The issue of traveller safety encompasses many topics such as sexual assault, robbery and scams, motor vehicle accidents, food poisoning, STD’s, animal bites, etc. Within the mainstream and online media however most attention is directed to sexual assault, and mostly focuses on threats to the personal safety of women. It’s as if males are immune from muggings, drink spiking, motor vehicle accidents, etc … or are deemed to be incapable of benefiting from advice.
Nevertheless, out in the real world, males are in fact just as vulnerable to these threats as are females. No one questions that women are deserving of support and advice in relation to the issue of traveller safety. But it would appear that men being men, well you know, they should just suck it up. Or something.
I read a post in a feminist blog that informed me that men don’t need this sort of advice because men “can look after themselves“. Well to the extent that men *can* look after themselves whilst travelling, they do so chiefly by following the same sort of advice that they offer to women (and then get called victim-blamers!). Funny thing that.
Aside from feminist bias I can’t think of a logical reason why journalists persist in compartmentalising their coverage of this issue along gender lines … that is unless the goal is simply to perpetuate a myth of eternal victimhood.
And so it is that much of the online discussion of traveller safety is devoted to women railing against the injustice of being unable to dress like a hooker – according to local mores – without being approached with offers of work. Oh, wait, perhaps the patriarchy made them do it? Just what is the big deal about briefly modifying one’s normal fashion style? Those people promulgating this crazy notion of polite compromise as being akin to outright capitulation, have a lot to answer for. (Refer to these posts for more on this issue: Post 1 & Post 2)
Guys, on the other hand, seem to be able to enjoy their holidays just fine without the need to show off their butt cheeks whilst shopping in the market.
No, no-one deserves to be harassed or raped. And in an ideal world we could wear whatever we chose, and go where-ever we wanted at any time of the day or night, without attracting judgement or a violent response.
But it’s not an ideal world, and it is foolish to ignore patterns of behaviour correlated to higher levels of threat, in favour of feel-good public rituals and esoteric babbling about the need to “educate” men and boys. Sounds a lot like comfortable insulated upper middle-class delusion to me. The criminal underbelly of society, along with the mentally ill, naughty boys (and girls!) one and all … they just need a good talking to, and a couple of polished Powerpoint presentations should straighten them out.
Christian schools have been teaching the ‘do not steal’ lesson for a couple of thousand years now, and we still seem to have a problem with theft. I am not saying that there is no place for education, but I sure wouldn’t be relying on it as the biggest stick in my armoury.
Oh, but heaven help any man who attempts to join the discussion and suggest tips like “don’t get drunk or take drugs”, “dress conservatively” or “don’t walk alone at night”, for they are immediately labelled victim-blamers and rape-apologists!
This theme, that the behaviour of women never causes nor contributes to the problems they encounter or anything bad that happens to them, is a feminist mainstay. And dare you suggest otherwise then you are the bad guy, even if you really don’t think you are … because your mind has been corrupted by “cognitive bias’ and ‘systemic sexism’. Move over Scientology!
And so in April 2014 a Australian feminist journalist by the name of Tracey Spicer wrote an article about how she didn’t want her children sat next to men on flights – see the article and related discussions here and here. This article in a feminist web site contributes nothing to the debate but there are some interesting points buried amongst the readers comments.
This blog post discusses an article by Wendy Tuohy on the same topic, but which in this case drips with hypocrisy bearing in mind the pronounced feminist bias of her prior repertoire of articles and offerings on social media.
This post mainly deals with false accusations or allegations by women in relation to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
False allegations in relation to online harassment are dealt with in this post. False allegations in relation to paternity fraud are dealt with in this post.
One of the common false claims made by feminists is that men’s rights activists assert that most women who claim to have been raped are lying. Personally I have never seen or heard this statement made by any MHRA. What is often stated however is that there are substantial and unacceptably high numbers of women making false rape accusations, and that this problem should be acknowledged and treated seriously (including charging the false accuser where appropriate).
Being the subject of a false accusation of sexual assault can be, and often is, a traumatic and life-changing experience for anyone. False rape allegations also minimise and demean the suffering and the credibility of victims of actual rape.
Let’s start with the Wikipedia entry for false rape allegations, which extracts data from many different studies. This highlights the practical difficulty in differentiating between false rape allegations, unproven allegations, and ‘not guilty’ verdicts for example. It does however refute the suggestion made by many feminists that false allegations are either non-existent or absolutely negligible.
Here in Australia I came across the following information:
“A Victorian study, which analysed 850 rapes reported to the police over the period 2000–03, found that only 2.1% of reports were designated as false by the police. In these cases, the alleged victim was either charged or told that she would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this only represents a fraction of the sample, there was a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false, but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.” (Source here and related reddit discussion thread here)
This article ‘How often do women falsely cry rape?’ gives quite a fair and balanced intro to the issue and can be read in conjunction with the Wiki entry cited above. Further recommended reading:
I would also draw readers attention to a Twitter thread entitled ‘False allegations kill – help us to make a change’ (@KathleenM__).
A further summary of the false abuse and rape allegation literature can be found in a 2013 book by Phillip Cook and Tammy Hodo titled ‘When Women Sexually Abuse Men‘. While statistics in this literature are problematic, Cook and Hodo report four studies that found false allegation rates of 62 percent, 41 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent.
How and why do women falsely claim to have been sexually assaulted? There are a number of factors underlying the false rape phenomenon, starting with the widespread and exaggerated picture of men as persistent and unrepentant aggressors.
This article mentions women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted after their drink was spiked, yet in almost all cases were not found to have any drugs in their system. (See also this discussion thread). This video provides a detailed analysis of the issue. I’s suggest that it’s highly likely however that there are in fact far more instances of drink-spiking by women – with the intention of theft (example here).
It might well be that many women are exercising bad judgement and then, rather than accepting accountability for what subsequently occurred, look about for someone or something to put the blame on. Were this be indicative of a broader trend re: women’s propensity to shift blame, clearly there is considerable potential for false rape allegations to occur.
The damage to young men who are falsely accused is further magnified via the growing number of university campuses that run kangaroo courts (quite separate from the judicial system) to punish those accused of rape.
Some of the wording used in this article caught my attention:
“We have concluded that we cannot go forward with prosecution because there is not a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial,” said Senior Charging Attorney Jane Nicoletti-Jones. “In (this case), the statements of a witness other than the suspect or alleged victim were an important part of our decision.” Although officials declined to comment on this case specifically, it illustrates some of the hurdles that accusers and their advocates face when filing sexual assault complaints.” (my emphasis added)
In this case a witness or witnesses cast doubt on the accuracy of the rape accusation, but in this feminist journalists eyes such eyewitness statements are merely “hurdles”. Who cares about the truth or justice anyway … we just need to get those rapists men in jail.
Whilst false accusations are only one of several factors contributing to false imprisonment, it’s worth mentioning that 99% of the prisoners exonerated due to the efforts of the Innocence Project were male, and that more than half of them were initially found guilty of rape.
The list of links below concern specific cases involving false allegations against men by women (and in some cases by women against other women). Such reports appear in the media quite frequently. As a consequence many further cases can be readily sourced via online searches. Scroll down the page for sources providing a general discussion of this topic.
“This dishonest woman might exist – in fact, lots and lots of dishonest people exist – but there are thousands more victims for whom the stigma of reporting domestic violence, and not being believed, means they’ll never come forward.
When we see the front page story about a man falsely accused of rape, or framed for domestic violence, we’re allowed to feel sympathy for him. But we need to remember that his story is the exception, not the rule, and often the rule – in this case, countless honest victims – fades into obscurity.
Because when something is normal, it doesn’t make the news. And that’s the saddest part.”
“Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police … Judge Christopher Batty told her: “Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.”
Why do judges never make the point that false rape allegations are very damaging to men, in part due to their lack of anonymity, and offer them some sympathy?” (Source)
“… the court agreed with Joy’s arguments that the lender’s investigation was handled differently because he’s a man.
“The whole factual matrix on which the decision to dismiss was based was, in itself, infused with, and tainted by, discrimination,” Judge Graeme Hodgson said in the ruling. “The conclusions on the claimant’s behavior are founded on stereotyped assumptions of how a man behaves.””
“I’m sorry Kelly but 3 days is rubbish. My ex partner went straight to the Courts and just filled out a form 5 days before Christmas and alleged that I had stalked her, threatened her and abused her and our son. I had to wait three MONTHS before I had my day in court.
I went to court armed to the gills with evidence of her lies and after waiting 6hrs in the court rooms I had 5 mins in court where no body asked me anything, not a word. Her lawyer changed the story at the last minute and then the lovely magistrate decided to postpone the next determination hearing 6 weeks down the track.
I went close to 5 months without seeing my son all because of my ex partners lies. No evidence. Nothing. Never touched her, never threatened her. Ever.
But I was determined to be guilty until proven innocent, and all on the say so of one bitter, twisted person. No one cared about me or my side of the story. The only ones who cared were the lawyers (a prominient law firm) who asked for $10K up front before they would even represent me.
In the end she dropped her accusations after we had to go to court the second time. Her penalty for perjuring herself twice? Nothing. Her penalty for slandering me for 6 months? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my family access to their grandson over Christmas? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my son access to his father? None.
I came so close to topping myself on several occasions during those long dark months that I had to endure being treated like a criminal, like the worst of the worst, the dregs of society.
But I kept on saying to myself that I had to fight for the most important person in the world; my son. I am glad that I had immense support from my family and friends otherwise I probably wouldn’t be here to write you this note.
I am all for very harsh penalties for any person who assaults another but the changes to DV that were made several years ago make basically every possible argument or disagreement in a domestic environment grounds for DV, and all it takes is one person to accuse you and you’re nicked. Well you are if you are a bloke.
There were penalties for perjury in the DV legislation but they were removed. Penalties for knowingly making false statements to police and the courts should be treated just as harshly in my mind. If there are no penalties for lying in court then who can believe what people say in court?” (Source – See reader’s comments from Brett)
Albury sex assault: Investigation finalised (1 May 2015). Notice how no-one actually comes out and says the girl made a false allegation, presumably all too scared that the feminists would get even angrier. No repercussion for the girl making the claim because that would be ‘victim’ blaming. In this article the police even state that they “were adamant they didn’t want the outcome to dissuade people reporting similar incidents. “We encourage anyone who has been the victim of a crime to come forward,” police said. It appears unlikely the teenager who reported the incident will be charged.” Hello! The only crime here was the false allegation. Idiotic PC. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here
Two girls on a bus in India start beating some young men with their belts. The claim the men groped them. They became internet heros for defending themselves (and womanhood generally). Then the truth gradually leaked out (4 December 2014) And more videos surfaced of them beating men on other occasions.
The last twenty years in particular 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 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.
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)
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
“Affirmative Action (known as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business”. The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex.
The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a race, caste or other protected group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
The article linked below addresses the issue of ‘affirmative action’ in considerable detail, but it’s well worth the effort to get a handle on this important issue:
That form of affirmative action that is most discussed today in the context of gender issues, is the imposition of quotas to ensure that a particular percentage of students/directors/politicians/etc are female.
Not surprisingly there are no feminist demands for quotas to be established in relation to any of the roles listed in the table below: (source)
The Increasing Significance of the Decline of Men, by Thomas B. Edsall (16 March 2017) Related Reddit discussion thread here. In a world where the goal of gender equality was genuine, the labor market for men would be a consideration in the debate about gender quotas. It’s never mentioned.
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review 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.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
Feminist Lara Witt advises that “on a weekly basis, cisgender men ask me how they can be (better) allies. I don’t usually respond because I’m forever tired of teaching for free. So because I’m super generous I decided to put together this primer on … How men can be slightly less trash” (4 March 2019)
Ryerson’s independent student newspaper the Eyeopener reports the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has “rejected the last appeal” to have the school sanction the Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS).
According to the group’s president, Kevin Arriola, the point of the group is to raise “issues that have never been [talked] about or usually disregarded.”
MIAS has received its major opposition from the school’s Feminist Collective.
In November, Ryerson Feminist Collective organizer Arezoo Najibzadeh called the idea of the group “horrifying.” Najibzadeh said, “I think it’s just horrifying. I don’t see the benefit of having them on campus.”
““We have a women’s ministry which is to escalate and ensure women’s issues issues are brought to the forefront and to the centre of government policy because at this time there’s clearly serious gender inequality in society…It is almost like nullifying the efforts of the women’s ministry, having a Men’s Affairs Department,” Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) executive director Sumitra Visvanathan said in a phone interview with Malay Mail Online”
“I’m just going to say it: Sometimes I feel sorry for men” (July 2015) This is a fairly typical NAFALT ‘look, feminists understand’ piece – the closest thing to genuine sympathy that any feminist will put her name to. But nowhere will you see any form of acknowledgement that women are partially responsible for the pressure that men face. Instead it is always “people” or “society” that force men to adopt/maintain assigned gender roles. And of course no examples are provided as to where women have actively assisted with any problematic issues affecting men/boys.
Both feminist literature and articles in the mainstream media (which is heavily biased towards the feminist perspective) make common use of various ‘facts’ to support their arguments. Some of these include:
That 1 in 4 women will be raped.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid for equal work
1 in 3 women suffer from domestic violence
90% of the world’s poorest people are women
The conviction rate for rape is 6%
These are not facts. They are examples of what is a sustained effort to mislead the public, with the aim of building public (read: political) support for the feminist cause.
Some of the common ‘red flags’ in relation to pro-feminist statistics include:
lack of citation of the original source, with countless instances of incorrect and debunked statistics being used again and again
no context being provided for statistics used, and in particular the comparable figure for males is very rarely provided
“While most men don’t perpetrate violence, approximately 90% of all violence committed against children is perpetrated by men.” So states the ‘Polished Man‘ web site. A complete lie that they subsequently amended after adverse feedback. Here is the related reddit discussion thread.
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.
Firstly, let’s begin with details regarding all the men’s studies centres in Australia: <sound of crickets>
Now, picture this if you will … the University of South Australia considers establishing a number of new courses related to men’s health and well-being. Feminist writer gets wind of this and writes an article dumping on the idea (see articles listed below, and be sure to look at the readers comments). The University gets scared and back-pedals at 100 mph. Bye, bye, men’s studies course – which would have been an Australian first.
Conclusion? Clearly every university should have women’s studies courses because they are a wonderful and necessary initiative. Mens studies courses should, however, be opposed on the basis that they are redundant and wicked and can only serve to foment misogyny and advance the cause of the patriarchy. (Oh, and the same goes for student clubs/associations that focus on men’s issues.)
The solution? For feminists? Obstruct the creation of men’s studies courses, whilst (to avoid accusations of one-upmanship) rename women’s studies centres as gender studies centres. But there was no sudden move to jointly address male issues. No, they simply carried on exactly as before with an overwhelming gynocentric focus interspersed with the occasional message from some male feminist ally such as Michael Flood. Note the example here as to how well this new approach works out.
But back to what happened at the University of South Australia, a story which is told in the articles linked below and in accompanying readers comments:
And as for overseas examples of Men’s Studies Centres? Well these tend to feature the examination of men and masculinity through the feminist lens. This article talks about one such place, the Stony Brook University ‘Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities’.
Regarding women’s studies
Let’s now have a look at a listing of women’s studies centres in Australia that were in existence when I first uploaded this post*:
(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge–Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers–Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women)