When men have a daughter (another tale of male-blaming and silencing)

At the time of writing the Weinstein affair remains an ongoing and evolving media phenomenon. The hypocrisy of this one does my head in.

Imagine … All men being demonised for being the same gender as the alleged perpetrator at the centre of a major scandal. Men offer comments supportive of female victims of sexual harassment, and condemnatory of male perpetrators, but are dismissed or even shamed for doing so. Meanwhile other men are shamed for not commenting.

Men subseqently re-frame/qualify their thoughts/feelings in the light of well-publicised research – research that proposes that men understand and empathise with women better when they have sisters, wives and daughters. Men are then shamed on the basis that their amended and qualified message of support doesn’t treat women as humans.

Men, the beasts that they are, just can’t seem to say or do the right thing.

Women are a different kettle of fish. It goes without saying that nowhere, nowhere are they responsible. For anything. Not for being victims or alleged victims. Not for helping Harvey trick/lure women into private meetings in hotel rooms (their excuse). Not for willingly following the casting-couch route to financial rewards. Not for remaining silent when they knew what was going on, in many cases accepting payment for doing so. And absolutely not, for they themselves harassing others.

Note that I have addressed the topic of harassment in the workplace in another blog post. This current post is more about feminist shaming, bitterness and hypocrisy set against the backdrop of the media furore surrounding Harvey Weinstein’s real and alleged misbehaviour.

Feminists have long been telling men – even feminist men – that they have no legitimate right to talk about feminism, or about specific topics that they (feminists) consider to be women’s issues. They typically assert that men have no understanding of women’s lived experience, and have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Here’s a recent Australian example.

As a consequence men are most reluctant to offer up public comment on such matters. This situation is addressed in the following blog posts:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
Karen Straughan and others on feminist shaming tactics

The media informs us however that men move one rung up the ladder when they have wives and/or daughters. See for yourself – just do a google search using terms such as “when men have a daughter” or “men change after having daughter”. Year in and year out, article after article based on this assertion:

Why the best words a dad can hear are… It’s a girl! (7 June 2017)
Men Really Do Get Less Sexist When They Have Daughters (3 June 2017)

This is the backdrop to the emergence of the Weinstein affair. Or at least the October 2017 version thereof. Because, as we are finding out more each day, plenty of people were ‘in the know’ before now.

The first development after the publication of the initial allegations was men being blamed for not speaking out against Harvey Weinstein. See for example:

Hollywood men silent over Weinstein allegations as women speak out (11 October 2017), with a later contribution being … Men who are silent after #MeToo: it’s time to speak up (20 October 2017)

Sure enough, after being given what they assumed to be the media’s ‘green light’ to enter the debate, more men spoke out to condemn Weinstein and/or to condemn the problem of sexual harassment generally.

Thus the next wave of outrage was in relation to men speaking out against Weinstein, especially those mentioning that they were motivated to do so, in part, because they had wives/daughters. Some examples of the media coverage include:

You don’t need to be a father to stand up to abusers. You need to believe women (13 October 2017)

Some questions for the “Fathers of daughters” condemning Harvey Weinstein (13 October 2017)

Men don’t need to have daughters to be concerned about women (13 October 2017)

People Are Dragging Men Who Say They Care About Rape Culture Because They Have A Daughter (12 October 2017)

Does any reasonable person seriously believe that men referencing the girls/women in their lives meant women any disrepect? Think of any other instance where this ‘logic’ has been proposed, because I can’t. I can think, for example of discussions regarding childhood disability or illness whereby parents comment along the lines of “as a parent of a child with autism …“. Were those parents insinuating that their autistic kids were less than human?

Then there was the push-back against the push-back. Men are mostly guilty and should do more to stop themselves and their brothers, including but not limited to public self-flagellation:

Dear Men: It’s you, too (19 October 2017) by Roxane Gay & attracting 1,397 readers comments

How men can help after Weinstein and #MeToo (22 October 2017)

“After the flood of #MeToo posts, critics charged that the hashtag continues to put the onus on victims to speak up while letting men off the hook. In response, some have shared lists of tips on how men can stop this behaviour from flourishing.”

And to remove any doubt about who’s wearing the pants in this debate, the usual feminist voices pressed long and hard on the ‘all men are responsible’ button:

It’s not the job of “Hollywood women” to ‘fix’ sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

The men who kept Harvey Weinstein’s secrets safe are all around us (11 October 2017)

Harvey Weinstein Scandal: Men In Hollywood Staying Silent? | The View (10 October 2017) Video. Reddit discussion thread here

Oh, and for any other men who dared offer an opinion, because “… some people – and more particularly, men – seem to think that it’s not the feelings of the alleged victims that matter. No, it’s actually their feelings that are important.”

Men of Hollywood – don’t make this Harvey Weinstein situation about you (13 October 2017)

‘Cancel the Christmas party’: 2017’s the year of the ‘confused’ man (16 November 2017) Rather than working with men to resolve confusion about what constitutes appropriate behaviour, feminist journo prefers to mock for what she sees as a weak ‘excuse’. Anything but helpful.

As is usually the case, any rebuttal was muted and provided by male-positive writers like Martin Daubney and Kathy Gyngell:

This #MeToo witch-hunt will destroy women’s happiness (23 October 2017)

Weinstein’s actions are revolting – but don’t tell me all men are to blame (11 October 2017)

So male voices were silenced again and the debate wrested back into the hands of feminists/liberals satisfying their ongoing imperative to control the narrative. But things didn’t entirely go their way, as derailments followed (and continue to this day), namely:

Articles highlighting the hypocrisy of the Hollywood democrat/leftist elite in turning the backs for so long, and regarding Harvey Weinstein as an archtypical nice guy & supporter of feminism, for example:

“Weinstein, the reports noted, had been a prominent donor to causes that address gender inequality, especially in the entertainment industry” (Source)

Harvey Weinstein and Feminism (19 October 2017)

Watch When Barbara Walters and The View Coverup For Harvey Weinstein Types (15 October 2017)

Jane Fonda: I knew about Weinstein, and I’m ‘ashamed’ I didn’t say anything (12 October 2017)

Ah but of course the feminist lobby will never admit weakness or fault, so their strategy here is to double-down on their ongoing ‘feminist men aren’t feminists’ offensive (example, with more in the opening section of this blog post).

Articles highlighting the elements of dog-piling, misandry, vengeance and hysteria that is occurring, for example:

#MeToo: A moral panic about men (18 October 2017)

Male Victim Erasure and Backlash in #MeToo Campaign (17 October 2017)

The hysteria in the Harvey Weinstein scandal (12 October 2017)

Finally, I note that mention has yet to be made of sexual harassment perpetrated by influential women. There has, however, been some limited and peripheral acknowledgement of the harassment of men/boys by men:

Corey Feldman celebrates ‘turning of the tide’ on Hollywood sex abuse (17 October 2017)

Hollywood’s Other ‘Open Secret’ Besides Harvey Weinstein: Preying on Young Boys (16 October 2017)

Weinstein saga leads James Van Der Beek to share personal story of sexual harassment (12 October 2017)

Actor Terry Crews recalls being sexually assaulted by Hollywood exec (11 October 2017)

In closing, Cathy Young has written an excellent article that touches on a number of the issues mentioned above.

See also:

Paul Elam’s take on this topic from a Red Pill perspective
This piece by Gideon Scopes entitled ‘Rethinking Gender, Sexuality and Violence’, This article by D.C MacAllister in the The Federalist

Women in politics fear #MeToo moment will backfire — and they’ll be the ones punished (12 December 2017)

A panic is not an answer: We’re at imminent risk of turning this #metoo moment into a frenzied rush to blame all men (26 November 2017) by Christina Hoff Summers

Kathy Gyngell: The silence of the males (13 November 2017)

Knee-touching MPs? I took advantage of men to get ahead at Westminster: By Spectator columnist MELISSA KITE, who admits flirting shamelessly to get scoops (14 November 2017)

The #MeToo sexual harassment hysteria is a pretext for women to take power and money from men (21 December 2017)

Other posts in this blog related to this topic include:

Don’t look at me! No wait. Look at me!
Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?
#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’
Nice guys, nice guys™ and the friendzone
On Gender Traitors, White Knights and Manginaso

I don’t want no menfolk near my daughters, you hear?

“The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.” (Source)

Thanks largely to the pervasive influence of feminism, anti-male bigotry has been accorded a level of acceptance well in excess of that applicable to other significant segments within the community. This has been reflected in an increasing number of rather biased articles in the mainstream media, examples of which can be found in the following posts:

New Zealand journalist labels men as the ultimate predators
A few observations in relation to yet another article critical of men
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men
On the issue of traveler safety
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

Today I wanted to address an article by Jane Gilmore entitled ‘Be outraged at the abuse of children, not at one mother’s efforts to protect her daughters‘ (2 March 2017). Jane’s piece focuses on an earlier article by Kasey Edwards,  ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children‘, and the public reaction to it.

After Kasey’s piece appeared I read three well-intended, but somewhat insipid, rebuttals. These were penned by Ben Pobjie, Melissa Hoyer, and Louise Roberts. Still, the fact that any rebuttals were published is indicative of feminism’s gradual slide from the pedestal of public opinion. A considerable amount of material also appeared on social media, most of which was critical of Kasey’s position.

Jo Abi, on the other hand, wrote an article in Mamamia supporting Kasey’s stance. Interestingly, even in that feminist forum many readers held a different view.

From an MRA perspective this was pleasing to note, the only negative being an unfortunate tendency by some to personalise the issue via referencing the potential danger posed by Kasey’s family.

Jane stepped in at that point to address those taking umbrage at what they perceived as the gender bigotry inherent in Kasey’s position. What follows now is Jane’s article (shown in italics) with my comments inserted in relevant places (and shown in blue font).

A wave of outrage broke and splattered across social media this week over an article by Daily Life columnist Kasey Edwards about the choice she and her husband have made to keep their children safe from sexual abuse. In it, Edwards pointed out the following statistics:

“…the ‘best case’ scenario is that 1 in 20 boys are sexually abused. The worst case is that 1 in three girls are.”

“Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by males.”

These disturbing facts should indeed provoke outrage. But they didn’t.

This is the page in the Australian Institute of Family Studies web site where Kasey sourced the statistics noted in her article (scroll down to ‘How many Australian children are sexually abused‘). The author describes the difficulties compiling these statistics and their consequent limitations. Note too the basis for the “1 in three girls” statistic mentioned in both Kasey and Jane’s articles.

Kasey’s chosen strategy does not “keep their children safe from sexual abuse”. This is because a) men aren’t responsible for every instance of sexual abuse, and b) her daughters would still have contact with men at other times. Remember that the definition of abuse used here does not require actual physical contact. Kasey’s approach only theoretically reduces the likelihood of sexual abuse occurring. Not all personal threats and dangers. Not even all child abuse. Sexual abuse only.

You see, sexual abuse is just one of the four types of child abuse (and in fact it’s the least common variety). Sexual abuse is the only form of child abuse wherein surveys consistently identify more male than female perpetrators (although there are still plenty of those).

No surprise then that this is the form of child abuse that feminists keep the media’s focus on. A similar thing happens in the realm of the domestic violence debate, whereby all those forms of DV other than heterosexual male-on-female violence are air-brushed out of the picture. 

Instead, the backlash was in response to Edwards’ acknowledgment that men are the most likely perpetrators, and the resulting decision she and her husband made to not have men care for their children without a woman present.

Cue articles and endless anger about how hurtful and offensive this is for men. Followed by strawman arguments about Edwards’ husband caring for their children without supervision, despite her article clearly stating this was a decision they reached together.

Likewise, suggestions that her children would miss out on male role models and have a warped view of men. (Edwards clarified on The Project this week that her daughter has a wonderful male teacher).

Writer Amy Gray, who skilfully moderated a long and mostly respectful debate on this topic, said, “The uproar over this article hasn’t been about how to combat rape culture, community enablement, lack of law or police reform, or suitable therapy or support for victims. The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do. The uproar should be tackling the overwhelming male presence in sexual assault of children.

It’s hardly surprising that the focus of feedback provided by readers mirrored the narrow scope of the article. Kasey did not address the issues above, nor did she indicate that she would welcome dialogue on those issues. If Kasey expected more holistic feedback then she should have written a broader and less injudicious article.

And it’s curious that no link was provided to that “long and mostly respectful debate”. Don’t tell me it reflected poorly on team feminism?

“I want men to examine their role in this culture,” she added. “I want them to actively combat it and question men who refuse to participate in that.”

On the contrary, the volume of feedback generated by Kasey’s article clearly demonstrated men’s *insistence* in participating in the discussion whilst rejecting the demonisation of an entire gender based on the actions of a very small minority.

The real difficulty with Edwards’ article was that she outlined a single approach to preventing child abuse in her own family. But if we are talking about preventing child abuse at a community level then we need to talk about a community-wide response.

Which comes back to the perpetrators. Again, they are mostly men, and yet men are so rarely part of the discussion about prevention, other than to object to the facts being discussed.

Why is it that men are so much more likely to commit violence and abuse? What happened to those men, where did they learn this behaviour? How can they change?

Clearly there is a problem with violence in our community, and a lot of that is due to men. A very, very small minority of men. A point that seems perpetually lost on feminists. And where are all these men objecting to the “facts”? Alternatively, where are all the feminists discussing prevention with regards to issues like circumcision, the sexual assault of men & boys, male suicide, etc?

What positive outcome/s are borne from the incessant criticism of men and the manner in which they are portrayed in the mainstream media? The consistent lack of recognition for the contributions made by men in terms of the well-being of the community? The paucity of government funding support for addressing men’s health and other men’s/boys issues? The bias of the legal and justice system against men?

The active support of the feminist lobby sure wouldn’t hurt, but their pointed indifference to date is hardly encouraging.

Turning our attention now to women, which occurs all too rarely other than in relation to some issue of perceived victimhood, why are there so many violent and abusive women? (NB: trending upwards). Why is this not being acknowledged and addressed? esp. bearing in mind that they are producing the next generation of not just child abusers, but perpetrators of domestic violence generally.

Exploring this, without defensiveness and with a genuine desire to find solutions, is the most valuable way men can participate in protecting children. It’s disturbing that many men are so aggressively unwilling to do this, leaving the burden of finding solutions to everyone else.

Seriously Jane, imagine if an article appeared wherein the husband set out his strategy to prevent his sons being killed by only having male carers. The reaction from your ilk would not have been merely “defensive” – they would be livid.

And Jane, what of the many instances where people do demonstrate “a genuine desire to find solutions”, and are attacked for doing so simply because they dare propose solutions that are contrary to leftist/feminist dogma? Want examples? 

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
White Ribbon campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)
Sallee McLaren must write on the blackboard “I must not challenge the feminist narrative”
Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence (Here Jane Gilmore sabotages Australia’s only advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence, only to then criticize the men’s rights movement on the basis that it doesn’t do anything but criticize feminists)

This is why mothers are so often vilified when they do something as simple as wait outside while their children go to the toilet, and conversely, vilified again if they acknowledge the facts of child abuse and act to protect their children from possible perpetrators.

The author was not criticized for wanting to protect her children, but for making a decision of dubious efficacy in the absence of an objective and unbiased consideration of all relevant factors. 

It’s not surprising given how fraught it can be to navigate the issue that parents like Kasey Edwards and her husband look for solutions that don’t depend on community-wide protection. Their choice is not right for everyone – indeed for some, it’s very much the wrong choice. But for them, it’s the best way to keep their children safe. And given the deep, lifelong trauma caused by child abuse, it is both justifiable and understandable.

Their solution, however, only works for their circumstances. It relies on them always having options for childcare that fit within their parameters, which is not readily available to many parents.

There is no proof that this approach “works” for anyone, full stop. As to whether it’s practical for parents to even attempt, your point is taken.

It also assumes that they, their family, and their children’s friends are always in partnered, heterosexual relationships. In the Edwards’ policy, children of single fathers, or in families that do not include people who identify as women, already suffering exclusion and stigma, are excluded even further.

Even for families who do have the option to have women always present, it places an extra burden on those women, who are already taking on the majority of (unpaid) emotional and domestic caring labour. This is particularly difficult in the context of the systemic economic disadvantage women suffer, which requires men to take on an equal share of parenting. It’s a quandary that can’t be solved by making women the “abuse police”. Men have to take responsibility for prevention and commit to unambiguous action on the causes and realities of abuse.

Please, jettison the male-shaming and #HeForShe nonsense. Both men and women parent children. Both men and women abuse children. Everyone has an equal role to play in reducing the incidence of abuse.

While there are undeniable problems with the Edwards’ choice, the outraged criticisms of it are equally problematic, and frankly blind to the realities of how abuse occurs and its effect on victims.

Pot-Kettle-Black (big time)

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a paper this week describing the grooming practices of abusers. Grooming is not something abusers only do to victims. They also deliberately create relationships with parents and caregivers that involves trust, friendship and dependence. And they make sure their victims know about it.

Was this specific to male abusers? The paragraph that follows implies it was.

As feminist writer Cecilia Winterfox told Fairfax Media, “Every time we say, ‘but my male friends are so lovely’ we make it harder for victims to speak out. It reinforces and demonstrates clearly to them the reflexive disbelief they will almost certainly face. It’s a kind of cultural gaslighting to victims, and a signal of protection to abusers”.

And every time feminists say ‘men can’t be raped (by women)’, ‘domestic violence is men’s abuse of women’, ‘women are only violent in self-defence’, ‘men don’t suffer negative effects from domestic violence as much as women do’, etc etc etc. That also makes it more difficult for “victims to speak out” right? But that doesn’t seem to deter feminists from making these statements. More equality-when-it-suits?

The royal commission paper was specifically about institutional responses to child abuse, so the recommendations were focused on cultural change to identifying and reporting grooming techniques. Which may work in well-monitored organisations, but it’s not something any individual parent can enforce in their social group.

Deanne Carson, co-founder of Body Safety Australia says a blanket ban on men caring for children is not the solution. “We need to empower adults to be a champion for children. This means debunking myths around childhood sexual abuse, teaching them to spot grooming techniques and supporting them in being able to address concerns about any individual’s concerning behaviour.”

It also means broadening the debate beyond child sexual abuse, firstly by considering all other forms of abuse. We also need to consider related issues such as the sexualisation of children, and again, both men and women play a role in this process.

The problem with these strategies, as Carson acknowledges, is that they don’t keep all children safe, they just protect the children whose parents can implement them. And not all parents feel able to do this.

Which is why the solution needs to go back to the community and the abusers, not victims or their carers. And we can’t do that while men are still refusing to discuss the source of the problem.

As Edwards told Daily Life: “Of all the people who have told me how ridiculous and offensive I’ve been, not one of them has come up with a feasible alternative to keep children safe”. <end of article>

Jane expands her views on the matter in an item in her personal blog, asserting that Kasey’s response was understandable and should be respected:

… often the responses are emotional because there is no other way to respond to such trauma. Those emotions are real, valid, complex and demand respect.”

Jane says this even though there is no suggestion in Kasey’s article that her children had previously been subject to abuse (and I sincerely hope that is not the case). Jane then adds:

“That respect is not present when men who have never been forced to feel those emotions are simply offended by the facts.”

Cheap shot. Because men have never been subjected to abuse as children, or fathered children who have been abused by others, right? And because I didn’t notice any reader feedback wherein the “facts” (presumably the quoted abuse statistics) formed any part of that individual’s objection to the article. Seemed to me people were upset about inference, opinion, and plain old bias.

And wait a minute. The feedback on Kasey’s article that Jane found so objectionable was contributed by men and women in roughly equal measures. It’s just as valid or invalid therefore to suggest that women are also “still refusing to discuss the source of the problem“. Unless Team Feminism has bestowed honorary bloke status on the largely silent majority of women who choose to hold a non-feminist-compliant opinion.

Earlier we noted Amy Gray’s haughty dismissal of the negative reaction to Kasey’s article: “The uproar was about protecting men from hurt feelings over being excluded from unpaid labour they rarely do.”

Let’s not detour to talk about single dads, yard work and the like. Let’s pretend Amy is right and proceed on the basis that men’s feelings count for nought. As presumably then, in the interests of gender equality, so too for feminists’ feelings.

Because rest assured, men certainly do want to be a part of the solution to the scourge of child abuse, but it seems most unlikely that it will be on feminists’ terms.

See also:

Safety around dogs: Half of all kids get bitten by dogs, so don’t let one near your daughters.

Reddit discussion threads in relation to the Kasey Edwards article:(r/mensrights thread #1) (r/mensrights thread #2) & (r/australia). The latter thread also provides links to several other threads on this topic

Feminism: The demonization of males, by Stacy McCain (2 March 2017)

That porn-sharing web site: Time for a reality-check

Today I wanted to offer some comments in relation to an article entitled The police response I never expected, by Nina Funnell (18 August 2016). This article was prompted by the now highly-publicised discovery of a web site that is alleged to contain many nude photos of Australian high school girls.

The web site that was the focus of recent Australian media attention went off-line for a time only to re-emerge ten days later. The author of this article claimed that “police managed to have it taken down“, although I have found no evidence of that being the case.

Nina bemoans the ‘fact’ that Australian authorites are not taking the problem seriously, and that the action they did take included warning girls not to take compromising photos of themselves. The latter action is apparently not seen as constituting ‘education’ but rather ‘victim-blaming’.

This is the default feminist response to the issue of taking responsibility for one’s own actions, and doing what one can to minimise risks to oneself. This aspect, in the context of online porn, was addressed in an article by Corrine Barraclough. Articles detailing the feminist perspective on this issue can be reviewed here and here.

By way of background, articles *very* similar to those that recently appeared in the Australian media have regularly appeared in other western countries in recent years without generating much in the way of a fair and meaningful response. A cynic might suggest, given the salacious appeal/guaranteed outrage of the subject, they appear on a cycle as per gender wage gap, etc.

It is dubious whether Australian police can wield any power in relation to the ongoing operation of the web site. And even if they could – presumably via cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies – they would still need to identify those photographed and prove they were underage at the time they were photographed. No small task, especially when it appears that very few of those whose photos featured in the web site have lodged police reports. Perhaps, realistically, all Australian police could do was to warn young people of the danger of allowing themselves to be photographed whilst naked.

It’s ironic that various articles use the term ‘victims’ to describe the girls whose pictures are featured in the web site, whilst running photos of the girls within their articles (see for example).

The article contains a quote from Sharna Bremner, from ‘End Rape on Campus Australia‘:

“I agree we must be talking to young people about these issues, but we should start by talking to potential perpetrators about the consequences of their choices, rather than always putting it on girls to manage [and prevent] their own exploitation and victimisation”

Wait a minute – time for a reality check, for we know that:

As a consequence, Ms Bremner’s implication that “potential perpetrators” = men/boys is incorrect, as is the implication that girls have a monopoly on “exploitation and victimisation“. I might note here also whilst implied, it has not been verified that the web site in question only contained photos of nude women/girls.

Ms Bremner was also quoted as saying that:

“To direct parents to warn their daughters, without also directing them to talk to their sons is inappropriate. This stems from the same logic that tells girls not to get drunk or wear short skirts, while failing to spend even one second talking to boys about consent”

I agree that parents and other authority figures should talk to both boys and girls, but they should give the same message to both, in the knowledge perpetrators/victims aren’t split along gender lines.

This reminds me of ‘respectful relationships’ programs in schools, such as those run by the White Ribbon Campaign, that lecture boys about respecting girls but not necessarily the reverse. This despite that fact that Blind Freddy can see that girls can, and often do, disrepect and abuse boys.

Nina then proceeds to hold up the highly contentious Canadian public ‘awareness’ campaign known as ‘Don’t be that guy‘ as a good example of how authorities should take a more active role by educating (=shaming) people (=men/boys) into not posting online photos of people (=nude girls).

This despite the fact that the value of public awareness campaigns in changing errant behaviour is generally considered to be dubious, as is discussed in this post.

Nina claims that the Canadian campaign led to a 10% drop in the number of rapes in Vancouver BC. This article may be the source of her claim, but the evidence is hardly conclusive.

I do agree with her though that, in general terms, education campaigns targetted at specific groups in the community are more likely to be effective than broad-brush public campaigns. You just have to make sure you target the right groups based on objective evidence rather than ideological persuasion.

And yet curiously feminists lobby for/support broad-brush public awareness campaigns in the case of domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual harassment/discrimination, etc. And although these are directed at the community generally, they still routinely imply that perpetrators/potential perpetrators are male, whereas in fact they are invariably either male or female.

And to close off this discussion, just one example of the double-standard that invariably goes hand-in-hand with any feminist position on gender:

Wilderness School girls under fire for ‘hook-up wall’ of boys, who claim a double standard of sexual objectification (11 November 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Gendered, gendered, gendered: The word that fuels the feminist machine

Few of those reading this would be unfamiliar with the feminist proclivity for labelling a plethora of issues as ‘gendered’. Like many terms it doesn’t mean much without considerable qualification. And even then it may not mean much. But if something can’t be portrayed as being gendered then feminists and their beloved narrative lose traction.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘gendered’ as “reflecting the experience, prejudices, or orientations of one sex more than the other.” The problem though is that in real life there are relatively few things that only (or even predominantly) affect one gender. In most situations both genders wield a significant influence and/or are significantly affected. We’re all in it together. One topical example would be online harassment.

Let’s now look at an even more contentious issue, child abuse. Most non-sexual child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women. Most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by men (although there are still plenty of sexual abusers of children who are female). So is child abuse gendered? And in terms of framing remedial action, is it more or less productive to attack child abuse as a gendered issue?

The straw that broke this camel’s back today was an article entitled Australia’s most shocking statistic: Sexual abuse and domestic violence against women with disabilities by Ginger Gorman. The tagline was the shocking announcement that 90% of disabled women have been sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Ginger’s article tells us that most abuse takes place in institutions, yet makes no mention of the abuse of disabled men/boys. She then provides some examples of incidents of abuse involving male perpetrators in non-institutional settings. The actual gender mix of perpetrators of abuse, in either institutional or non-institutional settings, is left unstated.

In the absence of further details it’s highly likely that readers would have assumed that most victims of abuse were female, and their abusers male. Such is the inevitable outcome of persistent gender bias in the media on top of decades of gynocentric conditioning.

This is despite that fact that there are certainly instances where research has found most perpetrators of abuse to be women. One such example can be found in the Adele Mercier incident, whereupon a feminist academic wrongly denied female perpetration of institutional abuse.

This selective presentation of statistics – only showing the extent to which women are affected, and in the absence of comparative statistics for men and boys – is extremely common in feminist literature. This problem is discussed further in a separate blog post about feminist research and their misleading use of statistics.

The source document for the 90% abuse claim was a submission by the Australian Cross Disability Alliance. I found the relevant reference in the section entitled ‘Incidence & prevalence data on gendered disability violence‘ (page 37). Despite asserting that the abuse was gendered, this section provided no comparative statistics whatsoever in relation to the abuse of men/boys.

How is that appropriate in terms of either compassion or academic rigour? I mean, is this a case of just ‘trust me, I’m a feminist’?

I then took the matter up with the author of the article in a series of exchanges on Twitter including the following:

gorman3

Look, don’t get me wrong, the most important thing here is to effectively reduce the incidence of child abuse. The rest is second-order stuff. But I honestly don’t see that goal being significantly advanced via the blinkered and self-serving approach taken by feminists. As with domestic violence, framing a solution to half a problem translates into no solution at all.

Oh, and colour me surprised – see below for how this episode ended.

How could anyone take feminism seriously when one is constantly reminded how infantilised its followers have become?

oldwhitemen

gorman

 

 

See also:

UK charity for the homeless, ‘Shelter’, doesn’t specify gender of the homeless – 90% of whom are male (9 November 2017) Hardly a coincidence

How to make anything a gendered issue, by Blaise Wilson (30 April 2017) Video

The following are some of the other posts in my blog that are also relevant to this issue:

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
More assaults at aged care homes
The unbearable lameness of being
How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

whitemaleold

 

About what happened in Cologne (and in its aftermath)

First up a little background about what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015/6 – see the relevant Wiki entry – not that Wikipedia is free from bias but on this occasion it’s probably as good a starting point as anywhere.

Whilst the focus of this post is what happened in Cologne, readers should be aware that similar issues have arisen (but on a thus far smaller scale) in many of the other European cities that accepted ‘refugees’. I won’t worry about providing a list of links here now – just google on ‘refugee rape sweden’ or similar and you will turn up dozens of sources.

I am also aware of an incident here in Australia that also involved a sexual assault by Muslim ‘refugees’, and an alleged media hush-up.

In relation to the events in Cologne please review the following sources:

After Cologne, Feminism is Dead (18 January 2016)

“Lie back and think of multiculturalism, German women were effectively being told”

Cologne attacks were not an isolated incident (18 January 2016) Australia

Where are the feminists? (18 January 2016) Video

Europe’s tragedy: Too much Angela Merkel, too little masculinity (17 January 2016)

“‘Taharrush’: Authorities Fear Repeat of Cologne as Middle East Rape Culture Imported to Europe” (13 January 2016)

The Arabic gang-rape ‘Taharrush’ phenomenon which sees women surrounded by groups of men in crowds and sexually assaulted… and has now spread to Europe (13 January 2016)

Europe is enabling a rape culture (10 January 2016)

Refugee scandal: How Germany’s politicians and police betrayed German women (8 January 2016)

Muslim Rape Gangs Attack Women, and Feminists Won’t Say a Word About It (5 January 2016)

Jane Kelly: The shock is not the 100 attacks on German women. It is the liberal media cover-up (8 January 2016)

Op-ed claims: Don’t blame immigrants for sex assaults, blame men (8 January 2016)

Now let’s ask ourselves this question: ‘If left-leaning liberal progressives (and this category captures many if not most feminists/SJW) had not lobbied for/permitted unfettered entry by so-called refugees, would the events in Cologne have taken place?’ I’d say the clear answer to that is ‘no’.

In looking at this incident we can see that preserving the treating Muslims and the displaced has been accorded a higher priority than keeping women safe and preserving social order.

Why is this so? What motivates people to adopt such as attitude? Naivity? Wilful stupidity? A desire to irrevocably alter the nature of western society? Or a combination of such influences? Theories abound but I half suspect that it is, in part, a case of viewing Muslim ‘refugees’ as the reborn 21st Century version of the ‘noble savage’.

But whatever is the intent of media, politicans and lobby groups, the pivotal issue is the feminist cohort is standing mute whilst the welfare of thousands of their own (white western women/girls) in compromised. Government agencies and the media have been complicit in covering-up the extent of the problem and in diverting attention elsewhere, and the law enforcement bodies have been hamstrung with PC directives from above.

And I believe that what we have seen to date – widespread sexual harassment/assault/robbery – is only the start of what is going to happen in coming months, and possibly even years.

We always knew that feminists had little regard for the welfare of non-white and non-western women, but they are clearly spiralling even lower in their race to the bottom.

What is doubly sickening is that feminists have then fashioned this (their own duplicity in creating a rape culture in western society) into a stick with which to beat all men. They are using it as fuel to feed their men bad/women good mantra, and anyone dissenting with their view is dismissed as a racist and/or misogynist.

I feel only revulsion at seeing what is happening, and sympathy for the women/girls who have been, or who will be, terrorised. If only we could have them trade places with the feminists/SJW who manufactured this unfolding debacle.

Here is one of the hundreds of reader’s comments in response to *that* article in ‘The Independant’:

This piece is such a shameless deflection of responsibility for the widespread criminal assaults against the women of Europe it actually frightens me. There were rapes. Young girls were brutally molested. Women who were disembarking from European train stations were forced to travel through a gauntlet of violent sexual abuse as the police stood back. Although Cologne had the highest number of reported incidents, they occurred across Germany and beyond. Stuttgart. Zurich. Helsinki. A small town in Sweden where a group of teenage girls were assaulted by a pack of Middle Eastern men. The attacks were vicious. The attacks were coordinated. The attacks were meant to test the resolve of free Western societies. Articles such as this demonstrate the mental gymnastics being applied in order to cling to an absurd political ideology. Sacrificing the safety of women in free societies in order to accommodate legions of foreign men who possess barbaric beliefs about women is not ‘tolerance’. It is lunacy.”

See also:

Danish Woman Given Just Three Months in Prison for Sexual Relations with Underage Asylum Seeker (26 October 2017)

Sweden: Female employees performed lap dances for “child refugees” and had sexual relations with them at an asylum centre (12 August 2017)

Growing Trend Of Older Women Becoming ‘Sugar Mamas’ For Young Migrants (28 July 2017)

Sweden Planning ‘Man-Free’ Music Event After Rapes, Sex Attacks at Festivals (6 July 2017)

Swedish feminists systematically having sex with refugees (8 June 2017)

Those malevolent forces of which we dare not speak, by Chris Kenny (6 June 2017) Interesting article that compares government/media response to Islamist terror versus domestic violence.

Racketeering Refugees: What the Million Marching Pussyhatters Really Want? (28 January 2017)

The Death of Nations: Globalism, Immigration and Migrant Crisis (9 January 2017) Video

Cologne Sex Attacks One Year On: 1300 Victims, Just 18 Convictions (15 December 2016)

Denmark: Female Aid Workers caught having sex with underage African/Muslim male refugees (2 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Regressive Left puts bigotry and militant Islam on a pedestal (17 September 2016)

Swedish feminist: It’s “worse” when Swedish men rape when than when immigrants do (5 July 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Politically correct schoolgirls cover up their own sex attacks at the hands of migrants (11 June 2016)

It’s not their fault, it’s yours! Swedish GIRLS blamed for rise in migrant sex attacks (31 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

When Islam meets the West it’s a train wreck, by Miranda Devine (22 May 2016) This article took an interesting slant on the issue, looking at how increasing permissiveness (some might say, amorality) in Western countries has provided the fuel for radical Muslims.

Why Women destroy nations/civilizations – and other uncomfortable truths (17 February 2016) Video

The Racism of Modern Feminism (30 January 2016)

Inside the Swedish town where armed gangs patrol the streets, crime has exploded and a beautiful social worker’s murder has shocked Europe (30 January 2016) Europe

Life in peaceful Sweden (24 January 2016) Video

VIDEO: Woman Uses Phone To Record Molesting, Foul-Mouthed Migrant Men (19 January 2016)

Danish Journalist Calls for a “Male Revolution” and for European Men to “Defend Their Woman, Children & Culture” From Refugees (28 January 2016) Video with related reddit discussion thread here

Swedish Police, Accused of Cover-Up, Look Into Reports of Sexual Assault at Festival (11 January 2016)

Immigrants Aren’t Responsible for Rape Culture in Germany (8 January 2016) with related reddit discussion thread here

Feminists’ Failure on Rotherham (29 August 2014) And again a google search will turn up dozens more links on this issue

(The graphic below was sourced here)

Cologne-rape

‘Mattress Girl’ and some other high-profile rape allegations

There’s been a lot happening on North American campuses with regards to the evolving debate regarding consent, sexual assault, and freedom to discuss gender issues. As a result I have incorporated related information into several pre-existing posts in this blog, including for example:

On the feminist myth of ‘rape culture’
On the issue of consent
On false allegations of sexual assault and/or domestic abuse

Earlier today I read a new article entitled ‘Diagnosed with Liberalism‘. It addresses the peculiar behaviour of social justice warriors (‘SJW’), with special mention being made of the infamous case of ‘The Mattress Girl‘.

Reading that article prompted me to create a new post just dealing with that case, and with some other similar incidents. All of which, it would seem, have either been proven to be false or are widely considered to be highly dubious. I think I am also right in saying that in each case legal action is being pursued by the male accused against the relevant university.

1. Emma Sulkowicz (aka ‘Mattress Girl or ‘Mattress Mule’) – Columbia University, New York

Columbia student: I didn’t rape her (3 February 2015) One of many articles about female university student, Emma Sulkowicz, who carried a mattress all around her campus after claiming she had been raped.

After Cathy Young’s article came the feminist backlash (example), and here is one of the related reddit discussion threads about the case and linked article.

Here are some important words on the issue from COTWA, and another good article that addresses mindset surrounding this episode. And now the accused male student is taking the matter to court. See for example, ‘Lawyers for Emma Sulkowicz’s Alleged Rapist Accuse Her of Misandry‘ (25 June 2015)

But wait there’s more … Emma featured in a sex tape. And then
‘Mattress Girl’ Now Doing Lewd Bondage Performances as New ‘Art Project’ (25 May 2017)

The young man accussed of rape, Paul Nungesser, later sued Columbia University and lost that case (see related Reddit discussion thread here). Further developments are anticipated.

Columbia student: The damage done by ‘Mattress Girl’ (17 June 2016)

Columbia University has settled with the male student accused in the “mattress girl” rape case (16 July 2017)

Not even sexual assault counselor who talked to ‘Mattress Girl’ thinks she was raped (28 July 2017)

The Mattress Girl saga (6 September 2017) A Sargon of Akkad video

2. The Rolling Stone/UVA rape hoax – University of Virginia 

‘Fake gang rape’ defamation trial against Rolling Stone journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely gets ugly (22 October 2016)

Lawyers for Rolling Stone’s “Jackie” may have withheld “Haven Monahan” documents (26 May 2016)

The UVA Story Unravels: Feminist Agitprop and Rape-Hoax Denialism (8 December 2014)

The Rape of Credibility: Feminism’s Agenda and the Jackie Coakley Scandal (9 December 2014)

See also ‘The UVA Case and Rape-Hoax Denial‘ (30 March 2015) and ‘Rebalance the campus sex assault scales‘ (29 March 2015)

Girl who cried UVa. gang rape pretended to be her rapist to win a boy, lawyers say (9 February 2016) with related reddit discussion thread here

3. University of Ottawa

Member of men’s hockey team writes open letter to Allan Rock, and related reddit discussion thread

University of Ottawa Gee-Gees hockey players file $6M lawsuit (13 January 2015)

4. Ched Evans

Why the fallout from the Ched Evans verdict puts all our sons at risk (18 October 2016)

British Soccer Star Ched Evans Found Not Guilty Of Rape After Years Of Abuse From Feminists (17 October 2016)

See also:

Is UNC Campus Rape Heroine Actually a Campus Rape Hoaxer? by Cathy Young (1 May 2017)

Why Hasn’t Jackie Coakley Been Punished For Starting The Biggest Rape Hoax Of The Decade? (16 January 2016) USA

Nightmare on North Avenue (25 November 2015) USA

Another high-profile rape accusation falls apart (5 November 2015)

The Lessons of Stanford’s Sex-Assault-Case Reversal (4 November 2015)

What sort of rape hoaxer are you, feminist? (14 September 2015)

Central Allegation in The Hunting Ground Collapses Under Scrutiny (1 June 2015)

How to deal with false rape allegations (7 April 2015)

Disturbing false rape claim at Purdue University and similar news (February 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread with links to various article

Here Are EIGHT Campus Rape Hoaxes Eerily Like The UVA Rape Story (14 December 2014)

Stanford grad students want men accused of rape kicked off campus altogether while the school’s investigation drags on for months, and related reddit discussion thread (4 June 2014)

More about the ‘moderation’ of comments at ‘The Conversation’

Long-time readers of this blog would be aware on my concerns in relation to the pro-feminist bias and censorship of dissenting views that routinely occurs at an Australian current affairs web site called ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve had many of my comments removed and am on final warning prior to being banned from the site. On 1 April 2015 a moderator at The Conversation removed yet another comment, one that I added to this article about sexual assault. This is what I wrote:

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

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

As usual my comments were fairly benign in the overall scheme of social discourse. But this time, on impulse I wrote to the two authors of the article to see how they felt about the level and nature of the moderation that was taking place:

“Dear Nicola and Anastasia

I write to you this morning in relation to your article in The Conversation entitled ‘Everyday rape: let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators’.

I’m a keen reader of The Conversation and like many other readers often feel compelled to offer a comment on the article presented therein. Also, like many other readers, I am frequently frustrated by the actions of the moderators in removing many of the comments contributed – indeed sometimes most of the comments contributed.

You will have noted that as of now, about half of the comments concerning your article have been removed (including one of mine btw). On this, as on previous occasions, my comments were neither offensive nor irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

I have previously raised my concerns about moderation policy with the relevant people at The Conversation. On those occasions when the moderators do not intervene as readily there have been some very good and quite robust discussions played out with no hint of undue unpleasantness.

Rather than just grumbling about it on this occasion, I was wondering how you – as authors – felt about the situation. Are you being consulted about which comments are removed? I assume not. Do you believe that your article – and indeed your own professional development – would be strengthened by allowing a freer interchange of ideas? My own view is that if one can’t have an honest and robust exchange of alternative viewpoints within a web site run/funded by universities, then where can you?

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your views”

Dr Nicola Henry of Latrobe University, kindly wrote back on 2 April 2015:

“Thanks for your email. I think you raise a valid concern. I’ve read all of the comments that have thus far been removed (including yours). We of course have no say in this, but I did wonder why they were removed and personally wished they had remained on the site so that people can engage in debate about these issues. Sometimes there are very offensive personal attacks and inappropriate comments made on this site – so I can certainly see why moderation is important. In other words, I can understand why comments that contain vilification are removed, but not comments that pose an alternative view.

This is an issue that I discuss with my students who take my subjects – we discuss freedom of speech and censorship and the sometimes difficult lines that exist between offensive/discriminatory and opinionated speech (the latter I personally don’t think should be censored by the way).

I’m sorry I can’t offer you an explanation as to why your comment was removed from the Conversation site, but I can assure you that both Anastasia and I are always up for critical debate (that’s our job!).”

All good there. I wonder if other authors are mostly of the same view? If so then the problem lies with the attitudes of the management team at ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Conversation is a publicly funded forum for the discussion of current affairs and contemporary issues. It is operated under the auspices of Australian universities.

The Conversation should be about mature, free and open discussion (obviously sans expletives, threats and personal abuse).

The Conversation should not continue to be fettered by political correctness and ideologies du jour like gender feminism.

Here’s a relevant comment that appeared in an October 2015 reddit discussion thread concerning another biased gynocentric article appearing in The Conversation:

“I have opted out of The Conversation. Look at the number of “content removed by moderator” and you can bet that most of them were disagreement with the original article which Cory (the moderator) conflates with “breaching community standards” …

I have written several times to Cory pointing out that their editing is not ‘balanced’ and that they only publish a torrent of hate speech masquerading as academic “research”. His reply was to refer me the “community standards” which is a euphemism for a licence to censor opinions that they don’t like.”

This October 2015 Breitbart article provides an overview as to what is occurring in reader’s comments sections in left-leaning organisations like The Conversation.

And yet thankfully here and here we find evidence of a push-back beginning in some US universities. It’s been a long time coming & there’s such a long way to go.

(Update January 2019: ‘Why would ‘The Conversation’ reject a conversation about gender inequality?’ (UK)

Let’s hope the new DV ministry in New South Wales achieves something more than a triumph of pandering to the feminist lobby

Now that Mike Baird has been re-elected he is moving forward with the first of his election promises. One such promise was the creation of a new ministry, and he has just appointed Pru Goward as the first ever ‘Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault‘.

Whilst some – most notably those on the payroll of the Domestic Violence Industry – are praising this is an appropriate response to the level of public concern about violent crime, others like myself are highly sceptical.

My take on this move is that it is motivated partly by the desire to be ‘seen to be doing something’, and partly as a sop to the feminist lobby. Surely only the most hard-line feminist could seriously believe that creating a new ministry will, in itself, make any significant difference in the ongoing quest to reduce the incidence of sexual/domestic violence?

affect

So how about we take our foot off the ‘we spend because we care’ pedal, and pause a moment to ponder questions such as:

What more can be achieved with a new minister/ministry, than could be achieved in the absence of such changes? Is this administrative change really necessary in terms of delivering the sorts of tangible benefits that the community wants?

If there exists a sincere belief that a new ministry will expedite progress then, using the same logic, why not create a Minister for Reducing Traffic Accidents and/or Minister for Finding a Cure for Cancer?

Will this new initiative to anything to help break down the current substantial extent of gender bias which has seen both domestic violence and sexual assault portrayed as women’s problems with men as their root cause? Will, finally, serious attention be given to female perpetrators and their male victims?

How much will the creation of a new Ministry cost? Will it be cost-effective?

On that last point I can tell you that the costs of such a seemingly simple administrative change will far exceed what most people would imagine. I would guesstimate this to be in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I think I can safely state that, barring perhaps an FOI request, you will NOT subsequently read about this impost in the media.

What then are some of these additional costs that are about to be borne by the taxpayers of NSW?

  • Creation of new corporate logo
  • Design and printing of business cards for all employees
  • Design, production and installation of new building/office signage
  • Production of new stationary, brochures and other printed material
  • Production of new corporate gifts and products such as coffee mugs with logo, etc
  • The destruction/disposal of pre-existing stationary, corporate livery, etc
  • Updating of web site and any other online presence
  • Employment of new staff/redeployment of existing staff/redundancies

Bear in mind, please, that each dollar spent (wasted) to pay for the creation of a new ministry means one less dollar available to actually address the central issues of concern … reducing domestic violence, and treating/supporting its perpetrators and victims.

nsw_bias

How tragic that feminists ignore their role in demonising men

What follows is just one example of feminist hypocrisy. Not the worst example by any means. But just one that happened to come across my desk the other day. The author is a feminist journalist working for an Australian pro-feminist media group, an organisation that has been mentioned in one or two of my other blog posts due to it’s routine anti-male bias.

The title of the article is ‘How tragic that men are afraid to help kids‘ (29 October 2014), and it begins:

“THIS story finding more than two thirds of Australian men would be afraid to go to the aid of a child in need for fear of being thought a potential “pervert” is so sad for men and kids.”

Well that’s reasonable isn’t it? Of course it is sad that men are all too aware that they are viewed as potential predators. Very sad. But let’s think about how this situation came about.

Firstly, and undeniably, it is partly due to actual perpetration of sex crimes by a very small number of men, against a small minority of children. The actions of these people are obviously inexcusable, and clearly such offenders need to be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

But then the media, advocacy groups and public agencies take over, building that kernel of evil wrong-doing into a mountain of fear and foreboding. They do this not only in relation to their handling  of the specific issue of child sexual abuse by men, but also with regards to how they address the topics of (for example) domestic violence, sexual violence/‘rape culture‘, and workplace discrimination and harassment.

I need to digress here for a moment because feminists are wont to respond to what they imagine men are saying, rather than to what is actually said:

Men are not saying:

  • That the issues mentioned above are not real and/or do not warrant remedial action being taken
  • That all men are innocent of wrongdoing in relation to these issues
  • That the misrepresentation of men’s culpability is indicative of a global conspiracy against men (as is the case for example with feminists and their belief in the existence of a patriarchy)

Men are saying:

  • That media coverage of the issues listed above generally asserts (or at least implies) that men are almost always the perpetrators and that women are victims, when this is often not the case
  • That even in those situations where rates of male perpetration are substantially greater than female perpetration, this is not a valid justification for failing to acknowledge and address female perpetrators and male victims
  • That this biased misrepresentation of the actual situation appears to be a deliberate attempt of the part of many writers to damage the credibility of men and/or support and further the cause of feminist ideology
  • That this ongoing misrepresentation is unfair and unhelpful in addressing the issues under consideration

Let’s think about the broader picture of how men are presented in the media generally, and that is anything but a positive portrayal. It is no coincidence that the Australian media is overwhelmingly influenced and shaped by feminists and their white-knight cohorts. Should you doubt this fact then start reading almost any of the posts in this blog.

Let’s think about why women are not similarly viewed as potential predators despite the fact that they are responsible for most (non-sexual) child abuse and neglect, much elder abuse, and given that there are now almost daily incidents involve adult women preying on underage boys and girls.

A major factor here is, yet again, pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the media. This pervasive sexist bigotry sees men’s transgressions amplified, whilst women’s are minimised or ignored entirely. The general public then comes away with the idea that men’s perpetration is commonplace, deliberate, and severe, whilst women’s crimes are rare aberrations for which there are usually extenuating circumstances.

Let’s think about what feminists in general, and feminist journalists in particular, are doing to address this issue of men being portrayed as evil.  I mean apart from shedding crocodile tears by way of superficial space-filler articles like the one introduced earlier.

Are feminists, for example, lobbying for airlines to stop their discriminatory policy of not allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied minors? Are they lobbying for the imposition of gender quotas for male primary school teachers? Are they doing anything at all to help? Please prove me wrong, but I think you will find that the answer is no. No, they are much too busy pushing in the opposite direction.

PS: By the way, I did try to share my views about the article in the Herald-Sun web site via submitting a readers comment, but alas it was not posted. I’m hardly surprised … such censorship moderation is  absolutely par for the course when it comes to feminists seeking to avoid having their precious ideology critiqued derailed. Oh, and then the author of the article blocked me from her Twitter page – presumably in retaliation – rather than providing a mature and lucid rebuttal. This is what a feminist looks like.

See also:

Can we discuss gender issues rationally? Yes, if we can stop gamma bias (4 December 2018)

Male teachers fear student contact for false abuse claims: experts (4 August 2017)

Men won’t volunteer to help the Scouts for one depressing reason: they’ll be labelled paedophiles (13 April 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Wendy Tuohy: Too right, women do more work. And we’re so tired (17 March 2017)

Feminism: The demonization of males, by Stacy McCain (2 March 2017)

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

Rachel Stewart: No predator more dangerous than the human male (12 October 2016) New Zealand

‘Hysterical’ feminism isn’t helping our fight against domestic violence, by Corrine Barraclough (22 July 2016) Australia

The damage being done when people insist ‘boys will be boys’, by Clementine Ford (3 June 2016)

Congratulations creeps: You’ve scared women off the streets, by Wendy Tuohy (13 May 2016) Australia

Australian teacher warns young men not to become teachers as a result of the experience he has had (7 May 2016) The investigation into an accusation of inappropriate touching last two years – then found to be unsubstantiated.

Men won’t volunteer to help the Scouts for one depressing reason: they’ll be labelled paedophiles (3 May 2016) UK

Demonising men creates a culture of fear that is bad for everyone, by Karen Brooks (18 April 2016) Australia

Men are way creepier than women, according to science (14 April 2016)

Introducing the most derided ethnic group in Britain: young white men (14 December 2015) UK

When a women-only community is the answer to male violence, by Clementine Ford (18 August 2015)

A similar article from another feminist journalist at the same newspaper. This one is entitled ‘Why is being a male a crime these days?‘ (12 May 2015)

Women’s studies prof calls for ‘men control’ (23 June 2015) More on that here

Interesting perspectives from a poster named ‘Bowspearer’

I came across a feminist article entitled ‘Feminist bitches – Who needs them?‘ (11 August 2014)

The article itself was codswallop but one thing I saw that’s well worth remarking upon, was a series of comments by a reader named ‘Bowspearer’ (see footnote). I’ll reproduce his opening comment below, and would recommend that you read the entire discussion at http://theaimn.com/feminist-bitches-needs/#comment-168495. This guy has got some great insights to impart. (Update: The discussion thread recommenced on 31 October 2014, and the recent comments are excellent)

“The article is deeply flawed and ironically endemic of the vast multitude of problems which feminism has which in terms of it’s ideological model, make it actually a barrier towards gender equality.

Firstly, the article talks about women in power whilst clearly being oblivious to what real power is in this world. Politicians aren’t powerful by any means- they’re nothing more than puppets. The real power in this world belongs to the Money Power – be it investment bankers, mining magnates or any member of the hegemonic class. This is the class of 0.1%ers who are rarely, if ever, visible and reduce our politicians to nothing more than puppets. Included in that class is the British monarch – who has actually been female for 132 of the past 232 years. The reality is with the exception of Gina Rinehart, such power is rarely, if ever seen – in the case of either hegemonic men or hegemonic women.

Two examples come to mind of this. The first is Melissa Babbage, who until the GFC worked as a majhor derivatives trader for Deutsche Bank and whose investment portfolio was so massive that it’s clear that it is she, rather than Joe Hockey, who is the breadwinner of that family. The second example which comes to mind is an old school friend’s stepmother who again, is a highly wealthy and influential member of the banking class who was even an advisor in the 2nd Bush administration – where the real power lies and this was one of the more powerful advisory positions.

Gina Rinehart has also made their position abundantly clear. Such individuals in the hegemonic class, male or female – care little for plight of the subordinate class and would have us all working for slave wages if they had their way. Any notion which women at the top are “part of the sisterhood” is pure, romanticised drivel. Furthermore, any notion that we are even aware of just what the exact gender breakdown, gendered wealth breakdown and opportunities are for men and women within the hegemonic class – especially when much of that class keep their power and themselves hidden, is misguided.

Secondly, it ignores power dynamics. The fact is that there are a wide raft of factors which determine power in this world of which determine just how powerful or powerless someone is. The fact is that a disabled man will always face greater discrimination in this world than an able-bodied woman, non-caucasian men are more likely to experience discrimination that white women ( especially Middle Eastern men I might add) – in addition to factors such as class, transgender and sexual orientation. Yet feminism discards this complex reality for the theory of “Patriarchy”, whereby all men are falsely elevated to some imagined bourgeois and all women are falsely relegated to some imagined proleteriat. Feminism will certainly claim to acknowledge this inequality, but the cold hard truth is that feminism views it through the lens of “women HAVE problems; men ARE problems”.

Feminists lament their perceived lack of access to the hegemonic class, whilst ignoring that with the way gender dynamics are actually structured in this world, it is men who fare worst in the world. Men make up 95% of workplace fatalities – all so they can be the “good providers [for “women and children”]” which society demands them to be, which in cases of large scale infrastructure involve examples such as the construction of the Panama Canal, where 28,000 men were killed in its construction. Likewise, men make up the primary victims of war, all so they can fulfill the social expectation of being “good protectors [of women and children]” – which results in incidents like the 1 million dead in the battle of the Somme being, all too common in war.

Yet according to the feminist theory of “patriarchy”, men relegated to subordinate masculinities such as this somehow magically oppress women – even hegemonic women like Gina Rinehart who would love nothing more than to use them as slave labour. Furthermore if hegemonic females are just as culpable of this as hegemonic males, then how can a male-power-focused model of patriarchy, even remotely be accurate?

Before I move onto third world issues, let’s take more of a look at first world issues. Feminism perpetuates the myth that when it comes to abuse, “men are [exclusively] perpetrators; women are [exclusively] victims[; anything to the contrary is to be dismissed as a statistical anomaly]“.

In terms of rape, this plays out in the form of the myth that non-consensual sex is only rape when the victim is forcibly penetrated – despite the fact that when studies like the 2010 NIPSVS in the US have kept track of men being forced to penetrate someone against their will, they have found that not only are half of all rape victims men, but that 40% of all rapes are committed by women. Yet this is barely recognised in a society where feminism perpetuates the flawed notion that rape culture is entirely perpetrated upon women by men.

In terms of domestic violence, despite studies having shown for over 4 decades that roughly half of all domestic violence is bi-directional, roughly a quarter is exclusively male-on-female abuse and roughly a quarter is exclusively female-on-male abuse. Yet the collective “[men’s] violence against women” mantra which society dogmatically chants on this issue, results in society treating battered men as urban-myths/perpetual-liars who “had it coming to them” and regards individual victims as effectively being cheap, filthy, worthless sluts”. So vile is this entrenched sexism, that in several states here, police have been trained to automatically view the male as the aggressor on domestic violence call-outs, resulting in many domestic violence victims being arrested, simply because they have a penis between their legs.

In terms of child sex trafficking, it is portrayed in the media as exclusively being men preying on girls. However the reality is, in the US for example, that half of all child sex trafficking victims are boys, 35% of all child sex traffickers are female and studies have found that 40% of boys and 13% of girls service female clients.

In terms of pedophilia in general, society views a boy being raped by an older woman as a “rite of passage” – so much so that laws in the US for example, mandate that a male child rape victim must pay child support to their rapist if a child results from the rape. Furthermore researchers in the UK have found that victims of female child predators, male or female, are far less likely to be believed than victims of male child sex predators when they disclose their abuse – even to police.

This is of course, just a handful of issues in the developed world of many. Then there are problems in the third world faced by men – such as the epidemic of war rape against men in the Congo, to which both women and men are active participants in.

People cite the brutality of women in Shari Law abiding Islamic countries, whilst completely ignoring the plight of homosexual men there being just as brutal.

Then you have India where female violence against men not only gets a free pass, but the victims are mocked if they are witnessed or dare to speak out.

Again, these are just a couple of examples of countless many.

The thing is, if feminism is so concerned with gender equality, then where is it’s genuine recognition of these issues in terms of men HAVING issues, as opposed to men BEING issues?

Where is feminism’s recognition of both subordinate masculinities and hegemonic femininities?

Where is feminism’s recognition of the existence of female privilege (which btw is a significant barrier in addressing female hypoagency) as well as male privilege and the effect that both forms of privilege have in maintaining traditional gender inequalities? For that matter where is feminism’s accurate understanding that “privilege” is nothing more than a conditionally granted set of permissions designed to glorify and maintain traditional gender norms that are revoked the instant an individual deviates too far from acceptable gender norms.

Ms McQuade laments the page she found, yet she is clearly blind to why egalitarian women would have serious concerns over feminism as a movement in an ideological sense or the fact that if feminism cleaned house (beginning with recognising the existence of female privilege and how it has poisoned feminism) it would ironically be well on the way to addressing female hypoagency and therefore achieving genuine gender equality as a foundational level of society – whilst gaining support from egalitarians, who have surpassed feminism’s flawed and superficial gender understandings.

Sadly, much like paleo-masculinists, PUAs and Beta Male Traditionalists are blind to how toxic and self-destructive male privilege is, so too are traditionalist females and feminists blind to how toxic and self-destructive female privilege is. Until such time as that changes, more and more people are going to discard feminism as a toxic and academically superficial gender model.”

Footnote: I subsequent learnt that ‘Bowspearer’ is Andrew Richards (Twitter handle = @bowspearer)

See also: Related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Home Truths: The Costs and Causes of Domestic Violence (March 2015) More great comments contributed by Andrew