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.
“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“.
DV Connect provides both a Mensline and Womensline service. The Mensline page in their web site has been re-written since I originally wrote this post, and now makes mention of men seeking help as both perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. The Womensline page assumes that women can only be victims of domestic violence despite this being obviously untrue.
Details regarding how the Mensline services operates in a discriminatory manner 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Postscript 6 March 2022: This form of anti-male gender-bigotry is now VIC government policy
“I’m proud to announce the Palaszczuk Government is providing additional funding of $2 million to DVConnect to keep up with the high demand”said Shannon Fentiman (3 August 2022).
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“.
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 25 January 2023:New domestic violence scheme is a quick fix for a massive issue. Zero mention of female perpetrators or male victims, but they happily predict that there needs to be “resourcing the specialist domestic violence sector to provide critical referrals and support to victim-survivors engaging with the scheme”. You can almost hear all those feminist hands rubbing together.
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.
Way back at the start of my career I was responsible for coordinating the undertaking of a major social survey. It was a face-to-face survey using randomly selected households across an area of the city. It asked people a wide range of questions about their leisure pursuits and many related issues. It covered the whole range of leisure activities from solo and/or passive and/or indoor pursuits to team sports and various outdoor activities. I designed the questionnaire in conjunction with staff from an internationally-recognised market research company.
The results of the survey were very interesting indeed. One of the most striking, and unanticipated findings was the huge degree of difference along gender lines, but not in terms of participation rates in specific activities, in terms of participation in anything. There were very few activities in which girls/women participated more than boys/men, and many in which they rarely/never participated. I remember thinking “what on earth are they doing with their time?” And no, this disparity could not readily be put down to obvious factors like a lack of facilities for women/girls.
Now many years later I know that there are many other areas of life, in which men are much more actively involved than women. I know there are contributing factors applying to some women in some situations, for e.g. many women are more involved in child rearing than are men. Feminists will no doubt point to further unseen patriarchal forces at work that, they say, prevent or discourage the participation of women in many fields. Whatever. For the purpose of this post I won’t delve into minutiae. And i’m not judging either men or women on the basis of this situation. Let’s just run with the simple premise that, overall, men do more of most things.
If men are doing more of most things then it follows that men are probably doing more bad things (including relatively benign things that feminists think of as being bad). And they are doing most of these things in the public gaze. This includes everything from driving more, being elected to government more, starting and running companies more, fighting more, etc.
The fact that men are doing more ‘bad’ things makes them an easy target for demonisation. It attracts a swathe of criticism in and of its own right. Women are also doing all of the same things but to a correspondingly lesser extent, so can more easily be portrayed as ‘better’ persons.
Today I came across an old article that took it one step further. It was in that tedious and censorious pro-feminist rag, ‘The Guardian‘.
In this article men are doing more of a good thing, but are still being castigated for doing so. Because if men are more actively involved then it can only be because women are being excluded, or men are going behind their back, etc. Feminist logic 101.
This author – again, in the Guardian – says that men leave more comments in online fora … and this is mens fault? silencing/oppressing women? He even suggests that women are using male names online for “protection” – huh!? When surveys show that men attract more online harassment/trolling than do women? There is some serious denial going on here.
What can I say? I’ll come back later when I’ve cooled down a bit, and tell you
Shyness is the feeling of apprehension, lack of comfort, or awkwardness especially when a person is in proximity to other people. This commonly occurs in new situations or with unfamiliar people.
Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.
Both shyness and obesity have a physiological, psychological/behavioural and genetic dimension. To some extent, and depending on the individual, both shyness and obesity may be involuntary rather than chosen patterns of behaviour. In both cases certain negative stereotypes are assigned to members of these two groups by people of both genders. So while they are different issues, they are also similar in some ways.
Despite these similarities, however, the feminist approach to these two groups of people is quite different. Many feminists think that dissing shy guys is perfectly acceptable because they recognise them as losers, sociopaths and/or misogynists. On the other hand feminists stridently assert that dissing fat women is reprehensible, and that such women deserve our respect and support. Why is this so?
It is worth noting that the feminist attitude towards shy guys is inconsistent not just in relation to their approach to chunky women, but also with respect to negative feminist attitudes towards stereotypically masculine patterns of behaviour, particularly assertive and controlling behaviours.
Shy guys:
Just google on ‘shy guys misogynist’, ‘shy guys MRA’ or ‘shy guys sociopath’ and you’ll quickly uncover feminist/white knight gems like these:
Finally, this article by Ian Miles Cheong discusses feminist concerns regarding the nerdy men portrayed in the TV series ‘The Big Bang Theory’ (3 September 2017)
I have absolutely nothing personal against Rosie Batty, and in fact as a parent myself I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who has lost a child under such horrific circumstances. Her tragic loss has provided her with a unique and potentially valuable insight, but it does not qualify her to direct public policy on dealing with domestic violence in the community. She is but one person affected by a scourge that has affected thousands of Australians.
This is a complex topic and we need to hear about, and be open to, the experiences and opinions of many others. We should also ensure that we consider different theoretical/ideological perspectives and not, as is done now, exclude serious consideration of all but one approach (feminism/Duluth Model).
Rosie has transformed herself and/or allowed herself to be transformed, into a veritable battering ram for the domestic violence industry. Feminist advocates and their allies in the media and political sphere have, like so many roman centurions, arranged themselves around her and are pressing her forward. Broader political events here in Australia have added further momentum as politicians look about for suitable populist issues with which to score cheap points and/or divert attention from other matters. This is patently obvious in Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s adoption of DV as one of his personal cause celebre.
This focussing of attention could have been a great thing in terms of getting decisive action on the issue of family violence and related issues like child abuse and elder abuse. But it won’t be. It won’t be because the whole episode is being choreographed by the archly-feminist domestic violence industry.
As a result all we will get is more of the same old failed and shockingly biased resourcing decisions and ‘initiatives’:
The continued turning-the-other-way when it comes to supporting male victims of DV and their children
The continued turning-the-other-way in relation the incidence of violent behaviour by women
The continued insistence that both the problem and its solution rests entirely in the hands of men
The continued emphasis on the discredited ‘Duluth model‘ of theorising domestic violence
The continued pouring of millions of dollars of public funds towards feminist consultants and advocacy groups
The creation of yet more consultative groups and the convening of more inquiries/royal commissions.
None of which have been proven to have any significant effect on reducing actual rates of perpetration and/or re-offending
And thus now we are witnessing a competition amongst state and federal politicians as to who cares the most about domestic violence, with ‘care’ manifesting itself through hideously costly inquiries and hand-outs to advocacy groups.
“The mother of Luke Batty says Australians need to have a greater understanding of family violence. Rosie Batty has also urged men to address the problem, in a long and emotional interview less than a week after her 11-year-old son was killed by his father at a Victorian cricket ground.”
Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten seized the opportunity of Rosie’s appointment to climb higher upon the feminist bandwagon by calling for a federal Royal Commission on domestic violence. Someone should remind him that a federal inquiry is already underway and is due to report in March 2015.
Predictably the media then went to the Government to ask them whether they would support a national Royal Commission. Thank goodness that the Government stood its ground against this misguided proposal – at least thus far – although they did make other concessions.
Ken Lay is one of the most well-recognised ‘white knights‘ on behalf of the Australian feminist movement, known for his frequent use of the incorrect statement that the “overwhelming majority” of domestic violence was perpetrated by men upon women.
I posted a quite cordial comment in response to this article but gee whiz, look what happened:
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Imagine that, a pro-feminist news source (The Guardian) censoring a (polite and non-threatening) dissenting viewpoint. Seriously now, this happens so often that I really must get into the habit of creating screen-saves each time I post a comment. (And so I did – refer below)
Rosie Batty on why passion must lead to change on family violence (7 Feb 2015) In this article Rosie again makes no mention of the existence of male victims or female perpetrators. Rosie also suggests that the courts are biased towards the interests of the men’s rights movement and the rights of fathers.
‘Stop blaming the victim’: Rosie Batty to address MPs (2 March 2015) Rosie admits that the factors driving violent behaviour are “not readily understood“, whilst in the same paragraph asserting that it’s all about “gender inequality and “men’s sense of entitlement that a woman is their possession“. Except for violence committed by women, of course.
“The prospect of a feminist party in Australia intrigues Ms Batty. But she is not sure if she would make the giant step from activist to politician. “I would never discount it … who knows, all I do know is that I genuinely want to make a difference and so if I was comfortable and confident that I could make a significant difference through a political career, I think I would definitely consider that. I think it would be a real privilege to be given that opportunity.””
Is Rosie Batty Using Her Child’s Death For Her Own Fame And Fortune? (25 Jan 2015) Whilst many will consider this an unduly harsh and cynical assessment of the situation, I’ll let you be the judge as to the validity of the points raised within the context of the broader Australian DV debate.
In exchanges within the reader’s comments section that follow various articles on the topic of DV, I have noted supporters of Ms Batty asserting that she is a champion for all victims of domestic violence. Her own Twitter profile makes it quite clear that is not the case.
“As Scott Morrison prepared to step in as Social Services Minister, his new department was contacting housing advocacy groups and other community services providers on Monday to inform them their funding had been cut and contracts with the Commonwealth would be discontinued.
Social Services posted letters responding to requests for grants from the community sector for ongoing and new funding streams after a process first announced in March.
The government has previously warned it could satisfy just $800 million of the $3.9 billion in grants requested by the sector.” (Source)
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says he axed funding for a refugee organisation just two weeks after guaranteeing it in the budget because he believes taxes should not be propping up advocacy groups.
“It’s not my view, it’s not the Government’s view, that taxpayer funding should be there to support what is effectively an advocacy group,” Mr Morrison said.
“They’re entitled to be an advocacy group; they do very good work in the community and the Government will continue to support that organisation for contracted services.
“But in terms of administrative funding for an advocacy group, in a tough budget like this, frankly I just formed the view that taxpayer funds were not going to be spent on those types of activities.”
Many groups have been affected by these cuts, not just immigration advocacy groups such as the one referred to above. Not only Scott Morrison but other Ministers have, in justifying the cuts, been at pains to differentiate between those organisations who provide “advocacy” and those that provide “frontline services” to those in need.
As I ran my eyes over the list of groups for whom funding has been withdrawn, one curious thing stands out. No groups that cater predominantly to the welfare of women or girls appear on the list, not even those that are quite clearly advocacy groups who do not provide frontline support services.
Consider the example of ‘Our Watch’, a feminist group within the domestic violence sector, who seem to have emerged from the budget maelstrom unscathed. Indeed ‘Our Watch’ received $4,675,550 in government funding in 2013/14, whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations.
What’s more, that sum incorporated only a portion of total promised federal funding of $13.1 million. ‘Our Watch’ will also act as a middle-man (oops) and conduit for additional government funding for sporting groups that successfully compete for the feminist tick of approval. Why it was considered appropriate to delegate this role to an NGO defies logic.
Turning our attention now to those groups that were subject to cuts in government funding. Some of those groups appear to cater to a predominantly male clientele, and I’m thinking in particular of those providing services to the homeless.
Why is this so? Surely if we did in fact exist within a patriarchy then the opposite should be true? Or could it be that feminists/white knights are the ones that really wield the power in Canberra? Is taking an axe to any organisation that has the feminist lobby’s tick of approval now just too scary for our civic ‘leaders’ to contemplate?
“We welcome your comments, or additional information which is relevant to a post. These can be added by clicking on the ‘Add your comment’ option above. Please note that the Parliamentary Library will moderate comments, and reserves the right not to publish comments that are inconsistent with the objectives of FlagPost. This includes spam, profanity and personal abuse, as well as comments that are factually incorrect or politically partisan.”
I considered it to be a rather biased and obviously pro-feminist attempt at addressing the issue of WRD and domestic violence. I subsequently submitted a comment that pointed out the one-sided nature of the information presented, noting that many had concerns about the approach adopted by the White Ribbon movement, and mentioning some of the issues noted elsewhere in this blog.
Anyway my comment never emerged from moderation and so I wrote to the head of the Parliament House Library, Dr Dianne Heriot, on 1 December 2014:
“Dear Dr Heriot I’m sorry to trouble you with this matter but I could not find an email address related to the Flagpost section of your web site. Would you mind please passing it on to the relevant member of staff?
Some days ago I posted a response to an article in Flagpost (URL below), and received an auto message that it would be reviewed by a moderator. My comment, which was quite inoffensive, never appeared and I am wondering what happened. As other items in Flagpost all seem to be lacking any comments, perhaps any such comments have been lost in the system (?) Pls advise.”
Joanne James, Director Client Relations, responded the same day, stating:
“Dr Heriot has asked me to respond to your enquiry. Your comment was received on Friday afternoon, and was forwarded on this morning to the author of the post for consideration (we do not work on the weekends). We do not receive a lot of comments on our blog, but we do receive quite a bit of spam directed as comments – these tend to take a bit of time to sift through.
Janet will consider your thoughts as soon as possible, but as it is a sitting week, she may be caught up with other requests from the parliament.”
I thanked Joanne and waited patiently until 16 December 2014, when I wrote to her again:
“Hi Joanne. Just touching base again about the reader comment I contributed.
The comment has yet to be uploaded, nor have I heard from Janet. Given that my comment does not appear to breach your posting guidelines, it would be appreciated if you would kindly pass on a gentle reminder. You mentioned that not many people contribute comments to the blog – this might be one reason.”
Thus finally on the 17th December 2014 I received the following news:
“I have spoken to the author and their Director. They advise that the comment wasn’t published as it was deemed not to be relevant to the post, which was specifically about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day).
They also indicated that the Parliamentary Library paper referred to in the post, Domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, updates several previous Parliamentary Library publications specifically on the levels of violence experienced by women in Australia. The paper acknowledges that men experience high levels of violence and refers readers to the ABS Personal Safety Survey for more detail on the nature of the violence experienced specifically by men in Australia.”
Harking back to the comment that I originally submitted (and of which I regrettably neglected to retain a copy), let’s just quickly run through the Library’s criteria to see if I crossed the line:
Spam – no, profanity – no, personal abuse – no, factually incorrect – I don’t believe so, politically partisan – no. That just leaves “the objectives of FlagPost“, so I wrote back to Joanne seeking details thereof.
Jonathan Curtis, head of the research branch in the Library, kindly wrote back to me on 19 December 2014 advising:
“The general objective that appears on the website is: “FlagPost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament”. More generally, it is to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.
However, as Joanne noted, your comment was not published because the Director considered that it was not directly relevant to main subject of the post.”
So in other words ‘we reserve the right to use hitherto unmentioned reasons to block reader feedback in relation to our articles, as and when it runs contrary to the personal views of the author’.
My subsequent response to Jonathan read as follows:
“Thank you for getting back to me with those further details.
So it would appear that I was correct in my assumption that my comment was blocked on the basis of criteria other than those stipulated in your web site.
The article provided background to White Ribbon Day, together with a degree of embellishment that presumably reflected the author’s own perspective on the matter. In my comment I sought to indicate that many people have significant reservations about the appropriateness or effectiveness of addressing domestic violence by focussing solely on violence against women – this being at the core of the White Ribbon movement. I also sought to indicate the existence of reasonable and fairly widely-held concerns regarding the accuracy of statements made by White Ribbon Campaign to support their position.
You note the primary function of the Library as being “to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.” I believe that it is vitally important that our elected representatives are kept abreast of alternative perspectives, rather than only being exposed to one particular position that happens to be most in vogue at the time.
I believe that blocking the voices of those who question or disagree with a particular position put forward by a member of the Library’s staff amounts to censorship of the basis of ideology, and that that is not an appropriate function of an Australian library. This same view is noted for example at http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/public_libraries/docs/accesstoinformation.pdf:
“A public library has a role as an unbiased source of information and ideas, including online content. It must accept responsibility for providing free access to materials and information presenting, as far as possible, all points of view on current and historical issues, including controversial issues.””
Deleting blog posts is so much cleaner and easier than burning books. It’s a win/win situation … for feminism and the environment.
One of the pillars of feminism is that all women are in a state of perpetual victimhood, with one of the key reasons for this being the alleged violent and controlling nature of men. Feminists support this bias, in part, by pointing at the far greater percentage of jail inmates that are male. They assert that this is indicative that most crimes, especially serious crimes, are committed by men.
The situation is not that simple however given that there is clear evidence of substantial and widespread gender bias at every step of the law & order process within the justice systems of western democracies.
Yet feminists, who claim to be motivated by a desire for greater gender equality, have no interest in reducing this disparity. Instead they are lobbying to make this justice gap even broader (see this article, with further examples amongst the various linked articles listed below).
“Formella, who married her high school sweetheart in a lavish destination wedding in Italy’s Amalfi Coast just nine months before the charges were laid, has claimed she’s being “framed for being good looking”.
Her family have recently further fuelled allegations of being set up by claiming Formella is the victim of misogynistic “sexist scrutiny” and bemoaned being painted as a “predator”, the New York Post reports.
“It’s a spectacle — a public ritual that punishes women not for what they’ve done, but for how they’re perceived,” a rep for Formella’s family told the publication in a statement on Thursday.
“When men face accusations, we discuss evidence and procedure. When women face accusations, we attack their character, their choices, and their worth as human beings. This isn’t justice — it’s gender-based persecution disguised as accountability.”
Norfolk woman ‘could have killed’ ex-partner she stabbed (19 January 2024) “In passing an 18-month sentence, suspended for two years, Recorder Brooke said it was “by a whisker” that he had pulled back from imposing an immediate custodial sentence”.
“Ruth Smith, for Kim Crapper, said her client was in a “controlling, toxic and abusive relationship” and felt “powerless and helpless”. She said Crapper was manipulated by her husband who “drew her” into committing the abuse.” (Source) aka ‘He made me do it!’
My son is found ‘not guilty’, by Bettina Arndt (18 May 2022) An example of how the ‘justice’ system can, and often does, rip into young men accused of crimes against women/girls – and the terrible effect that this has on them and their families
Woman who ‘stomped’ on teen’s testicles over $100 drug debt sentenced (18 February 2022) Australia. “County Court Judge Mark Dean on Friday said Sommer’s prospects for rehabilitation would be better if she was handed a community corrections order rather than a jail sentence“. Of course … #FacePalm
Sally Challen defence QC leads domestic homicide review – BBC News (10 September 2021) “The fear is women – who are themselves victims – are serving lengthy jail sentences for simply choosing to survive.” Of course, no mention of men as victims or women as perpetrators. Not biased at all … nuh uh, no way!
24 Hours in Police Custody fans ‘disgusted’ by ‘absolutely shocking’ verdict (13 April 2021) UK. A 16 month sentence for repeatedly abusing and then killing her partner
Instagram model jailed for bizarre masked robberies (22 September 2020) In news.com.au this article was entitled ‘Model sent to brutal women’s prison‘. Can you imagine an article entitled ‘Architect sent to brutal man’s prison’? It doesn’t have have quite the same heart-string tugging effect now does it?
What happens when an abused women fights back? (30 July 2019) So when a woman breaks a court DV order it’s wrong when they get sent to jail? Zero mention of men, of course, who are also victims and who fight back and get sent to jail.
Why doesn’t prison work for women? (29 September 2018) UK I’ll have to read this again to see if it suggested one single thing that was the fault of women, rather than men or some aspect of society at large. Whereas men, well, they can suck it up can’t they?
“On Tuesday, judge John Cook sentenced her to 10 years in prison on each of four felony counts, relating to the inappropriate relationship, but suspended all but 12 months, including time served– so that means she has about 6 months left to serve”. Pussy-pass? SUCCESS
Female aggression is now increasingly being portrayed and seen as acceptable, and almost a hallmark of an empowered woman. Look for example at some of the speeches made by female celebrities following the election of President Trump in the USA.
The feminist logic appears to be:
Women are oppressed
Men are oppressors
Violence against the oppressors is liberation (Source: ‘Sinisus’)
Ms Garner’s comments aren’t unusual – I have simply chosen hers as but one example of a long line of articles/comments that I have read expressing similar sentiments. This is the flip-side of a culture increasingly being moulded by feminist organisations like ‘White Ribbon Campaign’, whereby female aggression is downplayed or completely ignored whilst male-perpetrated violence is exaggerated.
In July 2014 Whoopi Goldberg started a feminist firestorm with her comments on a US talk show in which she said that women should not hit their partners, and that if they did they should not be surprised if the man hit them back. Feminists have misrepresented Whoopi’s position as being one of supporting men who hit women, but in fact she just said that she supported the position of the innocent party who was hit first (whether that be a man or woman). Her position was that neither party had the right to hit the other.
Inherent in this discussion is the view amongst many feminist women that because men are bigger/stronger [which is not always the case] that men never had the right to hit women, regardless of whether the woman struck the first blow. The video clip of Whoopi’s statement is here, and here are some discussion threads and articles: Vfm article by Paul Elam, VfM discussion thread, reddit #1.
Twitter discussion thread regarding the excuse of ‘just a slap’, beginning with assertion by UK feminist organisation ‘Refuge’ that it is used to minimise violence against women (23 June 2020)
Women kicking balls, I’d like to see that (22 January 2017) New TV ad promoting women’s sport. Imagine an ad ‘Men grabbing pussy, I’d like to see that’. Appropriate or humorous? Didn’t work for Don Trump and this one will reflect poorly on the AFL.
Joe Mixon videos released (16 December 2016) Video. USA. NB: Hit someone and there’s a good chance you’ll get hit back. Women included. Welcome to equality.
Wife chops off cheating husband’s penis, twice (14 January 2015) Somehow I don’t think a story about a man cutting off his wife’s breast would be given the same whimsical treatment as per this article
I hold significant reservations in relation to the operation of the staunchly feminist group ‘Our Watch‘, formerly known at the ‘Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children‘. The feeling appears to be mutual as, despite being a law-abiding Australian taxpayer, I have been blocked from both their Facebook page and Twitter stream since late 2014.
My concerns include, but are not limited to:
The cost-effectiveness of allocating public monies to ‘Our Watch‘ with regards to achieving a measurable reduction in the incidence of domestic violence and/or providing tangible assistance to all victims of domestic violence
The extent to which the activities of ‘Our Watch‘ are driven by a desire to maximise the acceptance and influence of feminist ideology rather than a desire to maximise the two outcomes listed above
The effect of ongoing misrepresentations made by ‘Our Watch‘ in relation to the allocation of resources towards research into female perpetration of violence, the level of support provided to male victims of domestic violence, and the availability of counselling/treatment options for violent women and couples
On the first point, I believe that it is appropriate that the government both participate, and support the participation of others, in combating domestic violence and in assisting its victims. But this should be done in a manner that is both impartial and cost-effective. There should also be complete transparency and accountability on the part of both those allocating and those receiving public monies.
In 2013/14 ‘Our Watch‘ received a whopping $4,675,550 in government funding whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations. These funds were sourced from the federal government ($1 million/year) and the governments of Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. A financial report for ‘Our Watch’ can be sourced from the web site of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (see the relevant ACNC registry entry here and a related blog post here).
As with the White Ribbon Campaign (another Australian feminist DV advocacy group), ‘Our Watch‘ do not directly assist victims of domestic violence. Instead they rent office space, employ many feminists staff, and run various PR/’education’ campaigns. These campaigns are divisive and involve the dissemination of misinformation that demonises men whilst failing to deal with female perpetration of violence. I am dubious about the extent to which their campaigns reduce the incidence of domestic violence, and indeed this has yet to be demonstrated.
I note that former MP turned journalist Gary Johns was subjected to harsh criticism after querying the effectiveness of government funds being provided to advocacy groups like ‘Our Watch‘ in lieu of directly funding service provision by government agencies.
‘Our Watch‘ advocates for female victims of domestic violence, which in and of itself is a laudable goal. A problem arises however when ‘Our Watch’ justifies their focus by claiming that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men upon women, and then seeking to validate this assertion through the ongoing misrepresentation of information concerning patterns of DV perpetration (example).
I don’t think there is any doubt that statements by politically astute groups such as ‘Our Watch’ do have a significant influence on decisions by government in relation to policies, priorities and funding allocation related to the sphere of domestic violence. This has resulted in a situation whereby government agencies treat all men as potential (if not, actual) violent abusers, where there are almost no resources available to battered men (and their children), and violent women are essentially waved away until such time as they commit a serious felony.
Those who visit Our Watch‘s Facebook page and Twitter stream will note that surprisingly little of the communication emanating from that organisation is directly related to their purported area of primary concern – domestic violence. What you will see instead is considerable self-promotion, and a preponderance of material that could only be described as feminist propaganda.
On a visit to their Facebook page on 26 October 2014 for example I noted the following:
Reader Kath Kerr: It is not fair and it is not right that privileged men who murder are consistently granted lenient sentences.
Our Watch: Too many young people in Australia have witnessed acts of physical domestic violence against a parent. (No mention that equal number of kids have seen their mum abuse their dad, as have seen their dad abuse their mum – Source)
Our Watch: It’s time to stop asking what about men (in relation to this article)
Our Watch: Strong language Warning: Oh my! Language, ladies. *clutches pearls* This is F*cking brilliant and quite possibly the best thing on the internet. Ask yourself, What is more offensive? A little girl saying ‘f*ck’ or the f*cking unequal and sexist way society treats girls and women?” http://vimeo.com/109573972
Avril Mesh, Ben Lakos, Domestic Violence Resource Service Mackay and 63 others like this.
If any readers of my blog have yet to witness this video, and wish to see just how far feminism has fallen, then click on the above link (Strong language warning)
Ok, enough! And so I proceeded to raise my concerns with the ministers of those agencies that see fit to hand millions of our tax dollars over to ‘Our Watch‘ … namely the federal Government, the Northern Territory Government, and the Governments of Victoria and South Australia.
“Dear Minister
I write to you today to voice my strong objection to material posted in the facebook page of the group known as ‘Our Watch’ (refer attached ‘screensave’). I do so as I am aware that they receive a substantial amount of ongoing gov’t funding, and thus should be at least somewhat accountable to broader public standards.
I believe that their support for such an ‘initiative’ is reprehensible and they should be required to remove both this and other radical feminist material from their web site, twitter account and facebook page. I don’t know if you look at the material that they promote in their facebook page, but it is almost entirely either pure self promotion for key personnel or strongly pro-feminist ideological material that has only cursory relevance to the subject that is meant to be their focus – domestic violence.
Please would you act on this matter as it is clear that ‘Our Watch’ require much greater oversight if they are to continue to receive large amounts of taxpayer-funded support. Thank you for your anticipated prompt intervention concerning this matter.”
I subsequently received a response to my complaint from John Elferink, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, with the Northern Territory Government:
“I write to you in response to your email dated 28 October 2014 in regards to a Facebook post ‘Potty-Mouthed Kids Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com’ shared by the group ‘Our Watch’.
As you are aware the role of Our Watch is to drive long term cultural and attitudinal change from the ground up through community engagement and advocacy and working in close partnership with the Second Action Plan to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.
The Northern Territory Government is committed to reducing domestic violence. The financial contribution to Our Watch is just one of the ways that this Government is supporting initiatives which seek to drive attitudinal and cultural change.
Whilst the initiative that was placed on their Facebook page was divisive, this should not detract from the important work that Our Watch does in the primary prevention of violence sphere. I thank you for your vigilance in monitoring the material placed on the Our Watch social media pages and bringing it to my attention. I believe the offending post has since been removed and I have instructed the Domestic Violence Directorate to monitor the site content regularly.”
The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Federal Member for Menzies and Minister for Social Services sent the following reply dated 3 December 2014:
“I appreciate you raising your concerns regarding the link to a video Our Watch posted on 21 October 2014. Our Watch was established as an independent company by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in June 2013, as an initiative under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.
Our Watch will work to provide national leadership to prevent all forms of violence against women and their children. This will be done by changing attitudes, behaviours, social norms, and practices that create violence against women and children, including the promotion of gender equality. There is a growing body of evidence showing that people with a poor understanding of gender equality may also have attitudes and behaviours that support violence.
The long term outcome of Our Watch is to encourage public conversations in Australia to support gender equality and understand the links between gender inequality and violence against women. Content on the Our Watch Facebook page is chosen to engage people in the debate by raising awareness about the importance of gender equality, challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of women in our society.”
So there we have it … promoting a video of pre-teen girls swearing their heads off = providing “national leadership“, a further aspect of which involves Our Watch encouraging “public conversations” by removing dissenting Facebook posts and banning their authors from contributing further. Would the Minister be equally comfortable with a men’s rights group promoting a similar video “challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of (men) in our society.” Probably I guess, unless, of course that would involve facilitating just a little too much real gender equality.
The Hon Jay Weatherill MP, Premier of South Australia sent a very basic acknowledgement only, and the Hon Heidi Victoria, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women’s Affairs, Minister for Consumer Affairs, has yet to provide me with a response. I will update this post should such a response be received.
Oh, but look what happens when videos are made using allegedly right-wing kids who employ bad language, e.g. Joe Bernstein’s coverage of ‘Soph’. Clearly not seen as cool & empowering in that situation, huh? And yet another feminist double-standard (May 2019)
