Tag: sexism

Is it my imagination or does media coverage of mens health focus too much on shaming men?

Readers might be aware that there are a number of areas when men compare poorly with women in terms of disease prevalence and outcomes, rates of suicide, and overall life expectancy. I talk about some of these factors in my earlier post on men’s health.

Many factors contribute to this situation including aspects of male physiology, a propensity towards greater risk-taking in leisure pursuits, and working longer hours – sometimes in more dangerous occupations. Other individual factors include things like attention to diet and exercise, and receptiveness to seeking/receiving medical treatment.

Let’s try to split all the factors contributing to men’s poorer health outcomes into two groups, comprising those things that individual men can exercise significant control over versus those things that they can’t.

At the outset we must recognise that there is clearly a huge range of individual variation within male and female populations in relation to these factors with further variables like degree of education, income level, and age for example. Thus there are limits as to the extent that we can make meaningful generalisations about “all men” or “all women”. Further, in the case of some factors over which one might think people do have control, the extent to which an individual actually can exercise personal choice, is very limited in some cases. An example of this would be a poorly educated man choosing to engage in a risky occupation to support his family.

So what of the factors that most individuals don’t have any control over? Well one that springs to mind are decisions made by governments, health agencies and drug companies (for example), that determine funding priorities/subsidies/etc for medical research and treatment. To give an example, the fact that the death rate from prostate cancer is higher than for breast cancer might be more indicative of the disproportionately greater funding for breast cancer research and treatment than the extent to which men “take their health seriously“.

And yet despite the above, all too often the focus of campaigns and articles about men’s health seems to be an implied or overt suggestion that men’s health problems are of their own making – that if men weren’t so silly/lazy then everything and everyone would be better off.

For now I’ll just mention a few examples, with more perhaps to be added later.

I came across this article about a men’s health campaign fronted by well-known actor Samuel L Jackson. Jackson was visiting the UK to promote a new male cancer campaign called ‘One For The Boys’ that hopes to “change male mentality”. Apparently men in the UK are 60% more likely to get the cancers that affect all sexes and 70% more likely to die from these cancers.

The campaign is based on the premise that the higher incidence of cancer in men is caused by men neglecting their health. “If only men would only stop being so dumb and talk about our health then we’d stop dying from cancer in greater numbers.”

The author of the article disputes both the validity and appropriateness of this message, claiming that a major reason for the different rates of cancer between men and women is greater expenditure of research and treatment in relation to women’s health.

The author would prefer a more positive message for men, and suggests something more along the following lines:

“Listen brother, every man’s and woman’s life is precious so why are we putting less time, energy and money into fighting cancer in men? It doesn’t make sense to me. Is it any wonder that more men than women are dying of cancer every single day? Are you okay with that? I’m not. So here’s what we’re going to do. Us men, all of us, we’re going to get together and make sure we start putting more time, energy and money into fighting male cancer, cos that’s the only way we’re going to beat this goddam, mother***ing disease. So who’s with me? Are you with me brother? Are you with me?”

The author closes with: “Now that’s the kind of good man narrative that I’d be happy to be part of, and it could apply to any of the issues that men and boys face.”

Fast forward to February 2015 and Ice-T has established the Male Awareness Foundation (MAF), which appears to be in a similar vein. MAF is described as a non-profit organization whose mission is to reach men and boys where they live, work, play, and pray with sickness prevention messages and tools, screening programs, educational material, advocacy opportunities, and patient referrals.

Now the following media story may appear relatively benign, and the research was no doubt well-meaning, but male-shaming remains nonetheless quite apparent. On 6 October 2014 an item appeared on the television news entitled ‘Men at risk of mental health problems‘.

I subsequently wrote to the Australian HQ of the ‘Movember’ organisation to query whether the ‘problem is that men don’t take their health seriously’ angle for the story originated with them or whether the media created this angle of their own volition. I received the following reply the next morning:

“Thanks for your email this morning in response to the news coverage overnight.
With regard to the claim that some men don’t take their health seriously, this was a finding from a study we conducted last month into the attitudes Australian men have towards their health and well-being.  It revealed that 1 in 3 Aussie men don’t take their health seriously, in response to a specific question that asks whether they agree or not with the statement ‘I take my health seriously’.  We surveyed a representative sample of over 1,500 men from around the country, aged 18+.
The media reported it as 1/3 , so they (not Movember) are saying it’s all men.  In fact, it’s good to know that 2/3 do take health seriously, but there’s still some work to be done to raise awareness amongst the remaining 1/3 who don’t.
The purpose of the report is to shine a light on some of the challenges facing men and their health, with a view to raising awareness and sparking conversations about these issues, something the Movember aims to do through our annual Mo growing campaign.  It certainly wasn’t intended to denigrate men or portray them negatively.  We’re all about supporting men, raising awareness about their health and funding programs that help tackle prostate cancer, testicular cancer and men’s mental health.
I hope that answers your query, Chris.  Please do get back in touch if you have any further questions or concerns.” (Meagan Bell, Movember, 7 October, 2014)
I wrote back as follows:
“Thanks for your prompt response. Yes, I don’t disagree with the fact that some men need to take their health more seriously, and they should be encouraged and supported in doing so. My concern is that there are many factors contributing to men health problems, and that how seriously they take their health is but one of these. It is unfortunate though that this aspect – which brings with it an element of male-shaming – seems to more often than not be the focus of media articles and health campaigns. I would like to see more effort made to put this variable into a broader perspective of men’s health and for men to be encouraged – in a positive way – to do what they can to maintain good health.
Recognition must also be given to the fact that some contributing factors, like government support for medical research and treatment for men’s health issues versus the level of support given to women’s health issues – are not directly under men’s control.”
Another common assertion about men and their health – particularly mental health – is that men need to talk about things more. Especially their feelings.
A couple of issues crop up here:
When men do speak up they are often shamed or called things in the media/social media. Things like ‘whiny man-child’
Research and anecdotal evidence suggests that many men are not helped by talking about things, this approach only adding to their anxiety. Most likely this is a point of difference between most men and most women.
On this last point I asked for relevant references on Reddit mensrights and several relevant sources were nominated including this excellent discussion thread with more than 200 readers comments.
See also:

Movember rips off men’s health dollars, by Bettina Arndt (3 August 2025)

Dr Zac Turner on whether men should get a vasectomy (10 April 2022) “I believe his connection to ‘neutering’ with getting a vasectomy is grounded in toxic masculinity”. Mind you, if a woman was concerned about contraception and/or medical procedures then that *wouldn’t be* Toxic Femininity, clear? Thanks #newscomauHQ
Men Are Experiencing Historic Levels Of Loneliness – YouTube (6 August 2021) While shame is heaped onto men, the negative contribution of women (in relation to male illness or suicide) is conveniently removed from the picture
Poll: Men less likely to follow health guidelines amid Coronavirus outbreak (27 March 2020) But then reading items listed in this post, would suggest that many women are hardly being angels in this regard.
Alcohol deaths have risen sharply, particularly amongst women (10 January 2020) But nobody would dare shame women about this, now would they?
How’s your walnut, mate? Why men don’t like to talk about their enlarged prostate (4 May 2016) The second shaming article in ‘The Conversation‘ this week. The theme of this one is that men are ignorant. Author avoids mention of contentious issues like number of related male deaths and paucity of research funding relative to (for e.g.) breast cancer.
Men more reluctant to go to the doctor – and it’s putting them at risk (2 May 2016) Apparently masculinity is the problem (isn’t it always?)

Readers at ‘The Conversation’ call for an end to feminist bias and censorship (domestic violence)

I made mention of an Australian web site called The Conversation in an earlier post. The Conversation features articles that range from politics and general current affairs to more esoteric matters, with a marked predisposition towards the tastes and values of left-leaning progressive liberals.

Most readers comments seem to be penned by sycophantic members of the ‘chardonnay set’ and career academics, although it’s hard to say if they are truly representative of the overall readership given that many other comments are moderated into oblivion.

Feminism and feminist topics are heavily covered (example), whilst mens issues are all but ignored. As a consequence, The Conversation often runs articles concerning domestic violence, sexual assault, and the ‘wage gap’ with only minor variations around the standard feminist theme on those subjects.

On 1 October 2014 they ran an article entitled ‘Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence?‘ by Sarah Wendt. There was nothing exceptional about the article – it claimed that domestic violence was a gendered issue, made no mention of male victims or female perpetrators, and slipped in a promo for the author’s book. Absolutely typical of its genre really.

No, the exceptional part was the fact that almost all of the readers comments were critical of the biased treatment of the subject.  Later, many also raised the issue of the relatively large number of comments being removed. Some readers also queried why the author of the article had chosen not to contribute her thoughts regarding the unfolding discussion.

I launched into the fray quite early on, commenting thus:

“So “Domestic violence is about gender power relations”? What then of recent research that tells us that lesbian couples are the most predisposed towards partner violence?

So another article about domestic violence that assumes from the get-go that DV consists purely of men’s violence towards women and that any other form of DV is a rare aberration that is unworthy of serious consideration. These stats seem to tell a different story: http://www.oneinthree.com.au/storage/pdfs/1IN3_Fact_Sheets_Sept_2014.pdf with many more at http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

This ongoing feminist monopolisation of the DV debate is tired and its wrong. If we want to tackle the scourge of DV, rather than just lob grenades in a war against a mythical patriarchy, then we need to acknowledge, discuss and address the entire problem not just the bits that fit into the feminist narrative.”

Based on my earlier experience with The Conversation I was surprised by the lack of punitive action by the site’s moderator. All that changed the next afternoon, however, when the thought police suddenly appeared on the scene and removed sixteen of the comments. By the time the site stopped accepting readers comments at lunchtime the following day, a total of twenty-seven comments had been removed.

In a final hurrah before the editorial team took their bat and ball and ran home, Helen Westerman, Deputy Managing Editor at The Conversation, posted a comment stating that:

“Nowhere does this piece suggest that domestic violence does not affect men. We have run many pieces making the point that men are also subject to partner violence (by women or other men) and I thank the men here who have shared their experiences. They are moving and valid.

And I would ask that this understanding is also extended to the viewpoint of women around this topic and that women be allowed to speak about this issue. And I also thank the women who have left their experiences here. They are moving and valid.

Sadly, this debate so often this devolves into a zero sum game: if women’s perspectives on violence are written about, then somehow it means that men’s are being “ignored”. Simply not true.

The hard truth is whichever way you cut the cake, women are affected disproportionately more than men by domestic violence. However, men are more affected by violence in general.

Neither fact should make us feel particularly proud – and should make us want to change this situation. The common ground here is that it shouldn’t happen to anybody, not matter who is meting it out.

It makes for very uncomfortable reading and elicit strong emotions. But we’ve got to talk about it.” 

To this I replied:

“Helen, thank you for contributing your thoughts but please, your opening sentence is an embarrassingly poor defence in response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about both the bias of the article and in the subsequent moderation of comments.

Seriously, if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were reading an article about (only) male victims of domestic abuse … would you accept the excuse that “the article never said women were not victims”?

None of those commenting here have suggested that women not “be allowed to speak about this issue”, and that includes those comments that were binned. I think everyone, like myself, appreciates the opportunity to hear all perspectives on the subject. But this forum is for grown-ups and some questioning and rebuttal is an expected feature of adult ‘conversation’

Yes I agree, “we’ve got to talk about it”. Now about those moderated comments”

Highlights of the comments section included several insightful and incisive comments from psychologist Adam Blanch, including:

“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.

The partner abuse state of knowledge Project, the largest and most comprehensive meta study of DV ever conducted, makes this information freely available at http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf

The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.

PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.”

There was also this classic comment from a guy called Andy George:

“Definition of irony:

A website called ‘THE CONVERSATION’, publishes an article titled “Why don’t we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence” calling on people to talk about the issue, then censors comments that are from male victims of domestic violence but leaves the equivalent posts by women who were victims of domestic violence.”

Negative aspects of the comments section included examples of those tiresome, incorrect yet oft-repeated assertions of feminists that:

  • men should just listen to discussions about domestic violence but not contribute their thoughts (unless to offer unqualified agreement) because to do so only “derails” the discussion
  • men only raise the subject of male victims and/or female perpetrators in order to excuse/minimise the behaviour of male batterers and/or deny/minimise the experiences of battered women
  • by raising concerns about the appropriateness of feminists continually asserting that ‘domestic violence = men’s violence towards women’ men are attacking and denigrating female victims, and women generally

Anyway, well done to all the men and women who made the effort to bring the author’s sexist bias to account. Hopefully this will be a harbinger of the reaction to the inevitable future displays of sexism and gender bias at The Conversation, and in the media generally. Enough is enough.

See also:

Reddit discussion thread concerning moderation in relation to another article at The Conversation

A little less Conversation, by Institute of Public Affairs (undated)

“As the site’s charter admits, it hopes to ‘give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas’, and aims to work for the advancement of the ‘public good.’ It also promises to be ‘editorially independent’, provide ‘diverse’ content and be ‘free of commercial or political bias.’ Whether it achieves this is open to question.

Professor Judith Sloan, another academic who can boast a tangible impact on policy and public debate, is unconvinced:

‘this site strikes me as emblematic of all that is wrong with Australian universities. Crammed with puerile, naïve, left-wing tosh, the contributing academics…really have no idea when it comes to serious public policy contributions.'”

A rather one-sided ‘conversation’, by Tony Thomas (14 February 2014) Another group – not MRA-related – express their concern about the level of bias evident at The Conversation

Postscript 25 January 2015: There are a few occasions when the moderator remains in his/her kennel, and then it’s refreshing to see that adults can indeed engage in vigorous debate without chaos ensuing. Look at this article for example.

Postscript 23 March 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about domestic violence. My comment was as follows:

“Rob, I haven’t read your report yet (but will do so shortly), so the following comment is based on what I’ve read in the media. It appears that your report talks about the need for more & better intervention and behaviour modification programs for perpetrators, but that your recommendations in this regard are limited to male perpetrators.

Can I ask why you would not adopt a gender-neutral approach in this regard and have programs that catered for both male and female perpetrators. I mean, it’s not as though there are so few violent women that we can afford to just wave them away.

Indeed I understand that the rate of increase in violent crime by women is exceeding that of men in many jurisdictions. See http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/“

Postscript 1 April 2015: A moderator removed a comment I added to this article about sexual assault. My comment was as follows:

“It’s deeply ironic that the title of your article is “let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators”, but within the first sentence you exclude acknowledgement or consideration of all female perpetrators of sexual assault. On what basis? There’s less reported crimes involving female perps, so it’s OK to just airbrush them out?

I’m also troubled by you referencing the 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, which didn’t bother to ask respondents about their attitudes towards violence to men. Thus the questions about violence towards women were robbed of context and so we don’t know the extent to which the issue is men’s attitudes towards women, or Australians attitudes towards violence generally.”

Postscript 22 June 2015: A moderator removed many comments that readers contributed to this article about online harassment. This matter is discussed further in this post.

Reader Craig asked: Why was a dissenting comment regarding information contained in this article, with links to support its claims, removed by the moderator? There was no abuse or apparent breaching of the Community Standards (unless it was a Twitter technicality?)

Moderator Cory replies: We also require research that’s credible:

“Back up your ideas with evidence and fact where possible. If you’re claiming something as scientific fact, try to provide credible references.”

While some of the links were fine, many of them – upon reading them – were less than credible. They were closer to a smear campaign than anything resembling research. This is also prohibited in our community standards:

“We’ll distinguish between constructive comments and smear campaigns. We’ll remove any deliberate attempts to misinform, distort facts or misrepresent the opinions of others.”

Smear campaign? WTF? “a strategy to discredit a person, esp. a public figure, through disparaging remarks or false accusations“. We are talking about ideas, Cory. Can anyone point me towards any of the linked papers on this page that attacked a person. Aren’t the readers of The Conversation mature enough to, you know, exercise their own judgement about others’ opinions?

Postscript 30 April 2018: One in Three Campaign – News Articles About Family Violence – Response to The Conversation Fact Check from 1IN3 An example of how ‘The Conversation’ responds to offers to provide correct information to their fact-checking process

A busy few weeks for gender matters (Aug/Sept 2014)

I thought I would create this post to mention several significant developments related to the gender debate that occurred in Australia during the period late August to late September 2014. As usual the feminist lobby monopolised the newspapers and airwaves, and consequently the news was mostly negative from a men’s rights perspective. The silver lining, however, was the level of discussion that occurred, and within it the large number of people who openly questioned the feminist narrative and/or spoke up for the male perspective … even in Tim Watts’ own Facebook page.

22 August 2014: Leader of the federal opposition, Bill Shorten, cleared of rape allegation  – But of course false rape allegations are just a misogynist myth … apart from perhaps just this one exception

25 August 2014: Launch of the Australian ‘Polished Man’ campaign.  The campaign web site originally stated that “Men perpetrate approximately 90% of violence against children and by wearing nail polish, YGAP asks men to raise awareness, generate conversation and become positive role models in the fight against violence towards children“. I say “originally stated” because they quickly changed the wording of the relevant page, presumably after too many people called them out on their lie. Their site now states that men cause 90% of sexual violence against children. Many web sites who received the original media release still, however, have the original wording online. (As an aside, this initiative inspired me to launch my own campaign to help prevent child abuse and neglect.)

4 September 2014: The re-badging of the ‘Foundation to Prevent Violence against women and their children‘ to ‘Our Watch‘ – I assume this bit of window-dressing was to make the Foundation appear more inclusive, and less the bigoted feminist echo-chamber that it actually is.

7 September 2014: Tim Watts MP tells feminists about men’s violence towards women

9 September 2014: Article in The Australian newspaper by Gary Johns entitled ‘Violence knows no gender divide’

Gary Johns made two main points in his article. Firstly he queried whether the government should provide substantial ongoing funding to an advocacy group (Our Watch) with relatively little oversight/accountability, in lieu of providing the same funding to the relevant Government Dept to provide direct services to victims and their families.

Secondly Gary queried why virtually all the funding for domestic violence was directed towards female victims when there are also substantial number of male victims. We don’t need to get hung up on the exact percentages, the point is that the current situation is highly inequitable and unhelpful in addressing the needs of all affected families. Again, hardly a heretical position to adopt.

Nevertheless the knives were out in a flash and Twitter and online feminist hang-outs were full of exaggeration and invective about this nasty misogynist man who dared question the feminist ‘DV= Men’s violence towards women’ construct.

10 September 2014: Article in The Australian newspaper by Tim Watts MP entitled ‘Violence against women is about gender’.  See also comments made in Tim Watts Facebook page. This and the article that followed were a veritable tsunami of shrill ill-informed white-knightery.

10 September 2014: ABC item by Tim Watts MP entitled ‘Labor MP tells men who criticise campaign to prevent violence against women to ‘Grow up!’.  See Reddit mens rights discussion thread and Reddit Australia discussion thread

17 September 2014: Release of findings from the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS). See Reddit Australia discussion thread. No questions asked about violence towards men, guess it’s not that important really. Oh, and of course because survey respondents weren’t asked the same questions concerning violence against men, there is no context provided nor point of comparison for the questions about women. This omission hugely compromises the value of the results with regards to forming an appropriate policy response.

17 September 2014: Trivialising and excusing violence against women plus 240+ readers comments, discussing the results of the NCAS.

17 September 2014: Woman who bashed elderly bus passenger escapes jail

See the video of the original incident at the top of this page. If two young men had beaten and spat upon an elderly woman, would they have walked from court with a slap on the wrist. Ermm. No way. Still that’s equality, feminist style.

21 September 2014: David Penberthy launches a further attack on Gary Johns and anyone else who thinks male victims of domestic violence should be acknowledged entitled Puerile Trash Avoids Facts on Violence, with a rebuttal by Mark Dent. (If anyone needed convincing of David’s status as one of this country’s foremost manginas, then fast forward to June 2016 to first read this article, and then this rebuttal by Mark Dent).

Let’s be honest now: Men do not perpetrate the ‘overwhelming majority’ of domestic violence

The statement appearing below features in a document within the web site of the Australian federal Department of Social Services.

overwhelming

Note the phrase, “the overwhelming majority of [domestic] violence in Australia is perpetrated by men against women“. You will see it again and again in literature produced by other pro-feminist organisations involved with the issue of domestic violence.

This is how the issue is presented to the Australian community, a single-minded focus on malevolent males justified by misrepresenting the extent to which men are responsible for perpetrating domestic violence. Presumably as a concession to professional integrity, authors sometimes reward tenacious readers with some passing acknowledgment of female perpetrators and male victims.

This occurs not just in Australia but also in other countries strongly influenced by feminism. Here is a recent example from the United Kingdom (see para 2 after ‘Lies, damn lies, and statistics).

The definition of overwhelming is “so great as to render resistance or opposition useless, and the definition of majority is “the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total“.

Whilst there is no precise definition of the term “overwhelming majority“, suffice to say most people would interpret the phrase as meaning in excess of a 75% majority.

Although some research findings are conflicting, one might assert that heterosexual men were responsible for perpetrating the ‘majority’ of domestic violence. But let there be no doubt that any statement that men are responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of acts of domestic violence is patently untrue, and that anyone advancing this position is either willfully ignorant and/or a misandrist.

I could ‘beat around the bush’, but it really is that simple. And it’s well past the time that this blatant falsehood was put to rest.

Links to numerous studies that found that men were NOT responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of acts of domestic violence can be found in this blog post. These studies were not undertaken by, nor funded by, men’s rights activists, or by organisations that had a demonstrably pro-mens rights focus. These studies are, by and large, objective academic endeavours. A highly significant point of difference.

polished man2

The above statement was copied from a media release marking the launch of the Australian version of the ‘Painted Man’ campaign. In fact the overwhelming majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women. The same statement also originally appeared in the YGap web site but was later amended to read that men perpetrated approximately 90% of child sexual violence against children – a statistic yet to be substantiated by Australian statistics.

The ‘Misinformation‘ page within the web site of the ‘One in Three’ organisation is full of examples of feminists and feminist organisations bending the truth.

The false and inappropriate use of such statements is by no means restricted to Australia, for example within the UK Government’s ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls’ document (cited here) we find:

“The vast majority of the incidents of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking are perpetrated by men on women.”

The issue of feminist misrepresentation of statistics/research is addressed in this further blog post.

A further irritation is the realisation that even if the majority of victims were men, then they would still be ignored by the feminist lobby. See this example in relation to homeless people.

Update as of 28 August 2020: The UK Office of Statistics Regulation was asked to review the use of the word ‘vast’ to describe the number of male perpetrators compared to female perpetrators of abuse in the draft statutory guidance framework for the Domestic Abuse Act (Source). Related Twitter thread

As recently as March 2022, the ‘Refuge’ organisation (UK) is still making this claim.

See also:

And yet when the ‘overwhelming majority’ of those afflicted with some form of disadvantage are male, as in the case of homelessness, the authorities simply ignore them to focus on the minority (see this discussion thread).

The Myth Women Are The Only Victims Of Domestic Violence (3 February 2015)

Update 11 November 2019: Stats watchdog upholds MBC complaint over government’s misleading description of proportion of domestic abuse victims who are female

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence (May 2007) One of the many papers that show just how wrong the feminist lobby can be.

abuse_of_men

Women are held accountable for … (say hello to the Teflon Gender)

I was reading this article today dealing with suicide. It includes the statement:

“Mental health organisations are increasingly targeting their public awareness messaging towards men, given the data shows they’re three times more likely to suicide.

“Men aren’t very good at asking for help and addressing the issues,” Hayden said. “That’s something we need to focus more attention on.””

I was thinking that when health and personal safety issues disproportionately affect women (or when it’s claimed that they do, as in the case of domestic violence) then invariably men are blamed. Yet even when men are disproportionately afflicted, they are still blamed. Rarely has there appeared the suggestion that women contributed to serious problems affecting men (or even to their own problems). No,  because according to cultural mores today that would be victim-blaming. That would be misogyny. And that would be wrong.

Can anyone think of an example, in say the last ten years, where such a suggestion has been put forward in the mainstream media? None, as far as I can recall. The root cause of social problems is usually, and conveniently, sheeted home to men and/or the patriarchy.

Take the case of suicide for example. What of the stress caused by a family court system that is biased against fathers? What of the pressure borne from the expectation that men contribute more financially in a relationship from the first date onwards? What of the pressure of being expected to take the lead, yet at any time to be criticized for doing so?

What of the pressure of expectations to be chivalrous in the face of mocking of traditionalism? What of trying to satisfy women’s needs and expectations when those needs and expectations vary widely from one woman to the next, and from one month to the next?

What of the continually demonisation of men in the media? The ongoing attacks on mens integrity and sense of self-worth by feminised government bureaucrats and feminist organisations?

No, no, no. It’s because men are reluctant to visit the doctor. It’s because men are frightened to talk about their feelings. Yes, that’s it. If only men would, you know, ‘man up’. There you have your solution.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Feminists often disparage men by falsely claiming that we believe that “men have it worse than women” and that “men believe that everything bad that happens to them is because of women“. Well, I don’t believe that and I don’t know anyone who does.

But surely it is fact that women, both individually and collectively, do generate significant problems for men, for themselves, and for their children. It is just extraordinary that this is not more openly acknowledged and discussed. And a very clear indicator, if one was needed, of the extent to which feminism has permeated and distorted western culture.

It’s true, I have a headache at the moment. Perhaps I’m suffering from some sort of a mental block. So will someone please tell me, in our modern western society, just exactly what women are being held accountable for? Are they in fact held responsible for anything in this world that is bad?

Go on, won’t someone throw this dog a bone?

Postscript: Alternative question for feminists to answer – Can you conceive of a problem/situation/dilemma where you wouldn’t blame a man?

See also:

The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny (27 July 2020)

Why are so many women with good careers being forced to freeze their eggs? (13 July 2018)

Toxic femininity and lack of personal responsibility (1 July 2018) Makes mention of the suicide of Anthony Bourdain

Woman held accountable for her (rude) actions on first date – world goes into meltdown … mutual responsibilities? Cease such seditious thoughts! (19 May 2017) Video

Telling women not to drink during pregnancy ‘sexist’ (18 May 2017)

Men should do everything, apparently (26 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Women hate responsibility (7 March 2017) Video by ‘Sandman’

‘Very lonely guys spend hundreds to cuddle with me’ (27 December 2016) TL/DR version is that many guys are such losers that they have to pay an enterprising (exploitative and condescending) plain-looking woman to allow them a human touch.

Subject of article says her clients “have a hard time finding companionship organically and lack human connection and touch”, i.e. they’re lacking in some regard. Because the fact that they are paying someone to hold them couldn’t be due to a deficiency in women. But then in the next breath she observes that one particular client told her that his wife “never just wants to lay and be with him”. You think Lisa, that maybe the wife is at least part of the problem here?

Michael Moore told that ‘Women can commit wrong too’ (31 October 2016)

A Network of Men (11 August 2016) Video

The ‘Women are Wonderful’ effect, by Christina Hoff Sommers (30 March 2015) Video, related reddit mensrights discussion thread, and Wikipedia entry on the WAW phenomenon

Feminism: It might just be ruining your love life (5 March 2015)

We should stop putting women in jail. For anything (6 November 2014)

Feminism vs. responsibility (16 October 2014)

Are men to blame for the plastic surgery obsession? (22 October 2014) See readers comments

malesareculpable

Elsewhere in this blog see:

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

Organisations with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

I was reading through an article the other day and noted the phrase: “All the research suggests that businesses perform better if you have a critical mass of women in the senior ranks. It’s right that businesses focus on that” (Source)

I’ve seen the same or very similar comments advanced elsewhere, generally in the absence of citation of actual research. It brings to mind another much-used feminist mantra: “The overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women”. It’s like, well it’s sounds right, it’s been stated by some well-known feminist/s, thus we should accept it and just move on.

So moving right along … I watched a segment on the morning TV show ‘Sunrise’ this morning, as it had been promoted as being about how companies that had women at the helm performed better. Allegedly proved via the results of a “new international study”. They also mentioned that the tired old issue of the gender pay gap would also be addressed.

The Sunrise Facebook page (17 August 2014) states:

“The companies that perform best financially have the greatest numbers of women in leadership roles, according to one of the most comprehensive workplace studies ever undertaken.

The study looked at 2,000 organisations in 48 countries, but is not the first to suggest that women leaders boost a company’s financial performance. The study showed that women only hold 28% of leadership positions, despite the fact that lucrative companies had a higher percentage of women leaders.

In Australia, men are paid on average 17.1% more than women to do the same job. Less than 5% of our top CEO’s are women. Why do you think this is the case?”

The discussion was between the ‘Sunrise’ hosts and two women:  Margie Warrell and Nicki Gilmour. Very early on in the segment Nicki stated “well I [haven’t seen] didn’t do the study and I’ve [only] seen it briefly“. Huh? I thought it was central to the segment?

I went hunting for details of this research, and then posted queries on Twitter (to Sunrise and Margie Warrell) and the Sunrise Facebook page seeking a URL for the study in question. Nothing, so I emailed the Sunrise production team to ask the same question on 18 August 2014. Nil response … ever … you can draw your own conclusions from that.

margie4

So I guess I have to ask … just how desperate were the ‘Sunrise’ production team to milk the gender issue that they chose to run with this story? Is it really good enough (in the media’s eyes) to just assert something without producing any tangible evidence to support it?

I am aware of some related research within the web site of Mike Buchanan, but the studies he cited found the opposite relationship to be true (i.e. bringing women into senior roles sometimes had a negative impact on company performance). See for example:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/a-remarkable-statement-by-a-leading-proponent-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-the-boardroom/

One would hope that the media would seek to present a diversity of opinions regarding this, and other gender-related, matters. Alas no.

I am also aware of the 2011 study undertaken by the Reibey Institute in Australia. That survey is different, however, in that it only looked at the difference in performance between companies that have no women directors versus those that have at least one. That also seems to have been the case with another study undertaken by Credit Suisse (see also actual study here).

Clearly many variables need to be identified and accounted for when attempting business comparisons such as these, other than simply ‘Performance’ versus the presence of a woman on the board. Even were this hurdle competently addressed in the above-mentioned studies, it could not be said that the presence of additional women on the board (and/or in senior management, as the case may be) would result in further incremental improvements in performance. This is an important point bearing in mind that those who raise this topic often do so in the context of talking-up the concept of gender quotas.

The Business Council of Australia 2013 report entitled ‘Increasing the Number of Women in Senior Executive Positions‘ also mentions the Catalyst Group survey in the USA, but this doesn’t appear to track relative business performance. Mike Buchanan also mentions the Catalyst Group study in one of his blog posts where he states:

“In all the reports we’ve analysed – including those from the feminist campaign group Catalyst, to which Ms Sunderland refers – it’s made crystal clear that correlation [between business performance and having women on the board] isn’t evidence of causation, and can’t even be taken to imply it.”

Additionally, a double-standard seems to apply when the CEO/politician in question fails to perform. When it’s a woman, a defence is often mounted on the basis that criticism was due to sexism. Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton are two classic examples. In the case of men, such a claim would be extremely unusual.

I don’t have an axe to grind about whether board members or senior staff are male or female, only that the decision should be based on qualifications, skills and experience. And if they subsequently fail to perform then they should be shown the door. Again, regardless of gender.

What I do object to is the media, or others in a position to influence or educate, presenting as reality some belief or another that has yet to be substantiated via fact-based analysis. That, and having the credibility bar set at widely differing levels depending on the extent to which the particular view being espoused falls within current-day parameters of political correctness.

In closing, I remain unaware of any suitably rigorous studies that make a sufficiently strong case that more women in a business = stronger performance. Should a reader know of some then please advise accordingly.

See also:

Former UNE vice chancellor Brigid Heywood sentenced for offensive behaviour (7 May 2025) … and here’s Ms Haywood a little earlier on, waving her feminist flag: Gender Equity, then and now (18 July 2019)

A hilarious new article by Professor Susan Vinnicombe, professor of women and leadership at Cranfield University (27 November 2024)

Why women destroy nations & civilizations and other uncomfortable truths (28 November 2024) Video

China’s ‘beautiful governor’ Zhong Yang jailed over affairs with 58 subordinates (30 September 2024)

Women on top, by Bettina Arndt (26 June 2024) Recommended reading

Managers Tend To Sugarcoat Women’s Reviews To Their Disadvantage, New Research Shows (21 June 2024)

A seemingly light-hearted study on women’s haircut advice has surprisingly dark psychological implications (20 October 2023)

‘Significant concerns’ in Downing Street as NatWest boss quits over Farage leak (26 July 2023)

Labour MP Jess Phillips under investigation for breach of parliamentary rules (27 April 2023)

CEO tells employees to stop complaining about not receiving bonuses while she gets $1.2m bonus (18 April 2023)

Frank founder criminally charged with fraud over $175 million JPMorgan deal (4 April 2023)

The ‘women on boards’ scam: Campaign for Merit in Business publicly challenges Hanneke Smits, CEO of BNY Mellon Investment Management and the new Global Chair of The 30% Club, to answer some questions and wind up The 30% Club (13 February 2023)

The ‘women on boards’ scam: Our public challenges of four leading proponents (14 December 2022)

Kamala Harris and Female Sexual Power, by Janice Fiamengo (25 September 2022) Recommended reading

Woman sparks debate after accusing other women of being ‘toxic’ and saying mothers often ‘abuse and bully’ daughters and she prefers working with men (14 August 2022)

Grammar-challenged judge fingered in road rage incident at Brooklyn school (16 July 2022)

Virgin Australia and its boss Jayne Hrdlicka hit with bullying claim (12 April 2022)

‘I am being bullied’: Kimberley Kitching made formal complaint before her death (17 March 2022) Australia

Mike Buchanan’s Campaign for Merit in Business (undated)

“Mike presented oral evidence to the House of Commons “Women in the Workplace” inquiry in November 2012, along with Steve Moxon, the author of The Woman Racket (2008), and Dr Catherine Hakim, the world-renowned sociologist whose paper on Preference Theory (2000) revealed that while four in seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is. THAT is the single most important explanation – not nebulous “barriers” – for why fewer women than men make it to the top of companies and other major organizations (at least on the basis of merit, with a level playing field).”

We need to talk about Karen, by Paula Wright (13 February 2022)

Watters: This was Ocasio-Cortez’s downfall (1 February 2022) Video

Women Bullied At Work: Here’s Why Your Female Boss Doesn’t Support You (19 February 2020)

Ending Australia’s gender pay gap: ‘Managers can make or break DEI’ (28 October 2021) A recent spray from the pro-feminist sector – to be reviewed

The Great Cancellation: The new movement coming to expose bad bosses (28 October 2021) Typical – the article isn’t about bad bosses – it’s about (allegedly) bad *male* bosses.

Elizabeth Holmes Plans To Accuse Ex-Boyfriend Of Abuse At Trial : NPR (28 August 2021) Heck, don’t you know, only men can be held accountable?

Is ‘gender equality’ the new sexism? – Dentistry (5 July 2021)

Rosemary Rogers: How fraudster former NAB chief of staff’s lavish life unravelled (14 December 2020)

When women commit war crimes (28 October 2020)

Women-led businesses are being excluded from the government’s Boosting Female Founders initiative (23 October 2020) Australia. Nothing similar for males, but let’s ask for more anyway.

‘Inferior’: British wife ordered to pay $180k for racial abuse of Aussie Duncan Bendall (9 September 2020) Ewww. And she was a feminist too, it would appear

Trigger warning! Female CEO deviates from the IT & Women script (2 April 2018) Video

Judge accused of drinking, having sex in court removed from bench (1 September 2020) USA

Mike Buchanan is highly critical of an article by Dame Helena Morrissey (28 July 2020) UK

It can seriously pay to get more women into leadership. This new research shows how (18 June 2020) Addresses recent Australian research by Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). This research is also summarized in this ABC article of 19 June 2020. It is strongly asserted that the findings constitute proof of a causation effect in appointing a female CEO significantly boosts company performance.

Audrey Gelman steps down as CEO of The Wing as employees stage a digital walkout criticising the company for failing to ‘practice the intersectional feminism that it preaches’ (12 June 2020)

Nick Farr-Jones slams Rugby Australia’s management (4 April 2020)

Queensland chief scientist pleads guilty to fraud (12 March 2020)

Labour councillor, 30, collected thousands of pounds in rent from three properties but lied so she could live in council flat for 12 years, court hears (7 February 2020)

Goldman Sachs will no longer do IPO’s for companies with all-male boards (23 January 2020) From 1 July 2020 Goldman Sachs will not work on IPO’s from companies that don’t have at least one “diverse” board member

Isabel dos Santos: Africa’s richest woman ‘ripped off Angola’ (20 January 2020)

Investor bias is real and it’s bad news for women (2 December 2019)

Naked doped-up Congresswoman showing off Nazi-era tattoo, smoking bong nude with staff (25 October 2019)

Janice McAleese: Ex-NI Events Company boss sentenced (23 October 2019) UK

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes reportedly can’t pay lawyer’s fees (7 October 2019)

Mike Buchanan’s letter to the Economics Editor of The Times newspaper (10 July 2019) UK

Kids Company founder urges judge to spare her the ‘stress’ of a court case over the charity’s financial meltdown after taking £42m of public money (14 May 2019)

Janice Fiamengo‏ tells – More lies about women in leadership positions, how much BETTER they are than men: new patents go through roof, profits skyrocket! Will the nonsense never end? I have many meta-studies to prove it just ain’t so. (17 April 2019)

NSW Police arrest company director in NAB fraud scandal investigation (1 March 2019)

Sacked ABC boss Michelle Guthrie rated as ‘arrogant’ and ‘in bottom 4 per cent for integrity’ (29 November 2018)

Charity defrauder also faked cancer (14 November 2018)

Michelle Guthrie departs from role as Managing Director of the ABC (24 September 2018) “Despite offering praise for some of Ms Guthrie’s work, Mr Milne said her leadership style was a factor in the board’s decision.” And then Michelle claimed to have been “touched inappropriately” by former Chairman.

British companies need a ‘genuine culture change’ to get rid of alpha males and promote women, say ministers (13 September 2018)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Tries To Blame Sexism For People Calling Out Her Claims (11 August 2018) So if we can acknowledge that appointments are made on the basis of gender, then so too it appears that appointees can subsequently dismiss criticism on the basis of it just being sexism.

‘We took turns being her slave’: MP’s staff (21 July 2018)

Female leaders are valued over males – Evidence from almost 100 studies (21 October 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked academic paper

High-ranked women less generous than men when sharing a reward with their collaborators (10 October 2017)

Christine Nixon’s cries of sexism deflect from her shortcomings (27 July 2017)

Manchester International Festival: Putting women in control of the world (5 July 2017) No reader’s comment permitted, but some discussion on Twitter with a very similar article running in The Guardian.

Diane Abbott – the woman Corbyn trusts to protect Britain from terrorists – embarrasses herself in new car crash interview (6 June 2017) UK

Though Outnumbered, Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chiefs (31 May 2017)

More on Eman Sharobeem’s rorting (17 May 2017) … and the outcome in September 2018

Community health boss ‘rorted’ holiday, jewellery, gym (1 May 2017) Australia

“A contender for the NSW Australian of the Year awards rorted more than half a million dollars in public funds while she was in charge of two publicly funded community health organisations, a corruption inquiry has been told.”

Women hate being CEOs – and they suck at it (8 April 2017) with a follow-up article entitled ‘Do men make better CEO’s than women?’ here.

The blokey culture of finance means we’re missing out on a mountain of ability (18 January 2017) Australia needs a female Treasurer because some qualified women feel hard done by (as do some men), because a woman would do the job better, and well … because.

Arlene Foster describes calls for resignation as ‘misogynistic’ (4 January 2017) Northern Ireland

Argentina ex-leader Cristina Fernandez charged in corruption case (27 December 2016)

#Girlboss author Sophia Amoruso speaks about Nasty Gal’s bankruptcy and her resignation (11 November 2016)

Hillary only thanks women and girls in her concession speech. Then she wonders why so many men don’t vote for her. Feminists & SJWs seem unable to learn anything (10 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

‘I deeply apologise to the nation’: South Korean president Park Geun-hye (4 November 2016) and then
South Korea’s ousted President ‘sorry,’ leaves mansion (12 March 2017)

Watch incompetent “Chief Human Capital CEO” Emerson from DHS incapable of answering specific questions (30 October 2016)

Female trade minister walks out of trade talks crying. Male opposition MP says we should send an adult. Outrage and sexism (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Ex-Yahoo employee sues Marisa Mayer claiming she led an illegal purge of male employees (8 October 2016)

More women on Qld boards could deliver $87 million: Deloitte report (5 October 2016) Research available here, together with details of the Queensland Government’s ‘Women on Boards’ program (Currently under review)

Want to boost your share price? Hire more women (27 September 2016) I have yet to locate and review the second Credit Suisse study mentioned in this article, so won’t comment further at this juncture.

Feminists seek funding for start-up business but fail to impress potential investors (19 September 2016) Video

Do women prefer female bosses? (18 September 2016)

UK female MP shadow foreign secretary claims “sexism” because she was asked a basic question she did not know the answer to (12 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Disgraced CEO’s heartless response to suicide (9 September 2016)

Women in startups the new disruptors (1 September 2016) Ill-disciplined feminist bandwagon-jumping from a journal that should know better.

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

What your shopping habits say about you (4 August 2016) Australia. Women spend more and worry less so that makes them “better financial managers“. Say what? OK so this is about household rather than corporate spending, but it nevertheless promotes a sexist gendered view in relation to potential business acumen. Research summary can be found here

Is There A Double Standard When Female CEOs In Tech Stumble? (3 August 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Saatchi boss Kevin Roberts disciplined over gender comments (31 July 2016) UK. Thou shalt not question the feminist narrative. See related Reddit discussion thread here and related video here. Kevin subsequently resigned his post.

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes goes from $5.9 billion to nothing (17 July 2016)

Yahoo’s False Prophet: How Marissa Mayer Failed to Turn the Company Around (24 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Subsequent article on this issue here (19 July 2016) Marissa responds to criticism by lamenting “gender charged reporting“. Like if she was a he, then criticism would evaporate? As if.

“When Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer bought Tumblr for a cool $US1 billion in 2013, she pledged ‘not to screw it up.’ (Three) years later, it’s become apparent that Yahoo has failed on that promise.”

The Intense Scrutiny on Marissa Mayer Shows Women Leaders Get Way More Flak Than Men (3 May 2016) But we’re not allowed to criticize female leaders when they fail to live up to expectations because that’s misogyny

Gender Diversity Doesn’t Boost Corporate Profits (6 April 2016)

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance? (9 March 2016)

What happens when you invest in companies with women at the top (8 March 2016) Australia

ASX 500 companies that employ more women make more profit, study shows (8 March 2016) “Top publicly listed companies that employ more women on their boards make more money, a new study shows, boosting the case for regulations that require big business to set policies to increase gender diversity.”

The relevant study can be found here. Firstly, the study doesn’t find that more women=more profit. The study finds that companies with one or more women on their board generally perform better than companies with no women on their board. Secondly, such a finding in no way supports a case for mandatory quotas, as this could (amongst other things) result in women being appointed with lesser skills than is the case at present.

More women on boards means more money for companies: study (8 March 2016) Australia

Cherie Blair’s healthcare business shuts to leave investors with huge losses (5 March 2016)

Why Women-Led Businesses Outperform Their Peers (18 February 2016) USA. Many studies cited but none provide compelling evidence that the actions of female CEO result in improved business performance. See also readers comments.

More females on boards means more profits for S&P/ASX 200 companies (17 February 2016) Australia

European queens waged more wars thank kings (27 January 2016) USA

Marissa Mayer’s kingdom is crumbling around her (4 January 2016)

Meet Your Saviours & Protectors (4 November 2015) Video concerning the recent unelected appointment of women to positions of power in European countries and the EU

Meet The She-E-Os: Why Do So Many Female Tech CEOs Turn Out to Be Disappointments or Frauds? (27 October 2015)

Google boss: ‘Volkswagen scandal wouldn’t have happened if more women were in charge’ (8 October 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

Elizabeth Broderick reveals why Australia must consider quotas to get more women in senior roles (5 September 2015)

Sex in the boardroom (6 June 2015)

Women at the top is better for business and the environment (28 April 2015)

The ‘All blokes’ versus the ‘Gender Diverse’. Guess which boards perform better? (23 April 2015) Australia

Companies with more female executives make more money (23 April 2015) ABC’s The Drum (video)

Yes, we need more women on government boards. Here’s why (31 March 2015) Some good readers comments

Daniel Andrews, board quotas and the myth of ‘insufficient women’ (31 March 2015)

Gender diversity improving at banks, but very slowly (12 March 2015) Australia

Cameron’s naive crusade for boardroom gender diversity will only hurt Britain (9 March 2015)

A Better World, Run by Women (6 March 2015)

6 reasons your business needs female leadership (19 January 2015)

Risky business: why we shouldn’t stereotype female board directors (3 December 2014)

Diversity fatigue: why business still struggles to close the gender gap (25 November 2014) Includes links to further research on the subject which I will review in due course

Gail Kelly’s Margaret Thatcher-style executive team (25 November 2014) The bank with the least number of women directly reporting to the chief executive is the only bank with a woman at the top

The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation (16 June 2012)

“In 2003, a new law required that 40 percent of Norwegian firms’ directors be women – at the time only nine percent of directors were women. We use the pre-quota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin’s Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards.”

Experts: In most cases, accused embezzlers are women (5 March 2012)

Picture of new Italian premier Meloni and text: This woman just smashed the glass ceiling in Europe's oldest country. Meloni is the first woman to lead Italy, yet I can't find a single article celebrating her achievement in the "pro-woman empowerment" American corporate media. Odd. Almost like our media are bullsh*t frauds

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

‘Our Watch’: Just how heartless (or deeply in denial) can people be?

I spent some time the other day voicing my views in relation to an article that appeared in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘. Their motto is ‘academic rigour, journalistic flair’. Their track-record, in my experience, is based upon pandering to progressive liberals – especially feminists. Naturally that has a big bearing on their failure to satisfy the “academic rigour” part of the equation. They include nothing from a men’s rights or egalitarian perspective and heavily moderate readers comments to make sure as little as possible of that nasty triggering sort of stuff makes it online.

Anyway the article was entitled ‘Out of the shadows: The rise of domestic violence in Australia‘ (4 August 2014). I’m going to let you read that article, which is fairly typical of its genre, i.e. domestic violence IS men’s violence towards women and their children, no mention of female perpetrators or male victims, etc. Last time I looked there were more than 50 readers comments tagged on the end, including those of yours truly.

A day or two later I stumbled upon the facebook page of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘, an organisation tasked with lobbying for and on behalf of female victims of DV. The Foundation receives several million dollars each year from the federal government plus further funding from the Victorian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments.

The Foundation’s Chairperson is Natasha Stott Despoja, who was brought to task by Greg Canning in late 2013 for the use of biased and misleading statistics regarding domestic violence. [See Footnote 1]

Anyway, scrolling down the Foundation’s page I quickly came upon posts by people complaining about some of the comments contributed to the article mentioned above. The comments in question identified substantial omissions and misrepresentations in the way that the issue of domestic violence had been portrayed.

White knight ‘Mike’ bemoaned the fact that men were “nit-picking” the stats about the victimisation of men. Hmm, alerting the public to the fact that a large slab of the victims and perpetrators of DV are being ignored … yes, how petty of us. A spokesperson for the Foundation subsequently commented: “Yes it’s pretty upsetting but let’s hope this kind of resistance is a sign a raw nerve has been struck and that once these men get over the shock they will reach some kind of realisation.” facebook_DV

And then a few days later (6 August 2014) the following exchange took place:

    • Denise H – What about domestic violence against men. It happens, it’s very real.
    • Kirstina B – ‘Denise’ is a guy, obviously.
    • Kirstina B – Oh, and ‘Denise’, I’m sure gay men suffer violence from men, too. That will be addressed when DV is addressed for women.
  • Kris C – I wonder why some people are quick to hijack any publicity of DV with trying to talk about male victims. Yes, they are real, but it’s rather rude to butt in with that when that’s not the specific focus at hand. Imagine hijacking any publicity on the victims of the airline crash with “what about burns victims? they are real”.  [See Footnote 2]

These and other material contained within the Foundation’s page go beyond simply being callous and offhand, to being either breathtakingly deluded or just plain sick. In fact the Foundation’s Facebook page appears to be a veritable goldmine of misandry and gloating indifference to the plight of men.

Men are being battered at the same rate as women but this is rarely acknowledged by the media. Men dare to draw attention to this disparity and instead of empathy and support, the Foundation treats them as if they were ignorant, selfish or stupid.

“Let’s hope” the men “reach some kind of realisation”, huh? Oh you bet we will. The realisation that the Foundation, and the feminist ideology with which it is so richly imbued, is content to angrily wave away the welfare of half of the community.

I’d like to invite members of the Foundation to peruse the following comments attributed to men who approached shelters for emergency accommodation: (Source)

“One abused man said:

They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.

Another said:

They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung
up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.

Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:

They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.

Another said:

They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to 
be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.

Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.”

One abused man said:
They just laughed and hung up the phone.

Another said:
They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977“

I call on the men and women of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘ to park their sexist bigotry for 30 minutes and scan the dozens of studies that I either list or link to on my post about domestic violence that show that as many women are violent as are men. Then take a look at my blog post about male victims of domestic violence and the shameful lack of support that they receive.

Ask yourselves, are all of the studies faked? Are they all wrong? Fraudulent components of a global patriarchal conspiracy? Consider those findings in relation to the message you broadcast in your web site and facebook page. Do you feel smugly self-satisfied about the twisted version of reality you are painting, or is there some small sliver of guilt?

Do you not see that acknowledging the true reality of male victimhood, of female perpetration, and of bi-directional violence, does not undermine the validity of advocating for women? Do you understand that this is not some sort of ‘winner take all’ blame game? [see Footnote 3] And that it’s not necessary to step on the backs of men, and certainly not the backs of male victims, to help female victims?

It hardly even matters what the ratio of male/female abusers is, what is important is to address the whole problem and to discuss potential solutions in a free, open, constructive and non-judgemental manner. This is not what the main players in the DV advocacy sector are doing at the moment. This is what they should be doing. What they could be doing if they stopped wasting time deleting posts from others equally invested in finding a solution, but whose ideas and perspectives happen to differ from their own.

Please submit your response to this post and I will be sure to put it online. Oh, and be sure to include your postal address so I can send you your very own commemorative singlet (pictured). i-bathe-in-male-tears

Moving right along, Australian feminists were really on a roll this week (perhaps stung into action by #womenagainstfeminism) because the very next day (5 August 2014) brought us ‘Behind media silence on domestic violence are blokey newsrooms‘, and then ‘Why doesn’t she just leave? The realities of escaping domestic violence‘ on 7 August 2014.

The first of these two staunchly gynocentric articles contained gems of feminist wisdom like:

“Until recently, the media weren’t interested in reporting domestic violence. Journalists didn’t see “domestics” as a story. The reason for this seems to be that the media hold the same negative attitudes to women that have been globally recognised as contributing to violence against them in the first place.

This is of concern, since media play a key role in forming societal attitudes to gender and gender roles.”

Well if you look at my primary post in this blog dealing with domestic violence you will see that the media has published quite a bit about domestic violence. You only need to get busy with google to confirm that. And not only that, but most of the coverage has pushed the feminist line 100%. That being the case I find myself agreeing with the feminists that it really  IS a worry that the media forms societal attitudes … which will now be saturated with feminist dogma and strongly biased against men and boys.

“Australian media have a balance of power tipped overwhelmingly towards men, according to the most recent study of who owns, runs, influences, reports, presents and creates the news.” 

Isn’t it just amazing that seeing how the media is run by men for men, that it takes such a strongly pro-feminist view towards the issue of domestic violence. Quite remarkable really. That little old patriarchy sure can move in mysterious ways.

Footnote 1: Flagrant misrepresentations by feminist DV spokespeople are by no means uncommon. Mike Buchanan in the U.K has also written letters seeking the retraction of biased and misleading information, and as with Ms Stott Despoja, no responses were forthcoming:

Polly Neate CEO, Women’s Aid
Sandra Horley Chief Executive, Refuge
Eleri Butler Chief Executive, Welsh Women’s Aid

Footnote 2: As an aside, I joined this discussion thread to express support for ‘Denise’, only to have my posts disappear and be blocked from further commenting

Footnote 3: Unless of course the primary focus was on securing government funding for a gender-specific advocacy group

when_men_seek_help

The chart above shows what happens when male victims of abuse seek help

Postscript (25 October 2015): The following article provides context to the attitude of the feminist DV advocacy groups towards male victims of domestic  violence

Why I’m backing QLD Labor Premier on male victims | Talk About Men

Gender bias at the Australian Department of Social Services

On the 24 July 2014, I wrote to Mr Finn Pratt, Secretary, Department of Social Services as follows:

“Dear Finn

I came across the following report whilst searching your web site:

http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/09_2013/literature_review_on_domestic_violence_perpetrators.pdf

On page two of that report it states that:
“Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”

Now I am aware that recognised studies of domestic violence tell us that between 1/3 and 1/2 of the victims of physical domestic violence are male. (I can provide links to these studies should you wish).

I find it quite extraordinary therefore that a decision was made to exclude all male victims and most female perpetrators from the report. The stated reason for doing so was disingenuous … I would respectfully suggest that existing programs target only male perpetrators due to the same gender bias that saw male victims excluded from this study … and the same bias that discourages male victims of domestic violence from coming forward.

Are you able to provide me with the following details please?

1. Which section within your Department commissioned the report, and who was responsible for the decision to exclude male victims of domestic violence?

2. Other than the reason mentioned in the report (quoted above), was there any further justification/rationale for making this decision?

3. What was the cost of commissioning this report?

Thank you kindly for your anticipated assistance with this matter”

Addendum: I received some interesting feedback concerning the Dept Social Services consultancy report referred to above from another researcher who made the following observations:

“… their [Urbis’s] definition of domestic violence is (emphasis mine):

For the purposes of this review, and the broader study concerning intervention programs, domestic violence is understood to be an abuse of power perpetrated primarily, but not only, by men against women, both in the context of a relationship, as well as after the relationship may have ended. It occurs when one partner – and in some cases, both partners – attempt physical, psychological, emotional, financial or social control over the other. Whilst domestic violence takes several forms, the most commonly recognised, and officially recorded, forms include physical and sexual violence, threats of violence and intimidation, emotional and social abuse, and economic deprivation. [page 1]

What is curious though is that there is no prevalence data for male victims of domestic violence (apart from sexual assault which includes all assaults, not only those occurring in relationships) [pages 4-7]. Why is the prevalence data for male victims entirely missing from a literature review that purportedly includes them in it’s definitions? …

A good source for prevalence data is the GENACIS, Gender, Alcohol and Culture: An International Study. The results from GENACIS have been used to inform the WHO Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence, and if is good enough to inform the WHO estimates then it should be inform ours.

The Australian component of GENACIS is reported on in The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others published by the AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research. And unsurprisingly the results appear to show gender symmetry.

Eight percent (n=158) of the population reported being a victim of physical partner aggression, while six percent (n=117) reported being a perpetrator of physical partner aggression. Similar proportions of men and women reported being a victim of this type of aggression (Table 7.5). While the prevalence was lower for being a perpetrator of physical aggression, there were no significant gender differences, and the proportion reporting being a perpetrator appeared higher among women. The severity of acts when a male was the perpetrator was slightly higher than when a female was, but the difference is not significant (Table 7.6).

Fewer than four percent of the population reported being both a victim and perpetrator of physical partner aggression, and no gender difference was evident. This equates to 34% of those who reported any partner physical aggression. [page 85]

So 34% of intimate partner violence is bidirectional (common couple violence), the rest is unidirectional with no significant differences in aggression by either gender.”

On 2 September 2014 I received the following response to my letter to Finn Pratt from Jill Farrelly, Branch Manager, Family Safety:

Thank you for your email of 24 July 2014 to Mr Finn Pratt, Secretary of the Department of Social Services, concerning the Literature Review on Domestic Violence Perpetrators (the literature review) on the Department’s website.  The Secretary has referred your email to me for reply.

I would like to assure you that the Australian Government is committed to ensuring the safety of all Australians. Domestic and family violence and sexual assault cannot be excused or justified under any circumstances.  All victims, regardless of their gender, need compassionate and highly responsive support, and perpetrators of violence must be held accountable for their violence.

Urbis was commissioned by the Department of Social Services to conduct the literature review to support actions to improve interventions for domestic violence and sexual assault perpetrators as part of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 (the National Plan). Funding for the commissioned contract, as reported on AusTender, was $219,964.

The literature review acknowledges that domestic violence and sexual assault is perpetrated by both men and women. However, as indicated in the literature review, Australian research such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey shows that most instances of domestic, sexual and partner violence are committed by men against women. For this reason, most domestic violence perpetrator intervention programmes are targeted at men who commit violence against women.

The literature review identified and examined the evidence base on the effectiveness of existing perpetrator intervention programmes. Therefore the literature review focused on examining programmes aimed at male perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The National Plan recognises that both men and women can be victims of domestic and family violence and sexual assault. Under the National Plan, the Commonwealth  has contributed funding for the expansion of counselling services for male victims of violence through Mensline.  This service is available to all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault on 1300 789 978 for the cost of a local call or at www.mensline.org.au.  Please note that calls made from mobile phones may incur additional costs.”

(I will draft a response to Ms Farrelly’s letter and post a copy here shortly)

While I was waiting for Finn’s response I spent some time within the DSS web site, beginning with their last available annual report. There I saw that DSS is the largest federal government department with 35, 838 staff of which 25,692 (72%) were female. The total budget for 2012-13 was $4.2 billion.

Next I had a look at a publication entitled ‘Home Safe Home – The link between domestic and family violence and women’s homelessness‘. Also written by consultants – four women from the University of South Australia. The report does not appear to acknowledge – even in passing – that some men are forced to flee their homes as a result of domestic violence (sometimes with their children). Now let’s get this straight, there are far more homeless men than women but it appears that they are not worth writing about. Why is that? Surely not anti-male sexism on the part of bureaucrats within DSS?

Now google on “link between domestic violence and mens homelessness australia” and see how many reports you can find on that subject. Guess.

Most recently I scanned the lengthy submission prepared by the Department of Social Services in relation to the 2014 Australian Government Inquiry into Domestic Violence

It would seem that the word ‘men’ only appeared three times in the Department’s submission, and only then in relation to perpetrators (1), potential perpetrators (1), and departmental recruitment (1). That’s right, in several hundred pages of text there was no explicit mention made of male victims (and presumably, of female perpetrators of violence). Nada. That that is the case is a disgrace to this agency, and to the Australian Government – and proof positive of the extent to which feminist ideology has permeated and tainted the federal public service.

So the Department of Social Service would have us believe that “the Australian Government is committed to ensuring the safety of all Australians“? As far as their work in relation to domestic violence is concerned, I remain far from convinced. One hopes, however, that they at least have the safety of the female half of the population well in hand.

 See also:

Senior Departmental officers at work supporting the feminist narrative and the Domestic Violence Industry (12 April 2017) Video

Start a conversation (2016) A set of publications produced by the respect.gov.au initiative. The one-sided nature of the respective rights/obligations of boys and girls set out in these documents almost defies belief. Essentially boys are obligated to respect women/girls, whilst women/girls are obligated to demand respect. Gender equality? Nothing close. This package is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded feminist wet dream.

Minister Andrew’s address at the Launch of Parliamentarians Against Family Violence (20 October 2014) Oh look, men cracked a mention in the last line of a 650 word speech. That’s 0.15% of the speech devoted to 50% of the population (or alternatively, devoted to between one third to two thirds of domestic violence victims depending on which credible study you consider). Why no statistics for female perpetration and male victimisation, Minister?

Australian Senator wants a man who is rich and well-hung

This clip appeared on the ‘Sunrise’ TV show this morning, and concerns a radio interview with a recently appointed Australian senator, Jacqui Lambie. In that interview Senator Lambie let it be known that her ideal man needs to have plenty of money in the bank and a substantial “package between the legs”.

Now my primary concern is not whether public vulgarity such as this is appropriate from a member of Australia’s federal government (it’s not), but it’s the fact that if similar comments were made by a male parliamentarian then there would be immediate calls for his sacking.

Instead what we saw in the media (including viewers comments) was mainly comments along the lines of “it’s refreshing to see a politician who is honest/not pretentious” etc, or disgust about a politician speaking in the media as they might in a public bar after knocking back (quite) a few drinks.

To their credit, some journalists have drawn attention to the sexist double-standard inherent in this story, including Samantha Armytage (Sunrise) and Judith Ireland (Sydney Morning Herald).

The issue was covered by at least one of the mouthpieces of Australian feminism, mamamia.com.au, although their tone was one of mild shock and disbelief regarding the vulgarity aspect rather than strident condemnation about the sexist connotation. This focus was reflected in most of the subsequent readers comments, though some readers like Rebecca Healy, did address the sexism issue. Rebecca stated:

“There are several comments crying out that if this had been a male politician talking about a woman there would be a serious and damning article, and that this article hasn’t taken Jacqui Lambie to task over her inappropriate comments.

First of all, I think the tone of this article is one of mild shock and disbelief. This actually happened. I think without hammering down on it, there is definitely a sense that this was offensive and most definitely inappropriate for a politician.

I think this is actually offensive from a feminist point of view, as JL promotes the gender role misconception that women want to be given cash / financially supported and for the guy to be ‘hung’, and it suggests that men need to have these two things to be desirable, which is incorrect.

JL gives off this ocker / blokey / anti-feminist persona that dismisses a lot of the points that are made by feminists about not needing to be taken care of, having the ability to be financially independent, and rejecting the ingrained gender and body image roles that have defined the typical ‘Aussie Bloke’ and the acceptable traits of a female. I think this is part of her appeal at times.

It’s hard for a feminist to get up and blast her language because, although we DO see it as sexist, who are we defending? The guys that would laugh at the bloke saying this are probably laughing along with her. Are men offended by her comment? Do they want to be defended?

The issue here is also that men have not typically been undermined by media scrutiny over their appearance in the same way that women have in the past, therefore I don’t think the impact would be as significant (I’m not saying there is not impact!) as they wouldn’t feel as objectified or intimidated by the comment as a woman might feel in the same position.

If we (women/feminists) get all outraged about this issue, I feel there would just be a collective rolling of the eyes that the ‘feminists’ or ‘feminazis’ are just looking for something to be outraged about. Yet if we don’t, we are hypocrites standing silent when we would have been ‘attacking the men’ by now. We are accused of not supporting equal rights, even though that is what real feminism, not militant feminism, is about – equality.”

One the same web page ‘Guest’ wrote:

“Again I find myself confused. Last week Mamamia Rogue posted video of a young woman under the influence of anaesthetic describing in anguished detail the things she was desperate to do with a particular male celebrity’s genitalia. Clearly, she felt the urge to pleasure him. Her desires, we were assured by the Rogue, are shared by all women (“We’ve all been there, Babe”) – and we were supposed to find the clip funny to boot (I didn’t, but then, I don’t support cyber-bullying).

So clarify for me, please. Is Lambie wrong for wanting a hung man, or for being a politician and speaking openly about it, or for being a woman and speaking about men the way we complain about men speaking about women?”

Meanwhile Australian feminist commentator Eva Cox appeared unfussed by the comments:

”She’s not the sort of person you expect great finesse and politeness from,” Ms Cox told the Launceston Examiner ... I think men can take care of themselves when we talk about their private parts … Maybe it will encourage them to be less frank about their own comments.” (Source)

Sure thing Eva. This is about what a woman said, and how other women would react if a man said similar things. But feel free to exercise your feminist prerogative (or should that be, pejorative?) and twist things around to make it about what men do … wrong … to women.

Ah, but unlike the poor widdle women, “men can take care of themselves“.

Yup, we men just need to … man up and soldier on

See also:

Renowned feminist ratbag Clementine Ford goes off about the double-standard criticism of the Lambie radio interview affair – and also swipes at the #womenagainstfeminism movement. Her primary line of defence is an argument rich in circular logic … that ‘a male politician would never have been asked about his relationships’. Well a man would never have answered such a question because even a fool would know the storm his comments would invoke. Well maybe not Clive Palmer, but most guys.

A women on the other hand might be more inclined to answer knowing that society will essentially give her a free pass. Because everyone inherently recognises that this double standard exists, even journalists who ask or don’t ask accordingly.

Anyone who would seriously suggest that journalists don’t ask male politicians this sort of question because men are respected (because the patriarchy etc) must be either incredibly naive, a mental pygmy, or both of the above.

The position put forward by this fruitcake on the other hand is that the reaction against Senator Lambie’s comments is driven by outdated sexual wowserism, especially in relation to older and less attractive women! OMG, feminists love to divert into the wilderness, probably in the hope that people will become confused and just give up. She eventually sort of concedes the double-standard that is really the core issue, but waves that away on the basis that “the key difference here is that in our culture we “expect” men to be sexual, to be shallow about it, to consistently convey the air of rampant virility.”

Hell, thanks Lauren. You’ve diverted to the ‘myth of rape culture‘ now, haven’t you?

Dealing with mens issues – The current situation in Australia

Australian men’s issues have both a physical and online footprint that is vastly smaller than is the case for women’s issues. There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary one is the enormous disparity in government support in relation to the two. Pro-feminist media bias in combination with feminist tactics of shaming and censorship has also proved quite effective in stifling male activism and lobbying up to this point in time.

Look at the example of Fiona Girkin, a lecturer at the University of Tasmania who was teaching police the truth about domestic violence. Well at least until she was interviewed by Bettina Arndt. As a result of complaints subsequently lodged by local feminists, Fiona is no longer working at the university.

Of those Australian organisations and sites dealing with mens issues that do have some public profile, almost all have a health focus. Most of these organisations/sites appear to be rather introspective and self-effacing in nature, i.e. essentially to keep under the feminist radar and to avoid jeopardising whatever pitiable amount of funding or government support they might receive.

Those few mens programs that do attract funding, for example the men’s shed movement, only manage to do so as they are seen as somewhat twee and posing no threat to the furthering of feminist objectives.

Government agencies: I am not aware of any federal or state government agency that deals specifically with men’s and boys issues, nor even a dedicated section within a government agency. This is a huge point of difference in comparison with the situation with women’s and girls issues.

Of those government agencies that do address issues that are very much relevant to men, the most prominent are those dealing with mental & physical health and with domestic violence. With regards to the latter at least, the primary emphasis is on ‘treating’ male perpetrators of acts of violence and abuse. Whilst some claim to offer services to male victims, such services are very hard to find & utilise.

The way that domestic violence web sites are worded gives the impression of a distinct pro-female and anti-male bias (example). Given that men are already less likely to reports acts of abuse against them, one could suggest with confidence that the character of domestic violence web sites acts as a significant disincentive to come forward. In terms of individuals who admit to working in the Australian federal or state public service, and who adopt anything other than the feminist position of the moment … well I can’t think of even one.

I deal with the issue of government agencies and ‘not-for-profit’ organisations that ignore or downplay men’s welfare in this other blog post.

Men’s studies: As you can see in this thread, an attempt was recently made to establish a men’s studies course in Australia. This met with a furious feminist backlash and was shelved. One of those who spoke against the initiative was Michael Flood, a staunch feminist who misrepresents himself as a spokesperson for the Australian men’s rights movement. 

Men’s health: Men’s health advocates comprise a mix of individual counselors, universities, and non-government organisations. Their stance towards men’s rights varies between one of neutrality to a ‘deer in the headlights’ stance brought about through their concern that any perceived association with MRA could threaten their political acceptability and hence access to government funding. The latter position is demonstrated by the charity discussed in this other blog post. There are, however some virulently anti-MRA outliers such as Michael Salter, Michael Flood, and more recently some character by the name of Joshua Roose (an example of his unfortunate mindset).

The level of government funding for Australian mens health issues/organisations (as with men’s issues/organisations generally) is miniscule in comparison to that allocated to women (see one useful source in this regard).  See also this post about funding for The Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre having been slashed.

Here is a web site for Men’s Health Week (12-18 June 2023)

Some of the better-known men’s health organisations include:

Men’s Health Australia
Australian Men’s Health Forum (see also their ‘links‘ page)
Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies
Centre for Advancement of Men’s Health
Men4Life support group
Men’s Health Clearinghouse
The Shed Online (an initiative of Beyond Blue)
Dr Elizabeth Celi
Inspire change counselling

‘Relating to Men’ was a great site that was sadly removed after sustained online harassment of the author, Jasmin Newman

Fathers issues (incl. divorce, custody, etc):

Dads4Kids
Lone Fathers Association
Australian Brotherhood of Fathers (See related article here)
Dads in Distress support services
Fathers for Equality
‘Dads on the Air’ radio program
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)

Men’s rights activism:
The most popular online forum for sharing news and information is Reddit Mensrights
Men’s Rights Agency
Men’s Rights Sydney and Men’s Rights Melbourne (with a further group formed in Brisbane in early 2015)
Australian Men’s Rights Association

Some other recognised Australian spokespersons on men’s/boys issues include:

I believe Bettina Arndt to now be the best Australian writer on gender issues re: her consistent and substantial output of informative papers. Here’s one particular paper from Bettina (November 2023), here is her end of 2024 update, and here is a paper + video dealing with the 2025 federal election. 

James L. Nuzzo has also recently produced a swathe of detailed papers on various men’s issues. 

Greg Andresen also writes good quality material, incl. government submissions and fact sheets. Greg is the Senior Researcher for the ‘One in Three’ organisation which advocates for male victims of domestic violence. He is also the Australian liaison for the US-based organisation ‘National Coalition for Men‘, as well as being an active advocate for men’s health.

Dr. Greg Canning is the Australian liaison for the US-based organisation ‘A Voice for Men‘, and has previously written many articles and submissions on men’s issues. ‘A Voice for Men’ also now has its own Australian committee.

There are quite a number of others posting good quality material on social media outlets like Twitter, but their output (like my own) is sporadic, in part because they are volunteering their own time. There also seems to be a pattern of many pro-MRA writers disappearing after a few years, due to frustration and becoming the targets of doxxing and/or other forms of harassment. 

Australian politics and gender issues:

In Australia, as with the USA, there currently exists a distinct and growing trend towards women being more likely to vote for left-leaning individuals/parties (Source).

An argument put forward by feminists is that men can’t possibly be discriminated against because most politicians are male. This point was addressed in a comment I came across online:

“Men in power do not act in the interest of other men. They are widely influenced by women and their lobbying efforts, and are more likely to act in the interests of them.” (Source: http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/)

This is certainly the case here in Australia, where most of our politicians, from former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to contemplate representing the interests of 50% of their constituents. You can see some of Malcolm Turnbull’s unfortunate early comments on gender matters here, here and here. 

I can’t help wondering what could be achieved if only we had an Australian politician with the tenacity and courage of Philip Davies in the UK (see this example of his efforts). Philip’s pioneering efforts with gender equality are also discussed in this article.

Meanwhile other MP’s like Tim Watts (Australian Labor Party) are pathetically eager to champion feminist causes and/or push men under the bus (see related reddit discussion here).

There are just a few exceptions to the rule:

Pauline Hanson is virtually the only woman in federal parliament with anything positive to say in relation to men and boys (2023 video).

Sarah Game made history in 2022 by becoming the first One Nation member of the Parliament of South Australia, and the first female One Nation parliamentarian elected anywhere other than Pauline Hanson herself (Source). Sarah Game has appeared online on numerous occasions demonstrating initiatives in support of men & boys.

Watch out for Senator Alex Antic.

George Christensen, former Federal Member for Dawson: Of the hundreds of state and federal politicians paid for by us taxpayers, George was the only one with the guts to come out and openly support ANY fathers/men’s/boys issue. George previously chaired a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program. Here is a speech by George concerning family law, and another paper regarding the issue of child support. And this is the treatment that George got for speaking up on these issues.

Senator John Madigan (Independent) and George Christensen launched the Parliamentary Friends of Shared Parenting on 16 June 2015 … “We need to end parental alienation because every child deserves a meaningful relationship with his or her mother and father.” Feel the hurt from this feminist journalist as she bemoans the fact that these politicians dared to corrupt public policy by (shudder) listening to men.

Another federal parliamentarian, Bob Katter has also previously expressed concern regarding anti-male bias within the family court system.

Labor’s Member for Greenway in Western Sydney, Michelle Rowland, has asked a parliamentary inquiry examining the child support system, to consider whether custodial parents should be accountable for how they spend child support money (Source)

Senator Cory Bernardi dared to suggest that it might sometimes be appropriate to use a headlock on a violent woman during an incident of domestic violence, and was publicly accused of encouraging violence against women. In June 2016 Cory was also criticized for tweeting a link to an article by Roosh V concerning social justice warriors.

Victorian MP Graham Watt is another one to watch after attracting media attention for refusing to give misandrist DV lobbyist Rosie Batty a standing ovation. See this article also (including readers comments)

Senator Mitch Fifield warrants an honourable mention for his refusal to accept a sexist slur offered by Katy Gallagher.

David Leyonhjelm (formerly Liberal Democrats) has also made a name for himself in this regard in the federal sphere, before moving to the state (NSW) arena (see video), and then losing his seat.

Also in NSW, Senator Jewell Drury is, amongst other things, seeking reform with regards to the treatment of domestic violence.

‘Andrew Tate recruitment drives’: Senator Matt Canavan’s extraordinary gender pay gap spray (27 February 2024) Whilst Matt’s comments appear rather uninformed, this article shows what happens to anyone who steps out of (the pro-feminist) line.

In Queensland, Opposition Corrective Services spokesman Tim Mander accused Labor of exceeding its party’s gender quota system in relation to appointments to the Parole Board.

See also my posts in relation to the views of both the major parties and minor parties in relation to feminism and gender-related issues.

By and large the only Australia politicians with the courage to challenge the feminist orthodoxy are ex-politicians, as discussed in this other blog post.

One person to keep an eye on going forward is Augusto Zimmermann, who is Law Reform Commissioner at the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Dr Zimmermann was proposed as a replacement for Gillian Triggs at the Australian Human Rights Commission, but alas was not appointed. (Paper 1) (Paper 2) (Paper 3) (Paper 4)

The Australian media:

The MSM in Australia is a lost cause for the time being, with very few journalists willing to be seen to question feminist orthodoxy. Those that do, know full-well what they can expect. Some examples would include Andrew Bolt, Corrine Barraclough, Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi.

Where are things up to in Australia at the moment amongst the general population? Well I would liken the situation with most men to frogs being boiled in a pot. The temperature is going up slowly and steadily and guys just aren’t noticing how hot things are. The temperature in this case being the increasing anti-male bias in the media, in the law, in politics, etc.

One significant political event has been the re-election of Donald Trump as US President, one benefit of which has already been to generate discussion about real and alleged gender bias in the political process (example).

Further, and contrary to the notion of patriarchy, men’s own innate behaviour is such that they lend themselves to being taken advantage of. For example, the default setting for most men is to help and protect women rather than criticise them. Men are also very reluctant to been seen to portray themselves as victims, and would prefer to internalise problems and deal with them on their own (rather than for example join a men’s group).

Most men (and women) have little knowledge of the men’s rights movement, and consequently the views of many reflect the deeply biased picture painted in the mainstream media, i.e. MRA as being violent, as being ‘rednecks’, as being ultra-conservative, and as being ‘woman-haters’. By the same token, most men (and women) are equally ill-informed about the true nature of feminism and so accept the benign ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism as portrayed in the media.

Nevertheless, however, many men are reaching the inescapable conclusion that the pendulum has swayed far beyond the mid-way point with regards to the rights of women vis a vis the rights of men. They also recognise that there is also a widening gap between the respective rights and obligations of men and women.

Many men are increasingly unhappy and dissatisfied in their interaction with women. Many men have also either suffered considerable psychological and financial trauma as a result of divorce, or know friends who have been shattered in this manner. (And coincidentally or otherwise, women have also become increasingly unhappy.)

As a consequence whilst the majority of Aussie guys remain unwilling to take collective action, or to identify as an MRA, I am seeing many more men and women expressing their views in the online world in response to media articles that have an anti-male bias (example 1 / example 2 / example 3).

Another telling indicator is the huge number of visitors to MHRA sites like ‘A Voice for Men’ versus the relatively small number who are actually registered members. This suggests to me that there are a lot of people ‘sitting on the fence’ at the moment awaiting a tipping-point, whereupon we will see far greater and more organised expressions of assertive (yet assiduously non-violent) activism.

Further background material

The last few decades have seen men increasingly portrayed in a negative light, basically it’s now a choice between lazy, inept, evil, stupid, or creepy. Concerns raised about this trend are generally dismissed along the lines of “relax, it’s just a joke!”. Funny thing though, ‘jokes’ made about women elicit a very different reaction.

“Men have always made fun of themselves,” said New York Times best-selling author and social philosopher Michael Gurian. “The kind of things that are done with men in the media would never be done with women, and that’s just sort of a given. But men don’t mind. They live by joking and putting each other down and lifting each other up. But the negative is that they can only be OK if the rest of society has a basic understanding and respect for boys and men.” (Source)

I’m tired of Hollywood trying to sell me on the concept of “loveable idiots”, and I am disheartened by the ubiquitous content that tears men down. I love filling my life with laughter, however why are my current content choices trying to get me to laugh at a reduced version of men? Why is Hollywood trying to get me to focus on the broken-down, allegorical version of who they think my husband is? Obviously they don’t know my husband. (Source)

Now take a look at this article that appeared in that dreadful magazine ‘Cosmopolitan‘. It’s all about the ways that women are said to be better than men. Stomach-turning sexist tosh. Ah, but then treat yourself to this excellent rebuttal by Janet Bloomfield.

One wonders whether this ongoing negative portrayal of men reinforces hostility towards men, which may in turn influence the rate of partner violence towards men as addressed in this other blog post.

The various sources listed below discuss this issue in depth and/or provide specific examples of negative ways in which men are presented in the media and/or are subsequently perceived in the community-at-large:

‘The lad vote’: Surprise polling trend shows young Aussie men moving to the right (19 March 2025) This trend is by no means restricted to Australia 

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan creates social media backlash by creating new new role of Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change (29 May 2024) See too this video on this topic (1 June 2024) See too this video by Bettina Arndt (2 June 2024)

Aussie men have had enough – has a great push-back begun? (May 2024) Video 

‘Working for Women’ – A Strategy for Gender Equality (2024) How absurd – a gender equality strategy that barely mentions men & boys. Or to be more accurate, the word ‘men’ appears in the Strategy 84 times, ‘women’ features 491 times, ‘woman’ (5), boy (1), and ‘girl’ (29). Almost equal. Not

Of Marx and Men, by Damien Coory (14 January 2023)

Men’s Rights Agency presentation to the Parliamentary Forum
arranged by Ken Ticehurst MP held in Canberra on 12
November 2002

Misandry in Ads (a video from 2015)

Trashing men in the movies, by Bettina Arndt (28 September 2022)

Buy a real shaver – Jeremy’s razors (22 March 2022) Video satire

Ukraine’s disposable men (9 March 2022)

Why must every man on TV today be a monster? As a tidal wave of male-hating shows depicts women as victims (17 November 2021)

The dangerous pleasure of hating men (13 November 2021)

Of Bond, villains, and the average boy  (15 October 2021)

Should we be concerned about the messages that men and boys are exposed to? (2 September 2021)

Sarah Everard missing: Why a curfew for men isn’t a bad idea (12 March 2021) Can you imagine a similar story saying women should be subject to a curfew? Err .. no

Oh but this US game show is so funny. Now swap genders and listen to the laughs drying up (18 May 2020) Video, and here is a link to a Twitter discussion stream.

The team working for McDonalds fast-food chain (Mumbrella) seem destined to produce a Gillette-style campaign, but targeting boys (3 February 2020) “Just a bit a fun say the advertisers, while boys get demonised for slamming doors in girls’ faces” observes Bettina Arndt.

The marketing team at Lee Jeans thinks it’s ok to disparage men on the basis that only men spread over seats on public transport (July 2019) Tedious sexism. Video

A new German commercial takes man-hating to the next level (9 May 2019) Edeka takes up where Gillette left off

ABC’s The Drum – We’re all misogynists now (14 April 2019) Another great Scott Crowe video

The Victorian Government (Australia) has issued a video highlighting the horror of women receiving unwanted attention on public transport, and – surprise surprise – calling on men to step in and deal with other men (9 April 2019). ‘Independent Man’ responds to this rather well with his own video.

Ten things not to say to/about your husband (9 February 2010) Video. How rarely is this type of message encountered? Women have corresponding obligations to their spouse? What?

What is a man? A response to Gillette (January 2019) Video

Happy International Men’s Day, by Tom Golden (19 November 2018) Video

National Trust covers up male busts (6 November 2018) UK

White men are now the Democratic Party’s punching bag, by Saritha Prabhu (29 October 2018)

Rethinking Gender, Sexuality, and Violence, by Gideon Scopes (25 October 2017)

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

The beginning of the end, by Mark Dent (25 June 2018)

Men, you want to treat women better? Here’s a list to start with (17 October 2017) See the readers comments plus a related Reddit discussion thread here.

Sexual Assault Survivors Aren’t Just Daughters. They’re Actually Humans (12 October 2017) Stuff like this does my head in. Men shamed for speaking about the female experience (men can’t possibly understand!) Men shamed for not condemning sexual harassment (enough). Mainstream media runs many articles claiming that men only begin to understand women when they have a daughter (example1). Men feel unqualified to express a view so use justification of having daughter (etc) to qualify themselves as having a right to express a view. Men shamed for being seen to need to justify their views on the basis of having a daughter. Back to start and repeat.

Amanda Platell on the misandrous makers of TV drama (7 October 2017)

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

The Violent Sex (9 July 2017)

Complaint regarding BBC program that presented domestic violence against men as humorous (5 May 2017)

Between 1920 and 2005, men in USA increased their unpaid housework contribution x 3. Haven’t seen that acknowledged in any one of those countless articles about how men are such slackers around the house.

We Need More Balance In The Media’s Depiction Of Men (13 April 2017)

When did men (particularly dads) become so idiotic? (3 March 2017)

Why I won’t let any male babysit my children, by Kasey Edwards (23 February 2017) Australia. My subsequent blog post concerning both this article, and various follow-up articles, can be found here.

The myth of white male supremacy (14 February 2017)

Husbands Are Deadlier Than Terrorists (11 February 2017) USA. Wives are too, but saying that won’t get the author a tummy scratch from the feminist lobby. The thing is, even if the author had titled this piece ‘Spouses are deadlier that terrorists’, it would not have detracted from the main thrust of the article one iota … ie. completely superfluous sexism. (My readers comment is here)

‘Women kicking balls, I’d like to see that’ (22 January 2017) New ad campaign promoting women’s sport. How about ‘Men grabbing pussy, I’d like to see that’. Hmm, still not funny.

Son, let me tell you all about how dadsplaining works (13 January 2017) Whether this piece was a weak & inappropriate attempt at humour, or a serious bid for a tummy-scratch from feminists, it undermines the role of men/fathers at a time when we need to be doing the very opposite.

Cab firm is forced to pull ‘derogatory and sexist’ ad campaign featuring an overweight model with the slogan ‘If I start to look sexy book a taxi’ (4 January 2017) No complaints about sleazy man poster – you can portray men any way you like.

Advertising Standards Board rules Allpest commercial ‘vilifies’ husbands (29 December 2016)

An open letter to men, who can help female runners feel safe (6 December 2016)

Sell a sticker like this that says anything other than “men” – I dare you (undated)

Misandrist advertisements (1 December 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Stock photographers have all got the same idea of what it looks like when things go wrong in bed (17 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Hating men is mainstream (23 September 2016)

Social Justice’s Punching Bags: Men, White People, Straight People (17 September 2016)

‘White men are being blamed for everything‘ by Mark Latham (30 August 2016) Australia

The all men (and only men) are potential serial killers meme: ‘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

Andrea Leadsom suggests men should not be nannies because they may be paedophiles (15 July 2016) UK. This gender bigot is a senior member of the newly-appointed British cabinet. A subsequent article regarding the reaction to Ms Leadsom’s odious comments.

Doting dad’s hilarious approach to housework (2 July 2016)

Can’t you take a joke, love? Why the ‘banter’ isn’t funny any more (20 June 2016) This article listed here as a further example of how feminist journalists are so wonderfully adept at describing problems affecting both genders as female-only issues. Meanwhile ‘jokes’ about men continue to go unchallenged.

Michelle Obama urges men at women’s summit to ‘be better’ (14 June 2016)

Top 10: Worst male-bashing ads (undated)

War On Women? OK, But What About The War On Men?  (10 May 2016) USA

Scientists show how we start stereotyping the moment we see a face (2 May 2016)

“Although the participants didn’t personally endorse those stereotypes, it’s clear that they affected the participants’ unconscious thinking. Stereotypes can be like poison in the water we all swim in, and the brain, like a sponge, absorbs them, Freeman said, even when we don’t want it to.”

Hot Fuzz comes to Plymouth as women beg to be arrested by sexy new Chief Superintendent (29 April 2016) UK

Anyone seen the new TV advert for BT? I’m sure a woman slaps the man. Gender violence? (24 April 2016) UK

Chilling  Australian PSA shows how boys learn domestic violence (21 April 2016)

Charlie Bloom: Advertisers cash in on the feminist thirst for male humiliation (22 March 2016) UK

What’s the value of that item? Walmart does the #ManMath (16 March 2016)

Powerful Ad Urging Husbands To Help With Chores Goes Viral (2 March 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Branded for life? Sending the wrong message to young perpetrators of family violence (24 March 2016) Typical feminism-inspired ‘education’ campaign that piles all the sins of DV at the feet of men/youth. The value of such campaigns is dubious to begin with, but it should have featured some female perpetrators. Naturally this article, in pro-feminist The Conversation, conveniently ignores that issue. Here is a video of a similar campaign now underway in the UK – again no hint of there being any female perpetration.

Heineken’s ‘Drink Responsibly’ TV ad (January 2016) Only men drink to excess. ‘Good men’ don’t drink to excess. ‘Good men’ get to go home with a hot girl. The subliminal message here being that men’s irresponsible behaviour is best addressed through a combination of shaming and dangling the carrot of sexual gratification. This not-so-flattering portrayal of men dreamt up in the (I’m guessing) feminist-sodden environment of some ad agency or another. Sure they score a point for making an effort to reduce over-consumption of a pernicious legal drug, but they lose two for lacking the courage & conviction to produce a companion ad for the ‘I’m so drunk!’ millennial female set.

Men have it tough in the social minefield, writes Jess Leo (7 February 2016) Australia

Advertisers now portray men the way they portrayed women in the 1950s: as either dumb or pretty, by Martin Daubney (27 January 2016) UK. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

When Gender Hatred Is ‘Funny’, by Mark Dent (20 January 2016) Australia

It’s comic schtick, not sexism: Why it’s OK for Julia Morris to drool over Dr Chris (18 January 2016) Australia

A poor start to the year for the Men of Australia (6 January 2016) Australia

You’re going the wrong way (2 January 2016) Australia

On Hating Men (16 December 2015) USA

Pajama Boy Redux: The Male in Modern Society (20 November 2015)

Emma Freedman: The terrible dates we can all learn from (16 October 2015) Perhaps there have also been similar articles about women who were terrible dates, but I can’t remember seeing them

How to stop mass shootings (2 October 2015)

The feminization of America accelerates as universities shame men for being men (20 September 2015)

Australians, horror fans and 80s kids will understand this. The descent of masculinity from hero to evil (14 July 2015)

The depiction of dads as schmucks by ad agencies (June 2015)

Astute Dr Elizabeth Celi UNRAVELS Truth about Men in todays Feminist world (11 June 2015) Video. Australia

Why this is the end of the dumb dad era (7 May 2015)

Society’s Contempt For Men – Barbara Kay Explains – Men’s Rights Feminists’ wrongs (5 May 2015) Video

Too many young men with negative attitudes to sex and violence, survey finds (7 May 2015) And what of the attitudes of young women? We’re not told, and increasingly surveys don’t even bother to explore that side of the equation. This article is typical of the one-sided (anti-male) hit-pieces continually being fed to the public by left-leaning progressive journalists, eagerly supplied by obliging local feminist advocacy groups. Agenda? What agenda?

Study: Men are lazy to their core (7 May 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

The denigration of men: Ridiculed, abused and exploited, by Peter Lloyd (18 April 2015)

Norwegian TV commercial (Youtube video dated 12 July 2010) and subsequent reddit mensrights discussion thread (March 2015)

Men are now objectified more than women (9 February 2015)

‘Men Are Good’: the Facebook group that says men aren’t all bad (4 March 2015)

BBC Woman’s Hour hides the fact that male voters are more supportive of women leaders (7 February 2015)

“Sorry, it’s a boy” – Superbowl advertisement (2 February 2015)

Man-slamming: another reason to slam men (10 January 2015)

Proved at last: Men really are idiots (12 December 2014) and of course Jezebel gleefully jumped in with a companion piece. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here which discusses the flipside of this issue. And here is a related article by ‘Inside Man’ magazine that’s well worth a read.

Wet wipes blocking Sydney sewers as more men flush them down the toilet (7 December 2014) Yeah sure, and the sample size of the survey that determined that men were flushing wet-wipes, was how small? This article would have been worth writing if it had suggested promoting the use of Asian-style ‘bum-guns’ in Australia, but they chose to waste bandwidth with another hit-piece on men instead.

Parents warned of dangers of Santa’s lap (5 December 2014)

Men need to stop taking up so much room on public transport by Janet Bloomfield (16 September 2014)

Most advertisers keep up with ever-changing family roles (24 August 2014)

Men still hidden as victims of violence in the home (24 November 2014)

The internet hates men, and no one’s a winner (13 November 2014)

YouTube video of men trying to take ‘drunk girl’ home with them receives nearly 3 million views (12 November 2014) All articles admitted that the video was probably staged but were content to promote it anyway, because it was “shocking” and “disturbing”, and perfectly supports the dominant ‘all men are pigs’ trope. A subsequent article confirmed that people were recruited to ‘star’ in the video.

Miranda Devine: Stop your bitching about poor Bachelor Blake Garvey (12 October 2014)

It’s Time to Retire the ‘Dumb Dad’ Joke Once and for All by Mike Cruse (7 November 2014)

Casual misandry (4 November 2014)

Misandry in the media A video series on Youtube

Why do television shows belittle the feelings of men? (2 November 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

“It would have been disingenuous at best to pretend that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse” (27 April 2012) Because men are never victims so how could they ever understand?

The “real man” dogma (15 October 2014)

I hate this insidious trend for belittling men, says Melissa Kite (23 October 2014)

When it comes to depictions of men, gutter glossies and ivory tower feminists are on the same page (16 October 2014)

How to get kicked in the nuts (October 2014) Because assaulting men is soooo funny!

Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women (25 September 2014) As people have no sympathy for men

Don’t take pot shots at fathers (24 September 2014)

For Father’s Day give us men who aren’t shown as fools and clowns (5 September 2014)

When is ‘Violence against men day’? (1 September 2014)

Ad watchdog dismissed complaints against ‘Man-proof your car’ ads (4 August 2014)

Michelle Obama says women are smarter than men (6 August 2014) and here are Jessica Valenti’s bigoted views on the matter

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/mans-penis-mistakenly-amputated-during-routine-circumcision/story-fneuzlbd-1227001450218 (25 July 2014) Oh look at the funny pictures that accompany the article! Why is it that I doubt they would use the same pics if the article was about a women who had one breast removed by mistake? Oh, that’s right, because it wouldn’t be funny then.

Are advertisers finally beginning to take dads seriously? (14 August 2014)

The Early Learning Centre’s ‘funny’ Facebook post (17 August 2014) Companies contemplating similar sexist advertising might want to read some of the comments on the ELC Facebook page.

Make men better (such pigs) (September 2014)

Do men start wars? (7 August 2014)

If men acted like feminists, by Thunderf00t (28 June 2014) Video

When gender hatred is funny (10 June 2014)

Retire the bumbling husband: He isn’t helping (21 July 2014)

Ad watchdog dismisses complaints that White Ribbon anti-violence campaign is sexist (26 September 2013)

It’s Time to Stop Treating Dads Like Idiots (25 April 2013)

Double Standards? Representation of Male vs. Female Sex Offenders in the Australian Media (2009)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2b9vet/vicks_directs_flippant_disdain_toward_mens_health/

Is there anything good about men? (2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZat3oIbhU

After seeing so many commercials where men are portrayed as bumbling, clueless idiots, this ad by Dove was refreshing (Reddit discussion on 12 June 2014)

Why are men on TV always such fools? (13 March 2014) Note the 433 readers comments – clearly many people are fed up with the current situation of rampant double-standards

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27gk4i/men_in_schoolmale_representation_in_media_in_an/

Sexism? Pah! The real reason why Channel 4 didn’t put women on Bear Gryll’s island (12 May 2014)

Why do advertisers portray men as idiots? (25 April 2014)

No more dumb old dad: Changing the bumbling father stereotype (15 June 2012)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/just-plain-crazy/feminists-stoop-to-a-new-low/

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2014/01/26/stop-picking-on-our-men-top-australian-journalist-argues/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/suzanne-venker/what-americans-need-know-about-feminist-bias

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/misandry-and-emptiness-masculine-identity-in-a-toxic-cultural-environment/

http://sozziesocks.tumblr.com/post/79167707595/ceneca-qui-antibadstuffprogoodstuff

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7gvl/firestone-good-nap

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/snickers-teams-up-with-aussie-builders-for-new-ad-try-not-to-take-it-too-seriously/story-e6frfmyi-1226865529268

https://twitter.com/Femalefedupwith/status/450910549468250112/photo/1

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?9424-Bill-Maher-mocks-men-coerced-into-sex-by-women&p=85528

Lay off men, Lessing tells feminists (14 August 2001)

And now for some good news: ‘Move Over, Mom, It’s Dad’s Turn In Ads‘ (27 January 2015)

And finally here are two representations of men, one from a country where feminists ‘call the shots’, and one from a country where they don’t. Can you guess which one is which?

notadad

Opinion: The data are clear: The boys are not all right (9 February 2022) An example of the USA situation

Politicians can’t hear what men don’t say. An interview with Ann Widdecombe (1 February 2022) An example of the UK situation

Thank you Grace Tame. Abuse is well and truly out of the shadows (25 January 2022) Oops, well the abuse of women/girls anyway.

Bettina Arndt: The rape conviction rate – a scandalous deceit of parliament and the public (19 January 2022) Recommended reading

When America Embraced Wonder Woman and forgot G.I. Joe (21 November 2021) This paper is not specifically related to Australia, but interesting and relevant nonetheless.

Sorry, Snarling Clementine, but the UN says we’re a leader in treating women well and gender equity (11 March 2020)

The trumpet blasts of the monstrous regiment (26 September 2016)

It was great to see fitness advocate Michelle Bridges bravely speak out for male victims of domestic violence on the Studio Ten TV show, despite the fact that the comperes made their own pro-feminist views abundantly clear (10 November 2015)

http://www.australianmensrights.com/Fathers_Rights-Australia/Rise_of_Australian_Fathers_Rights_Groups_Worries_Australian_Feminists.aspx

Feminism: Past its use-by date? (1 August 2014) An ABC radio interview with Australian feminists and anti-feminist activist Janet Bloomfield (plus readers comments)

A lesson from the U.K. for Australian political parties thinking of wooing feminist voters (14 November 2014)

The article below was disseminated by a senior Australian politician, Bill Shorten, on 31 August 2024. What a truly pathetic effort, and one which clearly demonstrates the sad place where we are now at with regards to gender. 

ImageImage