Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

The Australian Human Rights Commission (previously the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government.

The Commission falls under the portfolio of the Attorney-General of Australia. The Commission works within the legal framework of Australian law. The most relevant legislation in the context of this post is the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the most recent version of which can be accessed here (as at August 2016).

As at 30 June 2015 the staff gender ratio was 41% male and 59% female (Source). I am advised that there is currently no gender target or quota system in place.

The Commission has a number of specialist commissioners, with gender issues being primarily addressed by a ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’. This role is currently filled by Kate Jenkins who commenced her duties in April 2016.

Immediately prior to that, Elizabeth Broderick served as Commissioner from 2007 to September 2015. This blog post addresses that earlier period, whilst a further post deals with the period that followed up to the present day.

Thus far all seven people who have filled the role of ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’ have been female.

According to the AHRC web site:

“Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe.

They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

Respect for human rights is the cornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feel included.”

A review of their literature, however, suggests that the AHRC is infinitely more concerned about the welfare and rights of those humans that are female, than they are about the other half of the population.

A word search on “men” within the AHRC web site turned up 912 results, which was promising. Or at least it was until I looked at the first few results. Two of the top three results were papers about domestic violence and harassment, in which men were portrayed (only) as the aggressors and women (only) as the victims:

The first paper ‘Men breaking the silence’, by Elizabeth Broderick, began as follows:

“Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.  Attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having negative stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as domestic and family violence and abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. In Australia, too many women live in fear of violence every day.”

In my blog post entitled Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men? I provide many references supporting the assertion that there are as many women guilty of intimate partner violence as there are men, or close to it. But Ms Broderick’s paper gives no hint of there being substantial numbers of male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence … why?

What useful purpose, with regards to the goal of protecting human rights, is served by demonising men and giving violent women a free pass?

The second paper in the AHRC web site, ‘Sexual harassment. Know where the line is‘, begins thus:

“Sexual harassment is prevalent in Australian workplaces. One in four women have experienced harassment at work, and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise. Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

Even given the often compromised standards of feminism, that’s a fairly disingenuous opening gambit. Consider:

One in four women have experienced harassment at work”

How many of these complaints related to the harassment of women by men? How many of these complaints were upheld?

“and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise”

That seems to imply that only men harass men, and that is simply untrue. And what about womens harassment of women, is that also on the rise? One would expect that, in the case of a professional agency like this, adequate context would be provided to evaluate statements like this.

“Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

And again, how many of these complaints concerned the harassment of women by men, and how many fell into the other categories? i.e. men harassing men, women harassing women, and women harassing men.

I then looked at other papers either written by Elizabeth Broderick, or in which she was quoted, to see the extent to which her views favoured one gender over another. What I found was of considerable concern.

In my blog post entitled Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways I mentioned an article co-authored by Ms Broderick. That article is called Know where the line is: Melissa Hoyer and Elizabeth Broderick address sexual harassment. I would recommend that you read the article and especially the readers comments that follow – most of which expressed outrage at the extent of feminist bias on display.

In another article entitled ‘Gender on Agenda‘ (Courier Mail, 4 June 2014), Ms Broderick “expressed dismay” at the small number of women on company boards and suggested the imposition of gender quotas to be an appropriate response.  As I have noted here, here and here, the justification for imposing gender quotas is dubious.

Ms Broderick has on many occasions expressed concern at the treatment of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. As far as I am aware, however, she has consistently failed to address the extent to which men are also affected by harassment and discrimination at work.

Further browsing in the AHRC web site and google searching on ‘Elizabeth Broderick’ turned up many further articles and speeches in a similar vein. This recent speech entitled ‘Towards a Gender Equal Australia‘ (18 November 2014) only makes mention of men due to their potential utility in achieving further gains for women. Men apparently have no issues of their own to deal with or, alternatively, Ms Broderick considers any such needs to be inconsequential.

Would someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I could not find a single instance where Ms Broderick expressed concern for the welfare of men, for example as victims of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence. Instead men were consistently cited as perpetrators of inappropriate behaviour (or at least complicit in such behaviour) and/or as the group to be held responsible for making changes or implementing initiatives to address problems experienced by women.

As far as I am aware Ms. Broderick has offered no corresponding statements in relation to the need for women to modify their own behaviour, or concerning women’s responsibility towards addressing problems experienced by men.

Further, I have seen very little acknowledgement being given to the contributions made by men in achieving progress on issues of inequality or disadvantage affecting women. The one exception was her own Male Champions of Change project, a program fitting safely within the confines of feminist dogma. Again, if this is incorrect then I would certainly appreciate a reader directing me towards any such statements of support.

In Ms Broderick’s eyes, it would seem that the life of men is all blue skies. Yet when it comes to womens dealings with men, well, ‘all rights and no fault/responsibility’ seems to pretty much sum things up.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick concedes that the Australian Human Rights Commission has no initiatives targeting men. “We have very limited resources, so our work is necessarily directed at identifying the greatest areas of gender inequality,” Broderick says. “So, while we actively engage with men and some of the men’s groups, we have not directly worked on men’s rights issues.” (Source)

One facet of the degree of bias displayed by Ms Broderick is the inaccuracy evident in some of the statements attributed to her. For example, in this 2014 interview with Jackie Frank she stated:

“About 1.2 million women [in Australia] currently live in an intimate relationship characterised by physical violence”

In actual fact the most recent nationally representative survey found that 114,600 Australian women report having experienced violence from a current or previous partner during the preceding twelve months (Source). A tenfold exaggeration? Really?

The ‘Misinformation’ page within the website of the ‘One in Three’ organisation also attributes the following errors to Ms. Broderick:

“One in three women will live in an intimate relationship characterised by violence over her lifetime”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “the Personal Safety Survey 2005 found that 160,100 women have experienced violence from a current partner since the age of 15. This is 2.08% of Australian women. This equates to one in forty eight women.”

“Almost 90% of the victims of domestic violence are female”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “Up to two-thirds of domestic violence victims are female, and at least one third are male.”

From ‘Tackling sexual harassment’ a resource for secondary school students produced by the AHRC:

“Girls can sexually harass boys. Although this doesn’t happen as often as boys harassing girls.” (p9) Based on what data source? How/why is this even relevant to note in this document?

“Complaints received by the Commission show that 95% of people who are harassed are female.” No, what this actually says is that 95% of people who lodged complaints were female – not the same thing.

Such a degree of unashamed bias is completely unacceptable. This is the ‘Human Rights Commission’ we are talking about, not a private lobby group or women’s studies centre. Australian men, and the women who care about their welfare, deserve an advocate who is willing and able to competently and energetically champion the interests of both women/girls and men/boys. The Australian community as a whole deserves better.

Given Ms Broderick’s failure to maintain even a modicum of impartiality, one hopes that the termination of her contract in September 2015 will see the appointment of someone better qualified to fulfil the responsibilities of this important role.

humanrights

Gender equality‘ does not imply that women and men are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment (Source). Is the approach taken by the AHRC in accord with that definition? Or alternatively, is it more consistent with this one?

broderick2

Scroll through the Commissioner’s Twitter stream and look for tweets in which she champions the interests of men and boys … are there any? Even one?

This raises the issue of whether members of the public are able to lodge a complaint regarding discrimination with the Commission, against the Commission itself. If any readers can answer that then please leave a comment below. An alternative course of action might be via the federal Attorney-General’s Department.

Developments at the AHRC subsequent to the departure of Ms Broderick, and which are related to gender issues, are discussed in this blog post. For those of you wondering about the next step in Ms. Broderick’s career, read this article by Miranda Devine.

Readers might find the references listed below to be of interest … Where applicable I would suggest that it’s worthwhile to also review readers comments appended to each source

Wikipedia entry on domestic violence against men

Elizabeth Broderick nets $10k per speaking gig (4 February 2016)

Government seeks advice on new sex discrimination commissioner (11 December 2015)

Finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award announced (9 November 2015) See how many of the finalists work to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. Apparently none!? The winner, by the way, was Ludo McFerran

Who will replace Elizabeth Broderick as Sex Discrimination Commissioner? by Jenna Price (6 November 2015) “We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job”

Men are not regarded as ‘Human’ thanks to Feminist legislation in Australia (17 September 2015)

Ms. Broderick’s swansong … true to type right to the end … no support for men/boys, just criticism (2 September 2015) More of the same here and here. I predict that her next gig will be a well-remunerated slot within the Domestic Violence Industry, helping to spend Malcolm Turnbull’s recent generous hand-out.

Men and women must work as partners to defeat domestic violence, outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner says (2 September 2015)

Profile of the work of Elizabeth Broderick over the past eight years, by Anne Summers (May 2015) Word search on ‘women’ = 61 hits Word search on ‘men’ = 6 hits (two of which were negative, one neutral and four about the ‘Champions of Change’ program)

To attain gender equality, we need to focus on men (13 May 2015) But this “focus on men”, is wholly limited to their potential utility to help women. Features a reader’s comment by J.D.Troughton:

“I still see a total focus on women here. We need to also incorporate respect and protection for men, and elevating them in instances of their being discriminated against. It’s a judgement call, a subjective assessment, but women look to have it better than men, to me. A feminist will say the opposite. We can’t honour one over the other on sexist grounds (eg. gynocentrism, our culture’s inherent tendency to give more weight to female suffering of the same burdens, etc.), so we need to hear both out and help both sexes. And not just make jokes about penis size, or accuse someone of bitterness and personal issues when they say that dominant gender discussion is very skewed and prejudiced. I mean, you can do that, but you just add to my case. And look like a heartless curmudgeon. And perpetuate the pain that ends up hurting the women you hold solely so dear.”

‘Let’s talk: The shocking new tricks that men use to control wives’ (31 March 2015) Ms. Broderick is interviewed by the Australian Womens Weekly magazine

Gary Johns and Judith Sloane won’t limit Broderick’s plans (11 August 2014)

Calls to change laws to fix women’s superannuation (13 November 2014) Not content to ignore men’s welfare and overstate the culpability of men for social issues like domestic violence, the Discrimination Commissioner now seeks to grant exceptions to discrimination laws to favour women at a time when traditional gender roles (with regards to parenting for example) are disappearing:

“Rice Warner got an exemption from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to contribute an extra two per cent of salary in superannuation contributions for their female employees over and above what they contribute for their male employees.”

Elizabeth Broderick on men’s violence towards women (3 December 2014) More of the same one-eyed assessment of the nature of domestic violence. And women never smash their partners phones? And as is so typically the case, my response to this blog post was not published

Bravehearts: The women bruised and battered in the name of ‘love’ (28 December 2014) Here Ms Broderick provides debunked statistics in her quest to demonise men and misrepresent the nature of domestic violence.

On 8 December 2014 Ms Broderick tweeted about the alarming suicide rate for “young people” but no mention of the situation with men. I imagine it slipped her mind. And isn’t it interesting how gender is specified when doing so supports the feminist narrative, but not when it doesn’t?

Does the Human Rights Commission treat some groups more equally than others? (9 July 2013)

Superiority in the name of equality (29 June 2013)

Open Letter to Elizabeth Broderick Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner (10 April 2012)

Sex discrimination commissioner ignores men and boys (3 May 2012)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the AHRC provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Four years later there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. It is a disgrace for the AHRC to suggest that it is committed to “true gender equality”.

It’s hard to be a trailblazing woman (11 August 2012)

Elizabeth Broderick Sex Discrimination Commissioner, 50 (4 February 2012) Again, men as perpetrators and enablers of the victimisation of women, and otherwise only notable for their potential utility in assisting in the continued advancement of women

Discrimination is fine, says Commissioner Two-Legs-Good, by Andrew Bolt (23 June 2010)

“We need to put in place what some might call affirmative action strategies, where we treat men and women differently for the purpose of achieving better gender balance at a senior level.”

AHRC1

Elsewhere within this blog readers might find the following post to be of interest: 

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

Finessing definitions to preserve the image of female victimhood

(NB: The following post is intended as a companion piece to Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative)

Consider this scenario:

1. Feminist ideologues use either patently false statistical ‘information’ or misrepresent genuine statistical sources to make a case is support of one or more aspects of the feminist narrative. Alternatively, feminists resist efforts to correct outdated and/or unrepresentative methods of data collection in the knowledge that enhancements to data collection would work against their inbuilt bias.

2. Feminists get ‘called out’ enough times – in public and by suitably authoritative sources – to feel the need to manipulate data collection and/or presentation in order to continue to present a version of reality which reinforces rather than undermines the feminist narrative. Because remember, a lessening incidence of rape (or domestic violence/online harassment/workplace harassment/etc) not only undermines the credibility of the feminist narrative, but also weakens the case for feminist groups to receive additional government funding.

Question: What do you do when available statistics don’t support the image of men as empowered aggressors and women as powerless victims, that is carefully cultivated by the feminist movement?

Answer: You change the rules and/or move the goal posts.

And so a favored strategy is to raise the bar as to what constitutes victimization of men, whilst lowering the bar in relation to women. Thus the position that men cannot be raped, or (begrudgingly) they can but only if penetrated by an object. For women however, a sideways glance or accidentally brushing past someone in a crowded bus equals sexual assault.

The case of domestic violence: Early domestic violence definitions focussed on physical violence, and feminists run hard up against two problems here. The first problem is that the incidence of violent crime in western countries has, overall, been decreasing in recent decades. (Though paradoxically, violence by females is actually increasing). This makes it potentially awkward for feminists to continuing using terms like “a growing epidemic of violence against women“). The second problem for feminists is the increasing availability of independent unbiased research which has consistently found that there are as many female as male aggressors using the physical violence criteria. Gender parity in domestic violence undermines the feminist perspective. Whatever can we do?

  • Broaden the discussion of DV to include sexual violence, including sexual violence towards children (but being careful to exclude non-sexual abuse and neglect of children, because oops, that’s mostly perpetrated by women), and
  • place greater emphasis on criteria other than physical violence, such as psychological abuse, threats to withhold affection or sexual activity, or perceived motivations for aggressing.

A ‘good’ example of this is the section of IPV within the ‘Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health’:

“Forty-five percent of women aged 18 to 23 reported some form of IPV, with 12% reporting one form of abuse, 8% reporting two different forms of abuse and 25% reporting three or more forms of abuse. The most common forms of IPV were being told they were ugly, stupid or crazy (28%), being harassed over the telephone, email, Facebook or internet (25%), and their partner trying to keep them from seeing or talking to friends or relatives (18%).” (Source) Clearly casting the net very wide to capture more ‘victims’, with this effect being accentuated through the use of very subjective criteria.

In another example, I was reading this article and noticed for the first time the use of the term “implied domestic violence“. I then googled on the term seeking background and/or a definition, and came across this:

“Credible threat, according to this new law, means a verbal or written threat, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat, so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.” (Source)

The muddier the water the better, for intangible and subjective criteria makes future correction/undermining of data more difficult. We’ll have those silly MRA running around in circles for years trying to prove we are wrong.

Voila! Data adjusted on the basis of newly revised definitions of domestic violence magically skews the role of aggressors very firmly back towards men. Yay feminism!

See also:

Lies, damned lies, and STEM statistics (2 March 2019)

Trump administration ‘rolling back women’s rights by 50 years’ by changing definitions of domestic violence and sexual assault (24 January 2019). See related tweet here.

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

Feminists are the new mafia (24 January 2017) Video

many of he crimes [women] fall victim to are the result of broadened definitions of things like rape & DV

More than one in three victims of domestic abuse are now men (10 December 2016) UK. Refer comments by Polly Neate

The Future of Domestic Violence Prevention (1 November 2016)

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

Domestic Violence is not on the rise (16 December 2015)

New domestic abuse law on controlling behaviour unveiled (18 December 2014)

A flood of DV insanity and doublespeak (4 December 2014)

Bullying husbands who shout at their wives could be found guilty of domestic abuse under new crackdown (24 November 2014)

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/27/domestic-violence-defined-supreme-court

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14vymr/disabusing_the_definition_of_domestic_abuse_how/

The case of sexual assault: Feminists are active on at least two fronts here to build on, or at least to maintain, the current status quo:

1. With regards to the sexual assault of women they are continually seeking to stretch the boundaries of what constitutes sexual assault in order to artificially ramp up the perceived incidence of this crime in the face of declining perpetration. Google on “stare rape” as an example of how ridiculous their assertions can be.

rapes_down

rape_stats

2. With regards to the sexual assault of men, feminists are resisting the efforts of men’s rights activists to ensure that official statistics include the many men/boys raped in jail (by both men and women) and to ensure that male rape statistics include incidents of acts currently designated as ‘forced envelopment’ or ‘made to penetrate’ rather than as rape. They do so, at least in part, because they know that if rape was defined as all ‘forced/unwanted intimate sexual activity’, then there would be gender parity. Again, to preserve the image of female victimhood, feminists must ensure that the definition of rape remains limited to sexual activity involving ‘forced penetration’ (i.e. excluding ‘forced envelopment’ or ‘made to penetrate’).

Another relevant aspect of this debate is that many feminists simply don’t recognise that men can be raped, it being their view that ‘men always want it’. Some women also incorrectly believe that the very fact that a man has an erection (necessary for vaginal penetration) is proof of his consent.

Scroll down to see the definition of ‘sexual violence’ on this page. It includes  “withholding sex and affection” yet how many times have I read in feminist web sites that men are never “entitled” to sex from their partner? Double-standard much?

Mary P. Koss considers it “inappropriate” to consider men who have been raped by women as rape victims, and prefers to call it “unwanted contact” instead. See related reddit discussion thread here (27 December 2015) USA

marykoss

FBI: Violent crime drops, reaches 1970’s level (10 November 2014)

Erasing male rape victims (15 September 2014)

More at University of Michigan: Withholding sex, Discounting feelings are ‘Sexual Violence’ (25 September 2014)

Do the math: rape stats don’t add up (26 September 2014)

The CDC’s rape numbers are misleading (17 September 2014)

The CDC updated its sexual violence figures – still does not include “made to penetrate” in its definition (5 September 2014)

NISVS 2011 released – Increased male victimisation (9 September 2014)

40% of rapists are women (19 October 2013)

How official rape statistics are distorted and inflated, by Angry Harry (August 2014)

See http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=cdc+definition+rape&restrict_sr=on which includes threads such as:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/225npz/cdc_is_caught_in_a_lie/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1l11h4/this_constitutes_for_feminist_logic whichal_refutation/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xcrov/attempted_rape_rape_but_only_if_a_girl_is_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/271wqo/in_2010_half_of_all_sexual_violence_victims_were/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1btu0n/cdcs_response_to_whether_they_will_categorize/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27ubzy/upon_closer_examination_strange_data_emerges_from/

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29s2ki/in_uk_law_female_rape_does_not_exist_its_a/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/legitimate-rape-advocacy-and-censorship/ (24 March 2013)

Child custody: As detailed in John Hirst’s groundbreaking 2005 Quarterly Essay, Kangaroo Court: Family Law in Australia, the legal tactic employed was to make false accusations of child sexual assault against the father. Based on unproven allegations of abuse, the Family Court would decide that a child could be at risk of harm and withdraw the father’s limited access visits.

The situation for fathers subsequently improved due to family law reforms introduced by the Howard Government. Women’s groups, with the help of sympathetic lawyers and academics, then began lobbying the subsequent (labor) government to water down the earlier reforms. They complained that women and children were being forced to have contact with violent and abusive fathers. At least six reviews were commissioned to prove this “fact”, yet none of the subsequent reports contained evidence that shared parenting was exposing women and children to harm.

“The Gillard government has got around this by deciding to redefine family violence. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 has expanded the definition to include psychological harm, financial abuse and other threatening behaviour that controls, coerces or causes fear. Significantly, the government has ruled out requiring that fear of family violence be “reasonable”.

Based on past experience in the Family Court, the expanded definition will create a new and open-ended legal means by which good fathers are banished from the lives of their children. There also no longer will be any penalty (no cost orders) for knowingly making false allegations, and the friendly parent provisions, requiring parents to be supportive of each other’s role in their children’s lives, will be substantially diminished.” (Source)

The case of workplace harassment

See ‘A Man Is Out Of A Job (And Much More) Over This Innocuous Crap‘ by Amy Alkon (16 February 2015)

References that further demonstrate the above points can also be found in the my blog posts on the relevant topics (links provided below), and when I get a moment I will extract them and add them into this post.

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

On sexual assault and unwanted sex and On the feminist myth of ‘rape culture’

Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support

Imagine for a moment that you are a guy living in Western Australia. You are enduring periodic violent outbursts from your partner, and one night you go online looking for help. You come across the following web page:

WA_DViolence_helpline

Now I ask you, would you be likely to contact this agency for help? Or would you think, “I’m embarrassed enough already, I don’t want to speak with people who are going to automatically assume that I am the one responsible for the violence.”

Personally I think the web page displays disgraceful anti-male bias and so on 19 May 2014 I emailed the relevant agency stating:

“I wish to draw your attention to material contained in your web site which I consider to be hugely inappropriate. The relevant page is http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/crisisandemergency/pages/domesticviolencehelplines.aspx

Please be advised – and surely I should not need to inform your department of this fact – but there are in fact such people as female perpetrators of IPV and male victims of IPV. Indeed some studies assert that there is symmetry between genders, ie. equal or almost equal numbers of male/female victims/perpetrators.

If your staff are not aware of this fact then please circulate and study the list of references provided below. As it stands now, the content of your web page is outrageously biased against men and should be re-written to be gender-neutral and not suggest to all readers all men are perpetrators of DV.

For your attention and action at the earliest opportunity please.”

I received the following reply the next day:

“Thank you for your email dated 19 May concerning the language used to describe the roles of the Men’s and Women’s Domestic Violence Helplines.

The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is funded to provide telephone based counselling, information, support and referral for men who self- identify  as at risk of, or who are using violence.  It is acknowledged that both women and men can be victims of family and domestic violence.  Should a man experiencing such violence contact the Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline he would be provided with any necessary services and supported accordingly by the telephone counsellor. Counsellors are experienced and their training enables them to identify all scenarios and work with the caller and their presenting issues.

Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is funded to provided telephone based counselling, information, support and referral for women who are experiencing family and domestic violence.

This is the purpose of the Helplines and the description provided on the website reflects as such.

For all individuals and families who are experiencing violence, the Department for Child Protection and Family Support also provides the following support options:

  • 24/7 Crisis Care service, this is a crisis intervention service providing an immediate response to an individual or family experiencing a crisis, examples include any person experiencing family and domestic violence.
  • Family helpline, 24/7 telephone counselling service providing counselling, support, information and referral to an individual or family experiencing a range of issues.

These services are also on the department’s website.

I hope this response has been useful in advising you of the department’s services to those who are experiencing family and domestic violence from all perspectives. Thank you again for your email.”

And on the 21 May I wrote back to the department saying:

“Thank you for your prompt response to my concerns regarding the content of the web page provided in relation to your helplines. I take it from your response that you do not consider that the wording of the page displays undue bias against men, and consequently you do not propose to amend the content of the page.

We do however agree on the key point that there are both male and female aggressors and male and female victims of aggression, and that all should have access to support and assistance from your organisation.

It is my position, as I think it would be that of any reasonable person reading your web page, that the second sentence of each respective paragraph implies that your service is provided for the use of males who are aggressors and females who are victims, viz.:

“This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence”, and “This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive.”

I see no reason why the wording used in relation to the two helplines should not be identical, and I would suggest that such an amendment would be entirely appropriate. Consider for example the following suggested re-wording:

WOMEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE

The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women who are either experiencing family or domestic violence OR who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive. Our service offers phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required.

Telephone (08) 9223 1188 Free call 1800 007 339

MEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE

The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for men who are either experiencing family or domestic violence OR who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive. Our service offers phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer men to safe accommodation if required.

Telephone (08) 9223 1199 Free call 1800 000 599

Darren, I do hope you will give these suggestions due consideration and that you will see merit in removing the gender bias evident in the current page content, via making the proposed amendments. I firmly believe that the current bias is not just discriminatory and inappropriate in a general sense, but would surely also alienate men who might otherwise seek sympathetic assistance from your organization. I look forward to receiving your further response in due course.”

I never received a response to my email, but while I was waiting I scanned the various publications available in the Department’s web site. Unsurprisingly, they also display a high degree of gender bias against men. Some examples:

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/Perpetrator%20Accountability%20in%20Child%20Protection%20Practice.pdf (Sub-titled “A resource for child protection workers about responding to and engaging with men who perpetuate family and domestic violence“. And no, there is no ‘sister’ publication provided for dealing with female abusers.

See page 7 under definition of ‘perpetrator’ where it helpfully points out that “some women also offend against their children“, but that it’s not their fault as “sometimes this reflects an attempt to prevent greater harm from the primary perpetrator of violence …” And yes, that would be a man.

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/Freedom%20From%20Fear/Fact%20sheet-Has%20your%20partner%20hurt%20you.pdf (Written on the basis that the perpetrator of violence is male)

If you too feel that the Department should adopt a more professional and gender-neutral approach then I suggest you make your views known to the relevant Minister, the Honourable Helen Morton MLC (email to Minister.Morton@dpc.wa.gov.au). Alternatively, or in addition to a Ministerial letter, it might be appropriate to lodge a complaint in relation to sex discrimination.

As a footnote, I found this item entitled ‘Commission welcomes initiatives to address gender bias‘. Let’s see how they react when the perpetrator of gender bias is another state government agency.

Still in Western Australia, I noted a phrase in this March 2015 article about a new form of restraining order that is very telling in terms of its inherent anti-male bias:

“Family violence starts usually with the partner controlling every aspect of a woman’s life, the banking, who they speak to, where they go,” [Police Minister Liza Harvey] said.

I guess Liza didn’t say “every aspect of their partners life” as she is of the mistaken belief that all family violence is initiated by men. Shame on you Ms Harvey! But look at the Facebook posts concerning this article – clearly not everyone is buying the feminist perspective.

Note that there is a follow-up post to this one, entitled *That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

There are also various other posts within this blog concerning domestic violence, perhaps you might like to start with the one entitled domestic violence is not a gendered issue – So why the sexist bias against men?

See also:

Reddit discussion thread on this topic dated November 2015

Reddit mensrights discussion thread on this topic dated March 2015, that features some very interesting comments from concerned individuals. See in particular, comments from ‘dragonsandgoblins‘, also ‘fetafett’, ‘border-box’, ‘Il128’, ‘deadfallpro’, ‘Raditz10’, ‘pookabot’ and ‘regeya’.

WA domestic violence laws pose an insidious threat, by Augusto Zimmermann (24 September 2016)

Bring back our girls! (The ‘Empathy Gap’ & The ‘Disposable Male’)

If any further proof was needed that a male life was worth less than a female life, then the global media furore surrounding the activities of Boko Haram provides us with just that proof.

‘Bring back our girls’ indeed. Whilst not wishing to detract from the terrible tragedy of the kidnapped schoolgirls, the associated media coverage raises serious questions about the media’s blindness to the abuse and murder of enormous numbers of boys by both this and similar groups in Africa. Indeed most media coverage of the issues makes no mention of harm done to boys and men at all, see for example this article.

A journalist from the Wall Street Journal, Drew Hinshaw, recently did an online Q&A during which he ignored questions about why the WSJ had made no mention of the harm done to boys/men by Boko Haram. Can’t say? Won’t say? Don’t care?

Yes, you have to search on google (e.g. “what about the boys Boko Haram”) to find the few articles that have been published which actually address all those missing/killed/abused males – see thisthis, thisthisthis and this.

joker-boker-haram-abduct-school-boys-obama-nigeria-featured-image

In our next example let’s move to Europe. In the 2004 paper entitled Gendercide in Kosovo, author Adam Jones investigates gendercide of men in Bosnia by excluding men:

Bosnia1Bosnia2

See also:

17 killed in multiple Boko Haram suicide bombings in Nigeria (12 July 2017) Doesn’t conform to the prevailing gynocentric narrative? = mainstream media silence

Girls killed in shelter fire are the latest victims of Guatemala’s war on women (27 March 2017)

Mojgan belongs to one of the world’s most oppressed groups, and Dutton wants to send her home, by Ruby Hamad (15 March 2017) Australia

Where is the data showing that people are more likely to help a woman than a man (18 January 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Chattanooga School Bus Driver in Fatal Crash Involved in Collision 2 Months Ago (22 November 2016)

“Four of the five were girls”

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

Women are being traded as slaves on WhatsApp – here’s how the UN can act (8 September 2016) Article acknowledges men/boys also enslaved, so what’s with the title?

Boko Haram kidnapped 10,000 boys and the world remained silent (16 August 2016)

Social experiment: Who gets given more money in public? Homeless man or hot looking woman (August 2016) Youtube Video

Men get cancer too, but … whatever

Gynocentrism 2.0, compassion, and choice: The underlying root of men’s issues (31 August 2016)

If a boy, a girl, a cat and a dog were abandoned in a park who would be rescued first? Social experiment tests the reactions of passersby… and the results may surprise you (20 August 2016)

The 10,000 Kidnapped Boys of Boko Haram (12 August 2016) See also here

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

The empathy gap is shockingly real (9 November 2014)

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/continuously-ignored-by-the-mainstream-hundreds-more-men-and-boys-are-singled-out-and-killed-by-boko-haram-whats-the-excuse-bringbackourgirls/

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/boko-haram-kills-hundred-of-men-and-boys-in-village-raids-and-theworldremainssilent/

Boko Haram gendercide: A Vote of no confidence in the United Nations (9 June 2014)

http://www.news.com.au/world/boko-haram-kidnaps-another-60-girls-from-nigerian-villages/story-fndir2ev-1226965000035 (Note there is no mention of “men” or “boys” … when bad things happen to males then gender-neutral terms are used (e.g. “villagers” or “people” or “vigilantes”)

Mexico mass grave found near Iguala (5 October 2014) No mention of the gender of the murdered students (yes, they were all male)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/menarepeopletoo/

White House continues to pander to feminists/ignore male victims (8 July 2014)

Feminism and the disposable male (‘A Girl Writes What’ video)

bringback

 

At least 19 dead and 50 injured in the concert explosion that Australian feminist Jane Caro refers to, but apparently the welfare of teenage girls is paramount. Slate.com jumped the bandwagon with ‘The Bombing at a Manchester Ariana Grande Show Was an Attack on Girls and Women‘ (22 May 2017). Then many others followed suit, including ‘Manchester bombing was a hate crime against women and girls‘ and ‘Islamists’ hatred of women and gays can’t be allowed to stand‘ (26 May 2017)

After Manchester: The cowardice of feminists (25 May 2017) This article sums up my feelings about the feminist response quite well.

Related posts within this blog

Regarding gender reversal and sexist double-standards
About feminism & feminist antipathy towards issues faced by men
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us
Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes
On respect and privilege

On the feminist myth of ‘rape culture’

Rape culture is one of the mainstays of contemporary feminist ideology, and some assert that it is a crucial prop in maintaining the culture of perennial victimhood for women that then in turn manufactures the ‘need’ for feminism.

The nature and even the very existence of a ‘rape culture’ (at least within modern western societies) is hotly disputed as evidenced in the positions put forward in the reference works listed below. As you will note, north American university campuses have been the major focus for activism in relation to this issue.

Where is all this talk of rape culture leading us to? Hysteria and denial of justice to the falsely accused. Here’s a relatively benign, yet still troubling, May 2015 Australian example (also here).

I would suggest also reading this related post within this blog, with further related posts elsewhere in this blog (just click on the subject tag/s at the listed at the base of this page).

One starting point is an April 2014 article entitled ‘The big lie of a rape culture’ by Wendy McElroy

In January 2016 we heard about a new development that yet again shows the utter hypocrisy of the feminist movement, and it’s disregard for the welfare of ordinary women. This development occurred due to a clash of feminist ideals, in which the progressive liberal SJW bias of many feminists won out. In Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve at least 100 women were sexually assaulted by Muslim ‘refugees’ from the Middle East. There followed a disgraceful cover-up by the leftist media and government spokespeople, as described in this article.

Congratulations feminists/SJW for creating a rape culture where there was none, by feminising western males, encouraging a PC-inspired kid-glove (if not, hands-off!) approach by police, whilst lobbying for unfettered entry by huge number of people with a very different and conflicting cultural background.

So much has happened in North America in just the past 2-3 years concerning rape hysteria, especially in relation to real and alleged campus assaults. Finally after many court cases by wrongly accused men, and revelations concerning high-profile hoaxes and false allegations, some sense is returning the debate.

What a disappointment then to see that feminists are importing this madness to Australia. And with Elizabeth Broderick as a mouthpiece – colour me surprised. Are we now destined to experience the same painful and divisive process that our North American brother and sisters have endured, and are still attempting to resolve?

And now it’s time to jump in to the other reference works that follow …

Articles from the Voice for Men web site (various authors)

Climate of fear, by Bettina Arndt (27 October 2016)

Wendy McElroy – Rape Culture Hysteria (24 July 2016) Video

Documentation of Title IX complaints against Emerson College surfaces, questionable accusations abound (19 June 2014) Harvard Law Review

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/why-call-it-rape-culture/ by 

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/the-end-of-rape-culture/ by Jim Byset (18 March 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/logic-another-form-of-female-oppression/ by Diana Davison (17 March 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/rape-culture-fanatics-dont-know-what-a-culture-is/ by Barbara Kay (10 March 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/mens-rights-vs-feminist-rape-culture-explained-using-puzzle-pieces/ (11 February 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/the-real-rape-epidemic/ by John Hembling (22 October 2011)

Our so-called “Rape Culture” by Tara Palmatier (29 October 2013)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/feminist-lies-about-rape-culture/ (17 October 2013)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/the-myth-of-rape-myths/ by Diana Davison (15 November 2013)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/hangouts/avfm-monday-roundup-anti-male-hysteria-from-nazarian-to-obama/ by Paul Elam (27 January 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/legitimate-rape-advocacy-and-censorship/ by Chris Deslone (24 March 2013)

Articles/videos about ‘rape culture’ from other sources

Just how easy should it be to destroy a young man’s life? (30 January 2019) USA

David French identifies the root cause of sexual assaults on university campuses (18 September 2017)

The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy (6 September 2017) USA

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

I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons) (6 July 2017)

Fabricating A Rape Culture On Campuses, by Bettina Arndt (22 May 2017)

Study: 89% of colleges reported zero campus rapes in 2015 (11 May 2017)

Grant teacher’s letter denying rape culture outrages students, parents (May 2017) USA. Teacher encourages people to think about an issue – gets sanctioned. Coverage of this incident then went international. Pressure was then brought to bear on the teacher who then issued a retraction.

Laura Kipnis, Rape Culture, and the Disappearance of Sex (18 April 2017)

Male Student Ostracized, Publicly Shamed After Questioning the Existence of Rape Culture (6 April 2017)

The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities by Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor (3 February 2017)

Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Misconduct Can’t Defend Himself—It Would ‘Impose Psychological Trauma’ on Accuser (31 January 2017)

The Understudied Female Sexual Predator (29 November 2016)

Research Finds Sexual Victimization Perpetrated by Women More Common than Previously Known (28 November 2016) USA

A third of U.S. women afraid of being sexually assaulted, but few say they’re victims (17 October 2016) With related Reddit discussion thread here.

Schools, media ignore civil protections when it comes to campus sexual assault, Ashe Schow (30 August 2016) USA

Court Rules Former Columbia Student Suspended for Alleged Rape Can Sue for “Anti-Male Bias” (2 August 2016)

Over 60 percent decline in sexual violence against females from 1995 to 2010 (US Government statistics released in 2013)

Due process is still being kicked off campus, by George Will (13 May 2016) USA

‘Ripe for sexual assault’: Australian universities need drastic action to stop attacks on women (11 May 2016) Wouldn’t it be better to learn from the overblown rape hysteria of North American campuses, rather than just importing it and repeat the same mistakes? More on Australians developments here – as you can see archly-feminist Australia Human Rights Commission taking a lead role.

Rape culture: what makes a boy a man? (19 April 2016) Australia. “Of course there is a need for some lightness” (=anything women do to, or say about, men). Because it’s different when a woman does it. Even raping their students, Steve?

Save us from hastag justice, by Margaret Wente (2 April 2016) Canada

Anti-Rape Culture‘ by Aya Gruber, University of Colorado Law School (2016)

Radical Feminism And The So-Called ‘Rape Epidemic’ (3 December 2015) USA

Campus sexual assault: Bad statistics don’t help victims (26 October 2015) Video from the ‘Factual Feminist’

An Assault on Common Sense (2 November 2015)

The myth of the college ‘rape culture’ (27 September 2015)

University of Michigan sex assault finding thrown out (15 September 2015)

Appalling trend: innocent young men are deemed necessary collateral damage in the war on rape (14 September 2015)

‘The Hunting Ground’: Reaping Profit from Rape Hysteria (26 March 2015)

Tracking rape, on and off campus (25 March 2015)

‘Rape prevention tips’ go viral. Upset men (23 March 2015)

A surprisingly eloquent facebook debate re: victim-blaming and mensrights (March 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

The number of sexual assaults against women is falling. So why isn’t it being reported? (19 February 2015)

Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement – Backing off the hype in Title IX enforcement (18 February 2015)

Now more than ever, the issue of campus rape requires critical thinking (17 December 2014)

Another college campus, more pitchfork justice (7 December 2014)

Saslaw says 20 percent of female students at University of Virginia are sexually assaulted (8 December 2014)

Should we always believe the victim? (6 December 2014)

Fear: The terrible feeling every woman experiences by Melissa Hoyer (6 November 2014) and Pray for Clementine (4 December 2014) Two similar articles by Australian feminist journalists concerning their sickening level of paranoia regarding men. In the second article Clementine Ford is freaking out because a stranger in the street, a man, tried to talk to her.

A sexual harassment policy that nearly ruined my life (3 November 2014) Concerns the issue of lack of due process when investigating claims of sexual harassment/assault on USA campuses

Vagina warrior lynch mobs (26 October 2014) Re: USA campuses

French feminists’ fury as they demand Normandy statue be torn down (7 October 2014)

Shut Up, because Rape (2 October 2014)

The President calls on men to protect women from rapists … (A Reddit mensrights discussion thread) (19 September 2014)

Barbara Kay: Eight to 16% of the male population has been abused sexually in youth. Often by women (5 September 2014)

Feminists rage over suggestion that alcohol education can help curb sexual assault (2 September 2014) Reddit discussion thread here

1,400 girls are raped in Rotherham and feminists don’t care (1 September 2014) and Feminists deafening silence on Rotherham (29 August 2014)

Feminists say roofie-detecting nail polish is actually also rape culture (25 August 2014)

Why is it easier to invent anti-rape nail polish than find a way to stop rapists? by Jessica Valenti (26 August 2014)

Janet Bloomfield critiques an article by feminist journalist Jessica Valenti regarding rape culture (21 August 2014)

No, 1 in 5 women have not been raped on college campuses (13 August 2014)

‘Rape Culture’ leads to manhunts on campus (11 August 2014)

‘Teach men not to rape’: Turn off the outrage machine (29 June 2014) Sensible article that attracted angry feminist response

Conservative scholar: Feminist ‘mob’ ruining colleges with ‘rape culture crusade’ (19 May 2014)

Before declaring that there’s a ‘rape epidemic’ in the US has anyone bothered to check the actual data? (17 May 2014)

Female students shouldn’t play the victim card (12 June 2014)

I am now officially sick of rape culture bullshit (30 April 2014)

The big lie of a “rape culture” by Wendy McElroy (7 April 2014)

Estelle B. Freedman: Redefining Rape (15 October 2013) Youtube video

Study: 10 Percent of U.S. Youths cause Sexual Violence – Females are just as likely to be perpetrators as males (7 October 2013)

In this video a feminist dissects the bogus “one in five women will be raped” statistic

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/heather-mcdonald-obamas-hysteria-over-sexual-assault-epidemic-is-based-on-a-fiction/

http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/83050273674/a-far-cry-from-innocence-when-a-man-gets-insulted

http://thoughtcatalog.com/kelly-hills/2014/04/27-things-that-currently-define-rape-culture/ (29 April 2014) A male perspective on the notion of ‘rape culture’

http://cornellsun.com/blog/2014/04/17/throwdown-thursday-the-truth-about-rape-culture/ and subsequent discussion/furore here

http://www.cotwa.info/2014/04/the-angry-reaction-to-acquittal-of.html

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/03/rapeculture.html

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/13/national-post-editorial-board-lots-of-rape-culture-rhetoric-but-not-much-evidence/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/04/barbara-kay-dont-exaggerate-rape-culture-on-campus/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/28/barbara-kay-rape-culture-and-the-delusions-of-the-feminist-mind/

http://antimisandry.com/advice-sexism-misandry-discrimination/rape-epidemic-doesnt-actually-exist-53477.html

http://time.com/30545/its-time-to-end-rape-culture-hysteria/

http://themaskandrose.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/feminist-lie-1-rape-culture/

http://politix.topix.com/story/10784-college-men-arent-closet-rapists

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22jp7k/the_feminist_group_at_my_school_are_very/

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2013/12/lets_challenge_the_rape_cultur_1.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1khu6r/the_difference_between_rape_victimization_rates/

CDC study on sexual violence in the U.S. overstates the problem (27 January 2012)

http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Nine-Facts-About-Sexual-Violence-and-Rape1.pdf

http://time.com/40110/rape-culture-is-real/ (Christina H. Sommers described this article thus: “Sorry, but this is exhibit A of what has gone wrong with Nth wave feminism. Fallacies + melodrama. When will it end?” Best proceed quickly to the comments section)

The Campus Rape Myth (Winter 2008)

‘Realities and mythologies of rape’ in Society, Jan-Feb 1998 v35 n2 p356 (7)

rapes_down

‘Sunrise’ TV show offers sop to feminists

Yet another case of two steps forward and one step back. In two earlier posts in this blog I described how members of the ‘Sunrise’ TV show purposefully stood their ground against strident feminist criticism. I had hoped that they would keep the positive momentum going with some segments about the excesses and mistruths of the contemporary feminist movement. Unfortunately that was not to be the case. Well, at least not yet. (Postscript: Pleased to see ‘Sunrise’ step up with this interview with MRA Paul Elam on 5 July 2014 … kudos to ‘Sunrise’)

I just watched a segment on ‘Sunrise‘ – an interview involving Michael Kaufman of the ‘White Ribbon Campaign‘ and Sunrise’s resident ‘White Knight‘, Andrew O’Keefe . The segment came across as something of an attempt by ‘Sunrise’ to win back some street-cred with pro-feminist viewers. It’s sad that they feel the need to curry favour with a movement represented by thisthis and this.

The ‘White Ribbon Campaign‘ is a pro-feminist organisation whose goal is to stop violence by men towards women. They ignore violence by women, and for the most part they ignore violence by men towards other men. They do acknowledge problems that disproportionately affect men like suicide and homelessness, but claim that these are a reflection of the pressures of gender stereotypes imposed on boys and men (i.e. be a man!). The solution, they say, is for men to be comfortable showing what are seen as feminine attributes – and then they would not have to hurt women. The ‘White Ribbon’ crowd thus conveniently choose to ignore more potent forces such as the increasingly toxic environment in schools and universities for male students, the pervasive anti-male bias in the media, etc etc.

By all means please do address the problem of violence – violence by people of all genders. And by all means address the imposition of negative gender stereotypes – again, by people of all genders. But by focussing entirely on violence by men towards women, the White Ribbon Campaign reinforces the prevailing stereotype of men as brutes and women as victims. That being the case, they are as much part of the problem as they are part of the solution.

One of the outcomes of this telescopic view of ‘domestic violence = mens violence towards women’ is the trivialising of the other dimensions of intimate partner violence (i.e. womens violence towards men, male on male violence, and female on female violence). This bias is a pervasive influence across society, and is discussed and demonstrated in another blog post which includes links to videos showing public reaction to male and female actors playing out different scenarios of partner violence.

The concerns of others regarding the White Ribbon Campaign can be ascertained by googling on the words ‘White Ribbon Campaign criticism’ (some examples herehereherehere, here and here). 

 

Human trafficking of men and boys + other hidden sexual violence against males

There is obviously a great deal of violence, oppression and areas of relative disadvantage affecting men and boys. The true extent of this is, however, suppressed by feminists and feminist sympathisers within the media, government agencies and universities because it undermines the dominant feminist narrative (men as oppressors/women as the powerless and oppressed).

I touched on this issue in a post I made on the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page on 23 August 2014 concerning a story they ran on modern-day slavery:

“Isn’t is funny how gender is never mentioned in these stories unless women/girls are worse off? Most enslaved people are male working in primary production and construction, but most of the attention and support is directed towards the far smaller number of women is sexual servitude. Guess that might have something to do with the abundance of feminists in the media/gov’t/NGO sectors and how feminists view males as disposable.”

Slavery is just one area where the suffering of men and boys is hidden or downplayed. See also my post on the issue of #bringbackourgirls, and another entitle ‘Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes‘.

Further relevant topics such as domestic abuse, sexual harassment and sexual violence, have been addressed in other posts within this blog:

  • Sexual assault of male youths and under-aged children by  women in western countries is addressed in this post
  • Sexual assault of institutionalised male youth is addressed in this post
  • Sexual assault of (non-institutionalised) men in western countries is addressed in this post
  • Prostitution (involving both male and female clients) is addressed in this post

In this post I want to provide some references in relation to the following topics:

  • Human trafficking of men and boys
  • Sexual violence against men and boys in wars and conflict zones
  • Sexual violence against men and boys in institutional settings

Human trafficking of men and boys:

More counter-intuitive findings about sexually trafficked children: 50% are boys and 40% of those boys are bought by women (12 August 2017) Reddit discussion thread with linked resources

Feminism and male trafficking (17 December 2015)

The story of one. Trafficked boys: Vandalized innocence hidden in plain sight (20 September 2014)

How not to talk about human trafficking (21 January 2014)

Trafficked boys overlooked (14 April 2014)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1wn8d2/sex_trafficking_efforts_focus_on_girls_though/ and a related discussion here

http://projectfutures.com/2013/09/10/demystifying-male-sex-trafficking/

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/male-victims-of-sex-trafficking/

Why Human Trafficking is a Men’s Issue (5 May 2011)

Sexual violence against men & boys:

“Why Boys?” – Sexual Abuse of Teenage Boys in Dalian School Shocks Chinese Netizens (5 August 2016)

The forgotten men: sexual abuse of males in Cambodia (6 November 2015)

U.S. incarcerated boys report high rate of exploitation by female staff while in custody (26 June 2015)

TIL that 8.2% of males in juvenile facilities report staff sexual misconduct, as opposed to 2.8% of females. 89% of the misconduct is perpetrated solely by women (20 June 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

How sexual exploitation of men and boys is overlooked and dismissed (27 August 2014)

Male rape: The last human rights taboo (25 June 2013)

When men are raped (29 April 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2551/male-privilege-defining-male-victims-out-of-existence/

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/

http://www.genderratic.com/p/2943/mary-koss-the-corruption-continues-manboobz-style/

http://www.genderratic.com/p/tag/mary-koss/

http://www.genderratic.com/p/4088/who-defines-rape/

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/03/03/anti-male-bigotry-at-npr-noh/#more-4934

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

On mens health: The statistics and the underlying factors

The life expectancy of both men and women has substantially increased over the past 130 years. Most people would recognise that women have always had a longer life expectancy than men. But did you did you know that the gap between the life expectancy of men and women is wider now than it was in 1884? Now why would that be?

Well the author of this paper has a theory:

“Feminism is wrong about which sex has it harder when it comes to health. Men are the real victims of biased public health programs designed to help women at the expense of men. But this section has only explored a few areas where feminism has created a false perception of which sex needs greater attention to their health issues. It should be clear that men have no special privileges when it comes to health. However, women’s health, both physically and psychologically, is taken very seriously, is far better funded, and women are privileged with longer healthier lives when compared to men because of the social and political privileges that are exclusive to women. Hence health is a men’s rights issue that needs to be addressed.”

In 2012, suicide was the third leading cause of death for American men and boys in the 10-14, 15-19, and 20-24 age groups along with the second leading cause of death for men 25-29 and 30-34. That year, it was also the leading cause of death for US soldiers. Overall, suicide was the 7th leading cause of death for American men in 2012 with males making up more than 78% of suicide victims for the year.

In 2012, more than twice as many boys aged 10-14 took their own lives than were victims of homicide. The only two causes of death that took more boys’ lives in this age group were cancer and accidental injuries. More than 72% of the children in this age group who took their own lives were boys. Even at a young age, boys are far more likely to end their own lives.

Data from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2012.pdf (as cited here)

The issue of suicide is addressed in this other post within my blog.

Further information concerning men’s health can be found in the various reference works listed below:

Australia’s National Men’s Health Strategy launched today (11 April 2019)

Government medical research funding favors women (30 August 2018)

Uneven access to health services drives life expectancy gaps: WHO (4 April 2019) And yet again, the standard simplistic and blaming explanation is rolled out: Men choose not to go and see the doctor often enough or fast enough! See also related Tweet.

Men with prostate cancer wait four times as long for a diagnosis as women with breast cancer (20 December 2017)

Why Men Don’t Care About The Healthcare Debate (13 November 2017) USA

Men are killed at a greater rate than women in Australia – what can we do to reduce their risk? (28 June 2017)

Barbara Kay: Why does a report on ‘gender equity’ in mental health all but ignore the illnesses of men and boys? (16 May 2017)

Men DO open up about their problems – but no-one is listening (20 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

The American Heart Association Is Sexist with #GoRedForWomen. More Men Die From Heart Disease So Why Not #GoRedForALL? (4 February 2017) Reddit Mensrights discussion thread.

38 new substance-use treatment beds for women opening in Vancouver (25 January 2017) Canada. See related Reddit thread here.

A total of 914 people died of a drug overdose in B.C. last year. Of that, 176 were women”.

Why males are more likely to die from conception to old age (26 August 2016)

‘Equal pay day’ this year is April 12; the next ‘equal occupational fatality day’ will be in the year 2027 (9 April 2016)

Men’s Health: A Global Problem Hiding in Plain Sight (24 March 2016)

The Canadian Federal Budget was just released. Take a look at the differences between “Men’s Health” and “Women’s Heart Health” in both funding and tone (22 March 2016)

STOP: Discrimination against Men by Psychologists (March 2016) Australia. A change.org petition

The Men’s Health Gap: Men must be included in the Global Health Equity Agenda (undated)

Obesity in women ‘as dangerous as terror threat’: Extraordinary claim by health chief as she uses speech to demand condition is added to list of emergency threats. But obesity in the UK affects far more men than women. Why is she only concerned about women? with related discussion thread here

Why is there a womenshealth.gov but not a menshealth.gov? (3 June 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Gender Bias In Osteoporosis Screening (5 November 2014)

Men’s Health – Not That Important – Still (27 October 2014)

Is the problem with men’s health, Gender Politics? (29 October 2014)

14 men open up about the devastation of divorce (17 October 2014)

Man flu isn’t a myth (17 October 2014)

The invisible blue taboo: The burden of boys and men (28 August 2014)

Death rate of Australian men is 50% higher than for women (21 August 2014)

Men die earlier but women’s health gets four times more funding (4 January 2014)

When men’s health doesn’t count (5 September 2013)

A notable case brought by Dr Alex Proudfoot was in relation to inequitable and gender-biased health funding (Proudfoot and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1992) 28 ALD 734). The case was dismissed.

National Male Health Policy (Australia)

Research into gender differences in heart disease

Boys left out: no HPV vaccine immunization program in Canada (undated)

And one man’s account of what happened when he did go to the doctor

The unsafe sex: Should the world invest more in men’s health? (18 May 2014)

The President and the Women’s Lobby (29 October 2012)

Why is men’s health suffering in London? (25 June 2012)

Europe’s men need their own health strategy (29 November 2011)

To improve men’s health, treat the cause not just the illness (15 August 2011) Australia

Government’s Huge Cancer Funding Gender Gap (16 August 2009)

http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/23/women-should-pay-more-for-health-care/

Osteoporosis drug subsidised for women but not men

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2014/03/geeksgetcovered-is-obamacares-latest-attack-on-young-unmarried-men/

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/2004GenderandAgeHighlights.pdf

http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/mens-global-healthcare-is-woefully-underfunded/

http://www.angryharry.com/esbreastcancer.htm??note

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgUNCheatsMenWithGenderAgenda.htm?note

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/03/20/hookinguprealities/an-increase-in-male-eating-disorders-reflects-confusion-about-what-women-want/

On Prostate Cancer

Metastatic prostate cancer cases increase 72% in ten years (29 July 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Left to battle alone, 30,000 men dying of prostate cancer: Patients are not being offered enough support, say experts (20 March 2015)

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/

Prostate cancer sufferer: ‘It’s either buy the drugs, or die’ (13 October 2014)

Discussion thread about the funding differential between prostate cancer and breast cancer (2 October 2014)

Prostate patients ‘get second-rate NHS care’: Report says sufferers are far less likely to receive the latest drugs or be looked after by specialist nurses (1 October 2014)

California offers free treatment for uninsured breast cancer sufferers, but not for prostate cancer (reddit discussion thread, August 2014)

Prostate cancer drug ruling a ‘fiasco’, says charity (15 August 2014)

Vasectomy increases risk of prostate cancer (11 July 2014)

Prostate cancer as male privilege (November 2011) Reddit discussion thread and original article/readers comments

prostate

On feminists actively undermining men’s health initiatives

In my blog I have listed hundreds of articles and academic papers that relate to various men’s rights issues. Within this collection there would be precious few that have been included purely because of how appallingly bad they were. This paper by Dr Michael Salter is therefore exceptional in that, and only in that, regard. His paper which attacks the involvement of men’s rights groups in lobbying for equitable treatment of men’s health issues displays a truly extraordinary degree of anti-male and pro-feminist bias.

This Reddit mensrights discussion thread is about feminists seeking to undermine the ‘Movember’ men’s health initiative on the basis of it supporting masculinity (20 October 2014). Here is one of the examples cited, and following it is a detailed response from a representative of the Movember movement. I think it’s well-worthy of being reproduced here and now:

“Pete Bombaci here, Country Director for Movember Canada. I’ve read the above and I want to clarify many of the inaccurate points written about Movember here.

You say that “what once started out as a harmless campaign has become sexist, racist, transphobic, and misinformed.” This is simply not true.

As you admit in your article, Movember isn’t just about raising money. It’s about having conversations. The magic of Movember is that it can unite different people from all sorts of socio-economic backgrounds under one flag: men’s health. You don’t have to be rich to wear a Mo, and you don’t have to be cool to change the world.

Thanks to our amazing Mo Bros and Mo Sistas, we are changing the world, and that includes changing standard definitions of masculinity. Movember isn’t about men being super tough or butch, though many Mo Bros and some of our Mo Sistas are so. Movember isn’t about growing the biggest, butchest, moustache. It’s about growing the best Mo you can personally grow. It’s about personal bests, about getting engaged in men’s health, about knowing yourself and taking care of yourself and your communities.

The Movember community is a global one that cuts across race, class and gender because cancer and mental health illness cuts across race, class, and gender. The idea that white cisgendered men shouldn’t raise funds for prostate cancer because they aren’t the ones most affected by it is antithetical to Movember vision. Making sure our fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers, friends, neighbours, coworkers feel safer being vulnerable talking about and taking care of their health, their bodies, and their mental health can only make life better for ALL OF US.

Some folks might argue that Movember isn’t a space for transpeople. This only speaks to the stigma and lack of understanding that transpeople face on a daily basis. We are well aware that some Mo Bros don’t have prostates. Whether it’s because a Mo Bro’s cancer treatment required the removal of his prostate, or whether he simply wasn’t born with one, we don’t discriminate against our Mo Bros for not having a prostate. For us, the truest mark of a Mo Bro is his willingness to change the world. The only binary we recognize is Movember and the rest of the year.

To your claim that Movember is sexist, I would say that Movember was and continues to be inspired by women’s health movements. Beyond that, women are a vital part of Movember as team leaders, teammates, and supporters. Women are substantial fundraisers. Women are, traditionally, the gatekeepers of family health and can be experts at one of our main goals: getting conversations about male health going. SinceMovember is about moustaches, we don’t typically encourage women to grow out their leg or armpit hair, though we’ll never turn down a nicely styled Mo,regardless of who wears it. We have one Mo Sista this year from Ottawa who is sporting a Mo every day for the entire month of Movember. Who would dream of trying to squash that kind of determination?

An important face to note here is that you represent Movember as No Shave November. Taking comments from No Shave November participants and portraying them as the opinions of our Mo Bros and Mo Sistas is inaccurate and disingenuous. Movember is not No Shave November and No Shave November is not Movember.

Movember suggests that folks show solidarity with each other by joining the Movember journey, in whatever form that looks like for you: go to a MOVE event; talk to your friends about their health, grow a Mo, or if you can’t, don’t. However, the Mo will always be our King because ultimately, our awareness program is powered by the growth of a new moustache and the obvious question that follows – why the moustache? Because our community members want an explanation for our change in appearance, a new Mo, those with Mo’s arm themselves with knowledge, provided by Movember, about men’s health.

The conversations started as a result of the moustache help to educate, breakdown stigmas, and ultimately change behaviour. From this program we know that 90% of Movember participants spend time thinking about improving their health, 75% discussed their health with family, friends or colleagues during Movember, and 66% of participants have had a recent general check-up. Globally in 2012 Mo Bros and Mo Sistas started 2.7 billion conversations about men’s health and Movember. We know that pairing this program with funding of world class men’s health research and programs helping men live with and beyond cancer and mental illness will help to truly change the face of men’s health.

You have also misrepresented our recommendation on PSA testing. Movember suggests: Men should talk to their doctor about prostate cancer testing. There are advantages and disadvantages to PSA testing. Understand the prostate cancer risk factors, discuss these with your doctor and decide if prostate cancer testing is right for you. You can find this here –http://ca.movember.com/mens-he….

You’ll also find a tool about the PROS and CONS of testing that we developed with the Societe internationale du urology. As Movember has grown we have worked with medical professionals to evolve our men’s health information and the materials available on Movember.com have been approved by national and international experts in the field.

It’s honestly disappointing to see Movember misrepresented in this way Movember. McGill continues to be one of the top supporting teams and the University has been an integral part of Movember funded research in Canada and on an international basis. We’re very proud of the community there and the work they have done. To date Mo Bros and Mo Sistas in Canada have raised an astonishing $13.5 Million for mental health.”

What did you call me? On labelling and language in gender discourse

One of the many feminist criticisms of the mens rights movement, and particularly MHRA web sites like ‘A Voice for Men’, is that they are characterised by the frequent use of descriptors of women that are offensive and sexist … terms such as sluts or whores.

Personally I have noticed that there is surprisingly little usage of such terms in MRA sites or blogs. Moreover when such terms do appear they are generally found within comments contributed by readers (some of whom are trolls), rather than in the body of posts or articles themselves. Such put-downs also almost invariably relate to feminists rather than women per se.

It was with interest then that I came across this study ‘Cursing in English on Twitter‘ (see section entitled ‘Cursing Vs Gender’ on page 8). Granted, the study wasn’t about MRA/feminist sites, but the findings are still interesting. The study found, for example, that the the use of terms ‘bitch’ ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ by women was more prevalent than the level of use by men.

This post looks at the issue of online harassment, whilst in another blog post I discuss the terms gender traitor, white knight and mangina.

Another related term that has come to be used increasingly widely is ‘cuck‘, which is  the shortened version of ‘cuckold‘. The common meaning seems to be a person (generally male) who does the bidding of another whilst not truly invested in that person’s (or groups) cause, for example a politician who supports feminist programs out of fear of castigation and/or in the hope of winning the ‘women’s vote’.

See also:

Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age (2016)

‘Lord protect me from easily offended snowflake girls’ (17 October 2016) Ireland

Women most likely to use misogynistic language on Twitter, report finds (17 October 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

David Leyonhjelm: NSW Senator lodges complaint over journalist’s claim he is an ‘angry white male’ (15 August 2016)

Female judge stuns courtroom by telling racist thug: ‘You’re a bit of a c*** yourself’ (11 August 2016)

Are we seriously expected to take any liberal feminist seriously? (10 August 2016)

Corporate Cucks … and the language police who protect and serve them (5 August 2016)

The ‘C’ word (‘cuck’) (19 May 2016) Australia. Reddit discussion thread

“What’s mansplaining?” Senator Mitch Fifield offended by Senator Katy Gallagher’s allegation (10 February 2016) Australia. Video

Why Do Feminists And Social Justice Warriors Use So Much Profanity? (2 February 2016)

Is Kerri Sackville a slut? (18 January 2016)

Manspreading, Transgender and Shaming … How the Left Wing controls language (6 November 2015)

Mansults: the put-downs that are always levelled at straight white males (19 September 2015)

Mean Girls: Why the Only People Women Should Fear Online Are Other Women (10 August 2015)

Lena Dunham: The Expression ‘TMI’ Is Sexist (2 October 2014) USA

Ironic misandry: Why feminists pretending to hate men isn’t funny (12 August 2014)

http://m.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/373355/you-cant-whine-your-way-better-world-jim-geraghty

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/dr-paul-on-the-bitch-double-standard/

http://uberfeminist.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/feminists-support-rape-culture.html

more_hypocrisy

 

 

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

I came across an article some time ago that detailed the results of a study that looked for any bias shown by Human Resources (HR) personnel when recruiting new staff.

“… we’re talking about the human resource professionals who, thumbing through resumes, act as the gate-keepers to employment around the world. Are they men or women? Because sadly, oh-so-uncomfortably, it matters.”

The researchers detected a significant incidence of bias. They found that, for example, more attractive men where often selected in preference to less attractive men whilst less attractive women were chosen in preference to more attractive women. The researchers considered and disallowed the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype (i.e. attractive women as being more likely to be stupid) as a reason for this discrimination.

“So the cause of the discrimination must lie elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers’ unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates.”

There is increasing evidence, however, that gender discrimination that may have begun as individual bias is now becoming a systemic practice as described in some of the linked references below.

See also:

Women’s legal service wins right to exclude men from advertising, recruitment, employment practices (15 May 2019) Australia. And how many instances have there been, at federal and state level, of organisations being allowed to only seek male candidates? Any? Ever?

Astrophysics position at the Australian National University that’s only open to female candidates (26 April 2019)

West Midlands Police accused of ‘discriminating against white male officers’ (15 November 2018) and see related tweet by Martin Daubney

Cern scientist: ‘Physics built by men – not by invitation’ (1 October 2018) Scientist Alessandro Strumia earns feminist and White Knight outrage because he suggested, amongst other things, that female scientists were given a distinct advantage in the recruitment process.

AFP’s call for female recruits causes major stir online (1 October 2017) This video addresses this ‘initiative’

Mark Latham: ‘White male privilege’ myth busted (11 July 2017)

“white men were 6.5 per cent less likely to be short-listed”

Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals (30 June 2017)

Discrimination by and diversity within HR department (5 March 2017) Reddit discussion thread

I’m a young researcher trying hard to find work, but I can’t apply for these positions because penis (16 October 2016) Australia. Reddit discussion thread and linked job advertisement from Swinburne University of Technology for five women-only positions.

“We are proud to be recognised by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency as an Employer of Choice for Gender Equality for the past 7 consecutive years.” This has to be a joke, right?

Is Silicon Valley Discriminating Against Men and Asians? (14 October 2016)

“Are lawsuits like these a good thing, or are they going to stall efforts to move towards more diversity in Silicon Valley?” (Because fighting discrimination is only OK when it’s the right kind of discrimination, huh?)

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

Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men (15 September 2016)

Commission threatens hiring ‘freeze’ on men if more women don’t get top jobs (28 July 2016) Europe

People interviewing for a tech job had their genders masked. It made things worse for the women (1 July 2016) USA. The same study was also covered in Breitbart. Researchers expected anti-female bias but found the opposite. Author of this article tries to explain away the results.

Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths (18 May 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here, and critical response from Janet Bloomfield below:

Positive discrimination will have exactly the opposite effect you hope for, Melbourne University. Smarten up (18 May 2016)

Part-time work could hurt jobseekers’ future prospects, UT study finds (3 March 2016)

“He also found that less than 5 percent of men working part time received callbacks. However, the study found no negative effect for part-time employment among women.”

Buzzfeed Canada is recruiting, but doesn’t want white males (19 February 2016)

Tasmania’s top public servant targets gender parity (17 February 2016) Given that 70% of the state’s public service is female, will Greg Johannes also be writing to head of agencies with >50% women to ask them to recruit more men? Gee, I doubt it.

A man who got laid-off from Yahoo is suing the company for alleged sexual discrimination (2 February 2016)

Women out earn men in 29 fields after college. The reason seems to be gender discrimination. How can this be legal? (21 January 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Being a good looking man could hinder your career, study finds (8 December 2015) UK

Toronto company Vestra Inet prefers ‘female candidates’ for receptionist work (23 November 2015)

University of York cancels International Men’s Day plans after students and staff protest Dr Adrian Lee’s controversial comments (17 November 2015) That preference was given to hiring women at the Uni of York

Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men (20 October 2015)

The unfairer sex? (18 April 2015) On recruitment bias in the STEM sector

Women preferred 2:1 over men for STEM faculty positions and Academics rate women job applicants higher than identical men: study (13 April 2015) “The bias toward women “was totally unexpected,” said psychologist and co-author Wendy Williams of Cornell University. We were shocked.”

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (5 March 2015)

Seven secrets of dating from the experts at OkCupid (29 September 2014) See section 6 for findings in relation to interview requests

Erotic capital: Danish women losing out (29 September 2014)

http://www.hrzone.com/feature/people/unconscious-bias-module-your-modern-management-programme/141276

http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/hidden-biases-against-men-overweight-women-found-in-uk-test-145200.aspx

People Management Finds Widespread HR Bias against Men and Overweight Women (1 November 2012) They found that 37% of respondents revealed a negative bias against men

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/04/toronto-councillor-wonders-if-city-hall-has-policy-discriminating-against-hiring-white-men/

Can anyone suggest other sources that explore this issue? I would be particularly interested in any studies that looked at HR staff displaying discrimination against older job applicants. In my experience most HR staff are not only females, but younger females, and I think it’s quite likely that they display an equal or greater degree of bias against older job applicants (as they appear to display against men).