaganda (5 March 2019) Bettina Arndt video interview

‘Victimhood narrative’ taught in schools fuels anxiety in young women, academic claims (21 October 2017) UK

The feminization of everything fails our boys (9 May 2017)

‘Feminist Collective’ strategy in schools (26 April 2017) Australia. More feminist/SJW madness from the Victorian government

In The Name Of ‘Gender Equality’, Kindergarten Teacher Doesn’t Let Kids Play With Legos (April 2017)

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Trend Blames Boys For Being Born Male (12 April 2017)

Fake anti-domestic violence programs just demonise our little boys, by Miranda Devine (12 April 2017)

Sydney Girls High School prefects hit back after Sydney Boys’ viral video (13 March 2017) This oughta teach those boys to stand up for feminism

Gender theory banned in NSW classrooms (9 February 2017) Australia

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Talk about the (feminist) fox looking after the henhouse

How much can a teddy bear? (14 January 2017)

Recognising ethnic identity in the classroom: a New Zealand study (21 December 2016)

“This article argues that … rather than promote the affirmation of student identity, the enactment of this directive might, in fact, lead to ethnic division. Second, attempts to recognise and affirm identity have led to the displacement of school subject knowledge in classroom programmes. These unintended outcomes are not only unacknowledged, but they continue to disadvantage the community the identity directive was intended to address.”

B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion (7 December 2016) Canada

Melbourne high school teacher says she would refuse to teach ‘lewd’ safe schools and respectful relationships program (29 October 2016) See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Kids program teaches men are ‘greatest threat to women’ (25 October 2016) Australia

Toxic identity politics polluting Victorian schools, by Rita Panahi (24 October 2016)

Masculinity is not to blame for domestic violence (24 October 2016) Australia. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

The dangers of brainwashing our children, by Jasmin Newman (22 October 2016) Australia

Globally and historically men are the greatest threat to women” (October 2016) A slide from a Powerpoint presentation shown to Australian schoolchildren

Victoria, a misandrist state of child indoctrination (17 October 2016) Alternative link here

Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program (14 October 2016)

Girls feelings are far more important than the truth, by Mark Dent (12 October 2016)

A dummies guide for teenage girls on how to respect boys (20 September 2016) Not the sort of relationships message that feminists would stand for.

ReNew program for sons aims to stop family violence (15 September 2016) Australia with related Reddit discussion thread here.

VCAT green light will let Ivanhoe Grammar School offer more places to girls (11 August 2016)

Reducing ‘mean girl’ behaviors in classrooms benefits boys and teachers too (2 August 2016) USA. The sort of program that should be in schools, but unlikely to get the feminist tick of approval.

Sonia Kruger objects to scholarships for gay, lesbian and transgender students as ‘reverse discrimination’ (1 August 2016)

It is not enough for schools to address sexism after the scandal, by Dana Affleck (29 July 2016) Ordinary men are the enemy, not (just) bad men. Meanwhile no mention of female teachers having sex with students, or girls bullying, harassing or objectifying boys.

Clementine Ford teaching your children (18 July 2016)

Feminist/PC brain-washing of boys in US school system (12 July 2016)

Teach Him Early (29 June 2016) USA feminist video campaign, with discussion thread here

Why our 7-year-olds desperately need to learn about feminism (23 June 2016)

Truthful debate is slurred into silence by the Left, by Mark Latham (7 June 2016)

The Left doctrine that no one can criticise (18 May 2016)

Kids of 7 learn ‘gender diversity’ from Safe Schools Coalition (14 May 2016)

Transgenderism: Has anybody seen my girl? by Miranda Devine (29 April 2016) Australia

We all wear the White Ribbon (April 2016) Video. Australia. Completely and utterly one-sided … men hurt women/men must respect women

University defends research used as basis for Same Sex program (5 April 2016) I find the readers comments more persuasive that the entreaties of the Deputy Vice Chancellor. Only good research gets through the rigourous vetting process? Yup, how about the research project mentioned in this post? Or the ones mentioned here? This post is worth a read too

Controversial sex-ed program will teach Aussie toddlers about cross-dressing (6 March 2016) Australia

Domestic violence cycle continues as children as young as 10 offend (20 February 2016)

Principal Corrine McMillan said she was proud of her students, who will this year mark White Ribbon Day. “Students will present a declaration to make a stand against domestic violence,” she said. “I’m proud to see the students – particularly the male population – live up to the challenge.”

These uni students are holding feminist workshops in Sydney high schools (5 January 2016)

Inspiring STEM literacy package will aim to get more girls interested in maths and science (21 December 2015) Australia

Domestic Violence Awareness Video Claims Abuse is ‘Just Something Boys Do’ (18 December 2015)

Stop encouraging boys to ‘say no to feminism’ (15 December 2015) Radfem journalist Clementine Ford presents the case for ramping-up indoctrination

Why We Need To Stop Telling Boys Not To Hit Girls Because ‘She Is A Girl’ (4 December 2015) India

Men are not monsters (19 November 2015) Note the tone of the readers comments

Boys should have the right to say no to feminism. The evangelical drive to teach boys to be feminists reached a new high last week with the news that every 16-year-old in Sweden is to be given a free copy of the book “We Should All Be Feminists” with reddit discussion thread here

Fightback: Addressing Sexism in Australian Schools (undated)

Maybe This Is Why Boys Don’t Respect Women (30 November 2015)

When Society Encourages Mean Girls to Bully Boys (26 November 2015)

Newington College has launched a powerful domestic violence campaign (27 November 2015) Australia

The make-believe world of child-abuse campaigners (26 November 2015)

Feminism campaign sparks controversy at Vic High (25 November 2015)

Feminist bullies and the pernicious myth that sexual morality is just about ‘consent’ (24 November 2015) UK

Blakely teacher restricts Lego-play to her girl students in the pursuit of gender equity (24 November 2015)

Campaigners’ fury at bid to cut feminism from politics A-Level syllabus: Call for department of education to reverse ‘insulting and misguided’ move (20 November 2015) UK

Men are not monsters (19 November 2015)

Breaking the Silence program: Schools in South East SA raise awareness about domestic violence (17 November 2015)

In Brazil, the high school national test essay theme was “Violence against women”. Any students with dissenting opinions automatically failed the test (15 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Feminism to Become an Official School Subject (2 November 2015)

Fighting school sexism: feminist theory hits classrooms (1 November 2015)

Keep Gender Politics out of Scouting (29 October 2015) UK

Gender-based violence prevention in the classroom is just a start (25 August 2015) Australia

Brisbane teacher wins scholarship to develop program to reduce domestic violence, coward punches (10 August 2015)

We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology (20 July 2015) More than 1,000 readers comments!

Bankstown Public School boys “all say no” to abuse against women in their own hip hop song and video (24 March 2015) Hmm, no sign of a girl’s choir singing nice things about boys … funny that.

We mustn’t make boys feel bad about being male (3 December 2014) with 193 reader’s comments

The thought police telling kids heterosexuality’s not the norm, by Miranda Devine (17 October 2012)

Do these girls represent the next generation of Australian women? Products of PC/feminist-corrupted education system … amoral narcissists with an abundance of entitlement and little respect for themselves, let alone men/boys?

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

The trouble with boys and learning

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

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

On violence carried out by women and girls

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

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

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

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

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

A very different reaction to two public awareness campaigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article proceeds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPV-Truthwgray

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

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

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

Do public awareness campaigns even work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three examples:

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

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

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

Other sources that may be of interest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Australian government announces intention to reprogram boys to reduce domestic violence

“BOYS as young as nine will be targeted in the new fight against domestic violence.

Social media will also become the new way to deliver the Federal Government’s $30 million education campaign.

The Assistant Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, has revealed boys aged between nine and 12, non-English-speaking women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are among the groups chosen for special focus …

We want them to understand the girl standing next to you is the same as the boy standing next to you,” she said.” (Source)

With respect Minister, but that is a nonsense. If you really believed that to be true then both boys and girls would be given the same instruction. In other words there would be a corresponding expectation that girls/women treat men/boys with respect. But no, that is not what is being proposed.

So congratulations Minister for swallowing the feminist narrative hook, line and sinker. In so doing you are complicit in the ongoing process of downplaying female perpetration of violence (increasing), and ignoring the many male victims of DV.

cuteAnd this incredibly sexist and biased policy move seemingly based on a survey that didn’t even bother to ask about public attitudes to violence towards men, thus robbing it of proper context in which we might interpret its findings.

See also:

Editorial in the Courier Mail

Courier Mail Facebook post See readers comments, most of whom call for the inclusion of girls in the proposed program

A November 2015 article by Australian feminist journalist, Wendy Tuohy, put forward as an example of just how one-sided (i.e. gynocentric) the discussion about respectful relationships has become

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

No place for feminist propaganda in our schools or universities
Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?
On violence carried out by women and girls
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence
The trouble with boys and learning
My response to the report of the Queensland Task Force on Family Violence

Feminists claim domestic violence is caused by ‘rigid gender roles and stereotypes’ (then apply them to men in painting them as perpetual aggressors)

I’d suggest reading the following article and the readers comments that follow it, and then come back for a brief discussion:

Quentin Bryce urges focus on gender inequality to tackle domestic violence (6 April 2015)

Firstly, a few words about Quentin Bryce. Quentin is a former Governor-General who recently chaired a state Taskforce into Family Violence the report for which was released in February 2015 (see related blog posts here and here).

Quentin deserves our thanks for performing that role without sticking out her hand for the sort of generous compensation demanded by other prominent talking heads of the Australian Domestic Violence Industry. Quentin was ill-advised, however, to issue statements during the course of the Inquiry that were pre-emptive and prejudicial, and which clearly signalled her own personal anti-male and pro-feminist agenda (example1example2).

In the article linked above Quentin reiterates a key element of the feminist narrative as it is applied to the issue of domestic violence, that:

“Domestic and family violence is caused by unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women, it’s about the rigid gender roles and stereotypes that characterise our society, and the culture and the attitudes that support violence against women”

Domestic violence does indeed involve an unequal distribution of power, but where feminists get it wrong is that the man need not be the partner wielding the power. The feminist perspective also ignores the reality of domestic violence affecting same-sex couples.

Feminists cling to this notion however because it dovetails with a theoretical framework that they rely upon so heavily, known as the Duluth model.

According to the Duluth Model, “women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society.” The program’s philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship. Its philosophy is illustrated by the “Power and Control Wheel,” a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. (Source)

An excellent rebuttal of proponents of the Duluth model recently penned by South African MRA Jason Dale is well worth reading, with some further criticism here. A further study illustrating the ineffectiveness of the Duluth approach is provided here.

What galls me most, however, is the mind-numbing hypocrisy of feminists asserting that the application of “rigid gender roles and stereotypes” promotes domestic violence, whilst their ongoing portrayal of men as perpetual perpetrators relies upon applying those self-same roles and stereotypes. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

And here’s yet another example, an article entitled ‘Stop gender inequality and you will stop domestic violence‘ (3 September 2015)

See also ‘Testing Predictions From the Male Control Theory of Men’s Partner Violence‘ (2 August 2015)

And in closing perhaps you might like to read ‘Always beating up on men‘ by Bettina Arndt.

Elsewhere in the blog you might be interested in:

Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men?

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

Further thoughts regarding the White Ribbon Campaign

On 25th November 2014 the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) celebrated its annual ‘White Ribbon Day’, whereupon they beat their chests about the wonderful job they (say they) are doing, and sought to fill their coffers via donations and merchandise sales.

I visited their Facebook page at that time and noticed quite a number of dissenters posting comments there. In true feminist fashion these were slyly removed during the course of the day (as discussed in this blog post). WRC representatives responded to the nay-sayers by castigating them for complaining about WRC’s focus on female victims, and/or by telling them to go and start their own organisation to address violence towards men.

Without doubt there would be many people out there who would say, how could anyone be so mean-spirited as to criticise the White Ribbon Campaign? So what if they focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, at least they are still helping someone? Surely any publicity that raises awareness of the problem of domestic violence is a good thing? Lots of celebrities support WRC so they must  be doing something useful otherwise those people wouldn’t risk their reputations, right? Right?

The WRC believes, or at least tries to make others believe, that those opposing it are misogynists who are angry about its sole focus on female victims. In actual fact, in most cases, that is not the root cause of disquiet about their operation.

So, if this issue isn’t the main issue of concern, then what is?

1. WRC’s lack of honesty and transparency, and their censorship, shaming and attacks on others holding alternative views

Publicly, the WRC’s rationale for focusing solely on female victims is based on their claim that the “overwhelming” majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by males upon females. Privately, the driving force behind WRC is its rigid adherence to feminist ideology.

Misleading statements, concerning the nature and extent of domestic violence, sabotage the efforts of others to institute fairer and more effective programs to combat domestic violence. It is hard to believe that this continual misrepresentation of statistical ‘evidence’ to support the focus adopted by WRC is inadvertent. The strategic invention &/or misrepresentation of ‘facts’ in this manner is a hallmark of contemporary feminism.

These false assertions have the effect of denying male victims of domestic violence appropriate recognition or support, and of unfairly demonising men in general. Another outcome is the lack of attention given to abusive women through, for example, the provision of behaviour modification programs for female offenders.

Thus the problem is not that the WRC focuses on male violence towards women, but that – for strategic reasons – they fail to acknowledge other significant elements of domestic violence. No, in fact they do more than that. They argue that those whose priorities differ from their own are (at best) ignorant and misguided, and at worst that they are abusers themselves.

The message disseminated by WRC seeks to make a complex social issue appear simple. This is useful in attracting and maintaining the interest, and subsequently the financial support, of the public. Part of this involves inventing  a single easily-identifiable bogey-man – the heterosexual male.

WRC’s approach also handily puts the onus for addressing the problem onto men and absolves women of any responsibility in relation to either causing the problem or fixing it.

2. The fact that WRC diverts, both strategically and inadvertently, public and private funds away from programs where they might be used more effectively in the fight against domestic violence and/or in assisting victims of DV

The effects of misrepresentations by WRC, when combined with substantial marketing efforts, political acumen, and a social environment highly supportive of feminism, sees WRC exert a significant influence on government policies and decisions regarding resource allocation to DV.

WRC compromise efforts to reduce domestic violence and assist male victims because they misrepresent both the nature of the problem and the nature of potential solutions. In so doing they side-track us from identifying and implementing more effective solutions. This skews the nature of research undertaken, in turn skewing the nature of support services provided.

WRC are not satisfied for a reasonable share of funds to be directed towards feminist groups like their own, they want all available funds so directed.

Questions have also been raised as to WRC’s ability to competently manage public funds, and the extent to which its operations are financially self-serving. Ironically this is happening at the expense of men, given that men contribute the majority of tax revenue.

Browsing through a recent annual report for White Ribbon Australia was illuminating. To give an example, unless I have misread this page, WRC burnt more than $400,000 in one year just on share trading.

According to White Ribbon Australia’s corporate annual report for 2013, they gambled their donations in the stock market and lost one fourth of their current assets! In other words, they lost almost $500,000 AUS playing the stock market with the public’s donations! Here is what their corporate annual report states:

“Total equity declined from $1,193,398 to $751,611 as a result of the trading loss.”

Society’s current predilection for placing feminism and feminist organisations on a pedestal, goes hand in hand with inadequate government oversight and serious lapses in accountability. History has shown us that this type of situation usually ends badly. It is quite simply a scandal waiting to happen. (I talk about this problem in my post on the Domestic Violence Industry)

WRC’s involvement in running programs in schools

White Ribbon’s involvement in running what are essentially feminist indoctrination programs in schools has been a source of considerable concern for many. This is the subject of the sources listed below, and is discussed further in this blog post.

Senator Says Making Boys Pledge The White Ribbon Oath Is “Public Shaming Based On Gender” (23 November 2016)

Bankstown Public School boys “all say no” to abuse against women in their own hip hop song and video (24 March 2015) Hmm, no sign of a girl’s choir singing nice things about boys … funny that.

We mustn’t make boys feel bad about being male (3 December 2014) with 193 reader’s comments

Why does the White Ribbon Campaign make these errors of judgement, and why will it continue to do so?

WRC will continue down its current path because doing so supports feminist ideology and helps grow the influence of that movement, a goal that is of paramount importance to them. As a consequence, targeting anything or anyone that threatens the feminist narrative in relation to domestic violence is accorded a high priority (see my posts on Tanveer Ahmed and Sallee McLaren for example).

Secondly, it is financially lucrative for WRC to continue their current operating model. Misrepresenting the nature of domestic violence, and exaggerating its scale, stimulates further public support and government funding. This then channels additional funds towards themselves, other feminist enterprises and individual feminists (as per my post on the Domestic Violence Industry).

(Postscript November 2018: Could this be the end? Sponsors abandon White Ribbon and Bye Bye White Ribbon (13 November 2018). And now ‘Anti-domestic violence organisation White Ribbon in $800,000 debt‘ (19 February 2019)

See also:

White Ribbon Australia entry in ACNC database with links to annual reports

Cory Bernardi Dragged White Ribbon For Supporting Safe And Accessible Abortion (16 November 2017)

Public money wasted on domestic violence organisations, by Bettina Arndt (9 July 2016)

We stop violence at the source. And the source is men (28 June 2016) White Ribbon CEO Libby Davies defends White Ribbon (see article below), and in so doing happily throws men under the bus. Oh, but see the readers comments that follow (240+ at last count), NONE of which support Libby’s misandric stance. Here is a subsequent radio interview with Tom Elliot concerning Libby’s article, with further comments from Tom here.

Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon, by Nina Funnell (23 June 2016) Australia. Feminists turn on their male allies. Again. And in November Nina’s at their throats again.

Reddit discussion thread concerning RSL employee forced to recite White Ribbon pledge (29 February 2016) See also detailed comment by ‘Imnotmrabut’

Domestic violence and White Ribbon day – help change the debate, by Bettina Arndt (21 November 2015) Australia

The secrets and lies of White Ribbon (November 2015)

Men’s anti-Domestic Violence advocate says scourge “is a male problem” (13 September 2015) Unlike Tanveer Ahmed this WRC Ambassador stuck to the script … good boy Dean … good boy <pat on head>

White Ribbbon misinformation (11 September 2015)

Say goodbye to the burly blue-collar face of unions: they’re now feminist (4 June 2015)

Paul Elam from AVfM on the White Ribbon Campaign (4 December 2014) Video interview

Video critical of White Ribbon Campaign blocked in Australia (1 December 2014)

White Ribbon Australia lies – Interview with Dr Greg Canning (24 November 2014)

False claims undermine good causes (24 November 2014)

White Ribbon Day overestimates reported rapes eight-fold (25 November 2014)

White Ribbon Australia fraud exposed (23 November 2014) with more related details here, including the statement:

Please click on the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ tag at the bottom of this page to see further blog posts related to this organisation.

On the suggestion that women-only police stations might help the fight against domestic violence

I first came across this proposal in a post within the Facebook page of the feminist advocacy group ‘Domestic Violence NSW’. I contributed a comment which they quickly removed (as recounted in another of my blog posts), and which I will now re-iterate and expand upon here.

In the article Women-only police stations an effective way to target domestic violence, law professor says, Professor Kerry Carrington is quoted as saying that:

“Women’s access to justice is the key thing and the key things that most women complain about is not being believed, not being heard, not having appropriate support or response.

“That’s one of the key findings of most research, and of course that puts police in the firing line, but one way of alleviating that is to have specially trained police who work in these police stations.”

(Professor Kerry Carrington is Head of the School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, and author of Feminism and Global Justice, Routledge, 2015. Her original blog post on this subject can be accessed here)

But Prof. Carrington doesn’t just want specially trained police, she wants specially trained female police. In fact Prof. Carrington’s idea goes even further than that, calling for women-only police stations, a proposal that carries with it more than a whiff of separatism or gender apartheid.

In terms of enhancing the battle against domestic violence, to what extent would Ms. Carrington’s idea contribute above and beyond that which is, or could be, achieved with the existing system of mixed-gender police stations?

It’s probably fair to assume that some women would be more comfortable reporting domestic abuse to female police officers. I certainly understand and support that with respect to (for example) having female officers assist traumatized female rape victims. As a consequence one tangible benefit of women-only police stations could be an increase in the percentage of female victims of domestic violence lodging reports of violence.

But even if that were the case, would these further reported crimes translate into more effective sanctions, and eventually a corresponding reduction in rates of perpetration? I’m not convinced.

And given that the percentage of male victims of domestic violence currently lodging reports is substantially lower than for female victims (7% vs 21%), then perhaps addressing that segment should be accorded a higher priority?

I think we can assume that it is not Ms. Carrington’s intention to press for one male-only police station for every two female-only stations (to reflect the fact that one in three victims of domestic violence are male). Thus the proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it provides a publicly-funded service for women in the absence of a similar service for men

Another point to consider is that domestic violence is only one of many crimes dealt with by local police stations. Even if women-only police stations were more effective at addressing domestic violence, would it be practical and cost-effective to establish special police stations to tackle one particular crime?

In the broader scheme of things, additional reports of domestic violence might well result in incremental increases in government funding for the domestic violence industry. But one has to ask just how effective has that consortium’s efforts been in reducing the incidence of domestic violence over recent decades? Hardly inspiring, I would suggest.

And what of other potential negative aspects of Ms. Carrington’s suggestion?

        • It reinforces the false view that women are more empathetic and/or that male police officers are incapable of displaying empathy (even specially trained ones)
          • It reinforces the false view that domestic violence is limited to men’s violence towards women (and ignores the reality of male victims and female perpetrators)
          • It reinforces the notion that it is appropriate to have differing systems of justice for men and women, rather than one uniform and consistent justice system for all Australians
      • It may be the case that some citizens would be subject to inconvenience, or even additional danger, as a result of finding themselves further removed from a traditional mixed-gender police station. There would be some additional cost associated with the proposal, and thus there would be a corresponding ‘opportunity cost’ in that funds would be unavailable for alternative and perhaps more effective measures aimed at curbing domestic violence

See also:

Police officer sacked for ‘wholly inappropriate’ grooming of vulnerable and suicidal teenager (16 June 2019) UK

Shocking vision of hair pulling exchange between woman and police officer (22 June 2018)

AFP’s call for female recruits causes major stir online (1 October 2017)

Female police officers much more likely to kill unarmed suspects than male police officers (5 December 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Related reddit mensrights discussion thread #1

News5 Investigates: CSPD veteran officer says she was forced into early retirement over new physical fitness exam (24 June 2015)

Queensland researcher to start world-first study into women-only police stations (22 June 2015)

Related reddit mensrights discussion thread #2

Do Female Officers Improve Law Enforcement Quality? Effects on Crime Reporting and Domestic Violence Escalation (October 2013)

Disturbing Eyewitness Video Captures Calif. Officer Fatally Shooting Unarmed Homeless Man ‘About a Second’ After He Called Her a ‘B**ch’ (1 August 2013) and related reddit discussion thread

Freeze! I just had my nails done (16 March 2005) More female police = more civilians shot? Hmm.

‘DV Connect’ is “non-judgemental” (but men calling their helpline are sneaky perpetrators)

I read an article yesterday entitled ‘A connection to hope in a world of violence‘, concerning the operation of a charity active in the sphere of domestic violence and sexual assault called ‘DV Connect‘. It featured the usual feminist spin that comes with the territory, but the part that turned my stomach was the following:

“Every now and then a perpetrator calls, desperate to find where his spouse is. Often these men present themselves as victims, hoping to unearth the addresses where their partners might be seeking safety from the storm.

Now, just a quick reminder to readers that at least one third of the victims of domestic violence are men. Staff at DV Connect are apparently so astute that they can confidently differentiate between those men (actual victims) and that very small minority of men who are actually abusers. A remarkable feat by any standards.

In their web site DV Connect describe themselves as follows:

“DVConnect is the only state wide telephone service offering anyone affected by domestic or family violence a free ‘crisis hotline’ 24 hours a day 7 days a week

We offer free, professional and non-judgemental telephone support, wherever you live in Queensland.

DVConnect Womensline takes over 4000 calls every month from Queensland women who are in fear of or in immediate threat of danger from Domestic or Family Violence, and on average we assist over 350 of them and often more than 400 children to be moved to safety every month.

We can arrange practical assistance such as counselling, intervention, transport and emergency accommodation for Queensland women and children who are in danger from a violent partner or family member”.

Yes, you read that correctly, their telephone support is “non-judgemental”. I guess they just mean the service provided for female callers, because they seem perfectly willing to judge the men who call … as mainly comprising perpetrators.

And notice how, within the space of a few lines, they morph from an organisation providing services to “anyone affected by domestic or family violence“, to one that’s here to help “Queensland women“.

They actually do provide a Mensline service, which includes the offer of “specialist assistance for men who are seeking help and looking for ways to address their own use of violence and other destructive patterns in their personal lives and relationships”. Is a similar service promoted in the corresponding Womensline page? Ah, no, because Queensland women are apparently never violent.

Further details about the discriminatory manner in which the Mensline service operates can be found in this reddit discussion thread.

I was unable to locate DV Connect within the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission’s register, but their 2013/14 annual report can be downloaded here. A few extracts illustrating the gynocentric bias within this organisation are shown below:

(p9) “We not only work with almost every specialist and community service throughout Queensland around the safety needs of women and children but we also have the unique position of having a ‘helicopter view’ of the sector as a whole … The physical and psychological safety of women and children living with domestic violence is the overriding focus of our work both on Womensline and Mensline.”

(p14) “An even smaller number of men call Mensline because of violence from a female partner or family member. Often this violence is on a very different level to that experienced where the male is the perpetrator of violence. Most of these situations do not have the element of fear in these relationships …”

(p17/18) “Sadly, hundreds of women, children and their beloved pets across Queensland are constrained in violent and fearful relationships because the fear and practical challenges of leaving are just too overwhelming.”

“Every month in Australia six women die at the hands of their intimate partner, at least one of them is from Queensland” and “Sadly in the year ended June 2014 we held 10 rallies for 18 women who died at the hands of their male partners“.

Minimal mention is made of male victims, apparently less important than pets. And when they are acknowledged (as above) their experience is discounted/diminished. And no mention anywhere, in the entire report, of female perpetrators.

I wish I could say that this type of unfair gender-stereotyping was rare or unusual, but I can’t. The fact is that most organisations working in the field, both government and non-government, are just as biased. Their web pages, their helplines, and their brochures and PR material, all relentlessly drive home a message of men as perpetrators and women as their victims. I provide a few examples of this in other posts within my blog, such as this one.

One of the outcomes of this situation is that only a small number of men call seeking assistance and/or to report what is happening in their homes. I would further suggest that another outcome is the large number of suicides by men involved in situations of actual or alleged domestic violence.

Perversely, DV advocacy groups then use this fact (very small number of male callers versus female callers) to to ‘prove’ their claims that very few men are victims of domestic violence. They also use it as a basis for, for example, reducing the level of services provided for men whilst ramping up the services for women.

Men know full well that they won’t be taken seriously if they call these organisations, and that they may be accused of being perpetrators in denial. Many also know that even if they are given a sympathetic hearing then there are no actual support services available to them (e.g. beds in shelters). In fact, by and large, the only services provided for men are anger management classes (yet, ironically, no such classes are available for the women abusing them).

And invariably (and ridiculously) when anyone dares to question the status quo they are attacked on the basis that they are either ignorant, wilfully denying that women are victims of DV and/or uncaring about the plight of female victims.

But back now to DV Connect’s annual report. The financial statement included within the report informs us that the organisation’s total revenue in 2014 was $3,231,446. The statement does not provide a breakdown of their revenue sources, which is somewhat unusual. I have, however, subsequently been advised by the relevant agency that:

“DVConnect Ltd received $2,853,133 in 2013-2014 and $2,666,064 in 2012-2013 from the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to provide domestic and family violence and sexual assault support services.”

As is typical for the sector, the overwhelming bulk of DV Connect’s expenditure goes towards salaries and employee-related expenses:

“DVConnect now employs 54 staff including a small management and administration team and almost 50 counselling staff all of whom work varying shifts to cover our 7 day 24 hour telephone service.”

In May 2015 it was announced that “DV Connect will receive an extra $750,000 per year for two years, on top of existing funding ($3.17m in 2014/15) for services including counsellors to expand its Womensline telephone support service.”

This reddit.com discussion thread discusses the discriminatory nature of the Mensline service, and calls on people to write letters in an attempt to resolve this situation.

Further information about DV Connect is available from their web site and Facebook page

And elsewhere in Queensland?

nooptionstoreport

Here are two screenshots from the web site of a Queensland Government agency. The wording assumes that any men seeking help in relation to domestic violence are perpetrators, and that any women seeking help are victims.

Unfortunately this bias is replicated in the web sites of other similar Australian government and non-government agencies. One example, involving a Western Australian government agency, is addressed in another post in my blog.bias

Postscript 27 March 2015: In order to provide further insight into the mindset within DV Connect, let me relay what just occurred. I contributed a comment to the Facebook page of DV Connect, in relation to an item about the release of the QLD Task Force report on family violence. I simply noted that I had prepared some comments on the report and included a link to the relevant page (refer screensave below). By the next morning the comment that I posted had been removed from public view. It seems that DV Connect wants to prevent their supporters accessing alternative perspectives. That looks a lot like ‘controlling behaviour’ to me.

dvconnectdvconnect2

To the left is what I see when I visit DV Connect’s page whilst logged-in to my Facebook account. The screen-save below shows what is visible to members of the public, i.e. no comments

 

 

Postscript 14 April 2015: Further censorship with the removal of my comment in response to an inaccurate statement in the DV Connect web site. I simply cited the relevant ABS statistic, but I guess the reality that men face more violence than women was just too triggering.

DVconnect_zap

 

 

On 11 September 2015 Di Mangan was quoted as saying that they couldn’t justify running the Mens Helpline on a 24 hour basis as so few calls were being received. Gee, I wonder why?

Fast forwarding now to January 2016 and along comes another advertorial for DV Connect, naturally with male victims & female perps air-brushed out of the picture.

This January 2016 article includes the following quote from the CEO of DV Connect:

“Mangan said abusive men were “emboldened” by the public murders that shook Queensland in 2015, noting that many of the calls received by DV Connect were from men warning that they wanted to harm their partners. Some of the men wanted help while others were calling to make a threat.”

In November 2017, the Courier-Mail published ‘DV Connect chief executive Diane Mangan axed from role amid dispute‘. I’d like to think this move was about improving efficiency & accountability, rather than just personalities, but have little faith in either of the parties involved.

The sort of gender discrimination practiced by DV Connect has been discontinued in one part of the United Kingdom as described in this November 2017 article by HEquel.

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in these posts:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

My submission to the Premier’s Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland

My response to the report of the Queensland Task Force on Family Violence

Dubious public policy borne from the denial of female violence

Whilst browsing the daily news I came across an article entitled Domestic violence register to protect women who fear their partners’ past (6 March 2015)

(If you haven’t already read my blog post about violent behaviour by women, then now would be a good time to do so)

Mike Baird (Premier of New South Wales, Australia) has proposed the establishment of a register of violent men. The intention is that potential female partners can check to see if their ‘person of interest’ has a track-record of abuse.

Mike’s proposal is based on a system now operating in the United Kingdom, known as Clare’s Law. Thus far I have been unable to locate any serious analysis of the efficacy of the UK system. The Premier has promised to introduce the system if re-elected. Has his staff determined that the proposed system would be likely to be effective? To be cost-effective? Does he really care? Or is the perceived potential for electoral mileage sufficient to justify a scheme that will no doubt involve a considerable outlay of taxpayer dollars?

“It is understood the list will first be made up only of men convicted of a charge of domestic assault, but the government will consider extending this to men who are the subject of an ADVO after consultation with the Justice Department.

Safeguards will be put in place so that people asking if someone is on the register have to prove they are in a domestic relationship.”

At this stage the operational details are unclear and many questions remain unanswered. For example:

How would women prove that they are in a relationship with the man in question?

What measures would be taken to prevent men being listed on the basis of false allegations?

How much will the register cost to establish and maintain, and will such a service significantly affect the rates of perpetration of domestic violence? Or will it, in fact, make any difference at all?

It is of concern that a political leader would contemplate such a ‘service’ without thought being given to the fairness and desirability of including violent women. That this fellow has done so demonstrates just how far under the spell of feminism our leaders seem to have fallen. And unfortunately the NSW opposition party offers the community no better alternative in this regard.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it reinforces the negative and inaccurate stereotype that domestic violence consists entirely of men abusing women, and that women do not perpetrate violence.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it denies to men whatever limited protection the register might provide to women.

It may well be that after Mike’s proposal has been subject to proper analysis and consultation, it will be found to be non-viable. If it is to proceed, however, then the records of everyone with a history of violence must be made accessible.

“Premier Mike Baird and Minister for Women Pru Goward said the groundbreaking registry, announced on Friday, would be set up if they win the state election on March 28. “Quite frankly, I’m sick of excuses,” Mr Baird said“.

Well quite frankly I’m sick of politicians pandering to the feminist movement by diverting millions of dollars of public funds each year either directly to feminist organisations, or towards projects for which they demand public funding. Feminists whose voices, by the way, represent less than one in five Australian women.

My concerns would be mitigated if, at the end of the day, there were clear benefits for the Australian community. More often than not, however, the outcome is one that sees the Government achieve very little with regard to the problem/s that they originally claimed they set out to address. Conversely, the collateral damage and the wasted opportunities that result from such a course of action are not inconsequential. No matter, the next news cycle will no doubt provide some convenient diversion.

Update 2 April 2015: Mike Baird was re-elected and has now appointed feminist Pru Goward as the first ever ‘Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’

Update 22 May 2015: The NSW Government has released a discussion paper on the DV register concept. The receipt of public submissions in relation to this document ended on 19 June 2015. I provided a submission noting, amongst other things, my concern that the discussion paper did not explicitly state that both men and women were to be included in the register.

Update 15 February 2019: Violent offenders on GPS trackers to lower domestic violence in Australia (15 February 2019) A tech-ed up variation on the register concept – but will it make any difference in terms of decreasing the incidence of DV?

See also:

Queensland ‘initiative’ referred to here as an ‘Alternative Reporting Option’ (June 2018) I would imagine that there would be plenty of scope for abuse here

UK experience of domestic violence disclosure schemes is a cautionary tale for Australia (12 October 2016)

Violent offenders registers sound good, but are a costly, unproven distraction (8 July 2015)

Police call for family violence offender register (1 July 2015)

Is Michigan’s sex offender registry actually protecting us? (26 May 2015)

Early warning scheme for domestic violence (21 May 2015)

NSW domestic violence register to expose potential abusers (20 May 2015)

Put DV abusers on national register (14 March 2015) Features some interesting readers comments. The author, Wendy Tuohy, claims that the register will include violent women but I have been unable to obtain official confirmation of this. Even Mike Baird’s original media release is quite ambiguous on this point.

NSW state election 2015: Mike Baird beefs up domestic violence and sexual assault laws (6 March 2015)

Domestic violence register could lead to increased not guilty pleas, privacy experts warn (6 March 2015)

Video item on the proposal as featured in the ‘Sunrise’ TV show which has generated a large number of viewer comments with a definite majority being supportive of the inclusion of violent women on the register

Domestic violence register won’t work: ALP (6 March 2015)

Sex offender registers often get raised in conversations about domestic violence registers – so here is an article on that topic: Sex Offender Registries (SOR’s): Time for a change (16 August 2014)

Clare’s Law: a violation of our private lives (28 November 2013)

Now people can be told of their partner’s violent past thanks to new law named after tragic murder victim (8 March 2014)

Clare’s Law: a simple solution, or more confusion? (25 November 2013)

Epidemic of Restraining / Protection Order Abuse by women against innocent men (31 July 2013) USA

Baird promises domestic violence minister (6 March 2015) Google ‘affectatious‘. How about a Minister for Road Safety? Minister for Prevention of Substance Abuse?