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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
Child abuse can consist of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and/or neglect. Each of these forms of abuse are explained on this page, and an estimate of the relative scale of each of these forms of abuse is provided here.
Sexual abuse of children, the least common form of abuse, is mostly committed by men. Although note that there is no shortage of female perpetrators. Neglect of children is mostly committed by mothers, reflecting the fact that they are usually the primary care-givers. Female perpetrators tend to dominate the other two forms of abuse, although there are significant variations (and gaps in data) between different studies. Links to sources of statistical data concerning the perpetration of child abuse are provided below.
Child abuse, where it occurs within the home, is itself a subset of a broader range of destructive behaviours known as domestic violence.
Domestic violence is not a gendered crime, although most feminists believe otherwise and never stop telling us so. They justify this position on the basis of their claim that domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women. But if we were to accept that, then surely child abuse and neglect must also be a gendered crime given that the majority of the perpetrators are female and the majority of victims male? Why isn’t perpetrator gender nearly such a big issue in the child abuse debate (or abuse of the aged, etc), as it clearly is in domestic violence?
I would draw the readers attention to an article entitled ‘Abuse and neglect: Australia’s child protection ‘crisis’’ published in ‘The Conversation‘. An interesting thing about that article was that it never mentions the issue of gender. This contrasts strongly with articles that ‘The Conversation‘ publishes about domestic violence, wherein gender is invariably the central theme.
Thus we seem to have one form of violence involving somewhat more male perpetrators, and where gender is absolutely pivotal. Then we have other forms of violence where most perpetrators are female, yet apparently gender is not a significant issue. How strange and paradoxical.
Could it be, as some have suggested, that researchers move the goalposts depending on whether the relevant information alternately supports or undermines the feminist narrative? The issue of the corruption of gender-related research is addressed in another blog post.
How about we start telling it like it is? Most child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by women, and women should acknowledge this and deal with it the same way they harangue men to take ownership and deal with domestic violence, i.e. tell all your friends it’s wrong. Though the impact of that approach, in isolation, is unlikely to amount to much in the way of a reduction in abuse.
Perpetrators of domestic violence expose their children to the unhealthy experience of seeing and hearing abuse taking place, thus this behaviour is itself a form of child abuse. Pro-feminist advocacy groups and journalists sometimes offer up statements such as “25% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their mother”. As always, the lack of comparative data for male victimisation is a sure-fire indicator of sexist bias.
The actual situation, as identified by ‘One in Three‘ is:
“23% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their mother or stepmother, and 22% of young people have witnessed physical domestic violence against their father or stepfather” (Source)
It is of great significance that victims of child abuse, be they male or female, are much more likely to become perpetrators of not only child abuse, but also domestic violence, upon reaching adulthood. Thus abusive women are guilty twice over. In the first instance they abuse their partners and children, turning their lives into a living hell. Then, assuming their abuse doesn’t lead to murder or suicide, those children grow up and have children who they abuse – thus perpetuating an inter-generational cycle.
We should be giving equal emphasis to combating all forms of domestic violence including child abuse and elder abuse. Instead because of the inordinate degree of influence by the feminist lobby, the government is concentrating all of its effort on reducing violence against women based on the flawed claim that DV originates from the disrespectful attitudes of men and boys.
I believe that, were we to take a broader and longer-term view of the DV issue, then we should be placing far greater emphasis on women’s role in perpetrating child abuse. This would see, for example, the provision of more behaviour modification programs for abusive women with the aim of reducing the level of domestic violence in both the current and subsequent generation.
Statistical information on child abuse, and related discussion:
As previously noted, many statistical sources regarding child abuse (esp. in the past 5-10 years) don’t detail the gender of the perpetrator. This problem was identified in this Australian study for example. This is rather curious given that gender is promoted as the pivotal issue in the sphere of domestic violence research. Of course there the majority of perpetrators are male and thus entirely consistent with feminist dogma.
This U.K article notes that “mothers are the “unseen force” behind so-called honour-based abuse, inflicting violence on their daughters” and that “of the 100 “honour” crimes she studied, 49 involved mothers – but this was often not recorded in crime reports.”
40.5% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological mothers 17.7% of all child abuse is committed solely by biological fathers 19.3% of child abuse is committed by both the mother and the father 6.4% of child abuse is committed by the mother and some other individual 1.0% of child abuse is committed by the father and some other individual 11.9% is committed by someone other than the parents 3.1% is committed by an unknown or missing perpetrator.
Child Maltreatment 2012 Department of Health and Human Services USA. Refer table 5-3. Other reports in this series can be found here.
Reddit discussion threads on the issue of perpetrator gender, included here as they contains links to further statistical sources of note:
“The Western Australian figures shed light on who is likely to abuse children in families and are in line with overseas findings. The data show there were 1505 substantiations of child abuse in WA during the period 2007-8. Natural parents were responsible for 37% of total cases. Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect and abuse in a total of 73% of verified cases.”
“The report shows there were 13,184 substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06. Women were responsible for 7,319 – or 55.5 per cent – of cases, and males for 5,846, or 44.3 per cent.”
Mother used one-year-old baby as weapon in Alice Springs street fight (21 March 2015) Features the comment “Women who are victims of domestic violence should seek help from relevant support agencies long before it reaches such a crisis point.” Of course she’s a “victim“, rather than a perpetrator … she’s a woman, right?
An article informs us of the considerable danger caused by dads drinking, but neglects to mention the (even greater) danger caused by mums drinking (17 February 2019) and subsequent Tweets from Bettina Arndt (and another).
Some people have suggested that feminist ideologues using pre-pubescent girls in expletive-laden videos to further their cause is also a form of child abuse (commentary here and here). Another one is seen when feminist mothers bemoan the fact that they are rearing a male and map out a path of indoctrination, see this article for example.
The last few years have seen a surge of social programs calling on men to step up to the line to perform some pledge or action for the womenfolk. These have been launched by government agencies, pro-feminist not-for-profits and various social media personalities. The foci of these demands for action have related mainly to sexual assault, domestic violence, and employment opportunity.
The #HeForShe hashtag/movement/thing was a reasonably high-profile example of such a campaign from the second half of 2014. The links below provide a small sampling of some of the other campaigns that have been and/or are now taking place:
Male Champions of Change (also discussed here, here and here) is a home-grown campaign which has now spawned a ‘Female Champions of Change‘ program. And no, the latter campaign was not intended to provide a corresponding support network to champion the welfare of men. Beyond Australia there is a similar program known as Men Advocating Real Change (MARC), mentioned in this article.
Most of these campaigns have been packaged on the basis of selling a message to the broader community that feminists want to be inclusive and work with men to address shared issues of concern. Perhaps feminists realise they now have a serious image problem, having been stung into action by developments like the #WomenAgainstFeminism movement. The problem though is that beneath the shiny wrapping paper, the nature of the various campaigns runs contrary to any notions of equality, mutual respect or inclusiveness.
Firstly these campaigns all seem to be promoted on the basis of overstating men’s responsibility for both causing, and solving, each particular issue. At the same time they underplay or ignore the accountability of women in contributing to the problem, as well as their own responsibility in relation to undertaking any necessary remedial action.
There seems to be a fundamental hypocrisy associated with a movement that claims that women are strong and equal, yet continually demands that men step up to address women’s apparently helplessness in the face of real or imagined adversity.
Secondly, it is telling that no similar movements have been proposed or created by women to support men. In fact, there is no sense of reciprocity whatsoever. Nor is there even public acknowledgement that men might need or deserve similar recognition or support. And heaven help the women who dare to raise awareness of the need to help men & boys (example).
Thirdly, and in what must be a soul-destroying experience for the ‘white knights‘ who flutter around these campaigns like moths to a flame, many feminists resent men who openly support these campaigns. Do read this criticism, by a feminist journalist, of an admittedly ludicrous initiative by male staff of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
And thus whilst we have one group of feminists demanding that men ‘help’ women, other feminists berate them for interfering in women’s issues and/or for seeking thanks/congratulations for being good. This is apparent, for example, in this Facebook post about a recent campaign known as ‘Red my Lips’ … peruse the bitter and angry comments by feminists and other ‘white knights’ directed at men behind the campaign – and men generally.
Change Makers, Indoctrination for Australian men seeking help in becoming a suitably compliant puppy in the workplace (December 2022) And no, there’s no equivalent training available for women.
Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak? (10 March 2016) Australia. And of course no reciprocal expectation on women to attend events addressing male issues (unless to pull fire alarms and disrupt proceedings). See also my related blog post here.
Most disturbing of all are those instances where men are called upon to aid and abet the indoctrination of boys in feminist doctrine as discussed at ‘We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology‘ (20 July 2015)
Oh and this is rich. Actress Rose McGowan castigates gay men (“as misogynistic as straight men, or more so“) for not doing more to advance women’s rights in the middle East. More here
We have just seen Julien Blanc tossed out of Australia, a fellow that apparently makes a living running seminars on how to pick up women. I don’t support him or the whole PUA thing, but yet again I can’t help noticing that men were called upon to deal with him.
Still in Australia, ex-Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce headed a Task Force on Family and Domestic Violence. Submissions to the Inquiry had just closed at the time this article appeared in the pro-feminist Guardian newspaper. It seems that those people who prepared submissions need not have bothered, as Quentin already knew that men were the problem and that the “the key drivers of change should be men and police“. That’s right ladies, no need to lift a finger, off you go and get yourselves a nice cup of tea whilst the menfolk cop all the blame plus the job of making things right.
Finally, some blinding irony with the movement called ‘Men Speak Out‘ who “aim to engage men in the process of ending FGM and, on a larger scale, to end violence against women and promote gender equality through a human rights’ approach“. Bearing in mind, of course, the negligible level of interest/activity by feminists in ending the practice of involuntary male circumcision.
The very concept of “He For She” makes women look like helpless children. This isn’t even “She for She,” implying sisterhood and communal responsibility. This isn’t even “We For She,” which is one-sided and focused on a minority of victims of violence and social problems, but at least community-minded. “He For She” blatantly states that men have all the power (even when they don’t) and that women need men to do their work for them (even when THEY don’t).
It’s regressive and gender-traditionalist and feminist all in one, simultaneously telling women that they can be free to be doctors or lawyers or strippers on poles, so long as big strong men open up all the big heavy doors for them. It’s patronizing to women and insulting to men, and if a man had come up with the hashtag he would have been called out as a patriarchalist traditionalist chauvinist pig. “Let’s help out those less fortunate little ladies, eh guys? Guys???”
“These “don’t-rape” courses have no interest in teaching women to take proper ownership of the decision-making process that leads to a yes or no, let alone encouraging them to express those wishes clearly rather than keep men guessing.
Back in the 1990s I made a programme on sexual consent – Yes, No, Maybe – as a guest reporter on Four Corners. I had no trouble finding women who acknowledged they deliberately drink to avoid making decisions around consent. Women who admitted to playing games where they said no but wanted men to push through that resistance – a popular theme in hugely popular bodice ripper novels.
None of these complexities are addressed in the sexual consent programmes”
Three men jailed for raping drunk woman (14 February 2015) …
“During cross-examination about whether she could remember anything, the woman told the court: “Yes, it could all have happened consensually and I don’t remember it.””
Girls are drinking themselves blotto precisely in order to lower their inhibitions for casual sex, then regretting it afterwards (20 October 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread and linked article
“There is no such thing as consent because patriarchy. Some girls require years of reeducation before they realize that while they were screaming, “Yeeeeeeeeha! Ride that cowboy!” they were being raped. Because patriarchy is just that awesomely powerful” (Source)
Firstly, might I suggest that you read the article that started this whole affair – here it is here. The article was called ‘Colleges become the victims of progressivism’, was written by George Will, and published on 6 June 2014.
George’s article concerned the mythical rape culture and associated culture of female victimhood that has taken root and is flourishing in North American university campuses.
I originally mentioned this issue in my post about feminist censorship, but the subject has now taken on a life of its own and well and truly warrants its own post. What makes it so significant is that it perfectly typifies what feminism has done, and is continuing to do, in stamping out dissenting views. Or more specifically, in stamping out people who dare to express dissenting views.
The feminist backlash against the publication of George’s article was immediate and soon resulted in him being sacked from his role at the newspaper in question. Yup, so much for the Land of the Free. Yay feminism!
Firstly, and by way of background, the concept of institutional misandry has been described as:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their status as male. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and misandric stereotyping which disadvantage males.”
It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such misandry it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease.
— After section 6.34, page 49, Cm 4262-I, Lawrence. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. February 1999. (Source)
I frequently encounter the online footprints of Australian organisations whose interests encompass one or more gender-related issues, and who appear to demonstrate a significant degree of anti-male bias. Many of these organisations:
provide minimal or no services or support for men, and often only reference men in the context of (for example) perpetrators of sexual assault or domestic violence
are strongly biased towards, or influenced by, feminist ideology
have weak oversight or disclosure mechanisms in place, for example annual reports, financial statements/independent auditing, and measures of performance which (if they exist) are not publicly available, and
have either no men working within them, or only very few (gender quotas anyone?)
I find this situation to be of considerable concern bearing in mind the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into just the domestic violence sector alone each year. What’s more, that amount continues to increase and in July 2014 it was announced that millions more were to be poured into agencies to protect “women and their children“ (whilst still assiduously ignoring male victims and violent women).
It also worries me that this list is not restricted to private lobby groups or not-for-profits that benefit from substantial government funding or contracts. Indeed, there are many government agencies and groups within the tertiary education sector that display almost as much gender bias.
I have already allocated blog posts to several such organisations:
Workplace Gender Equality Agency (Annual budget $5 million) $5 million a year to propagate a feminist myth and to shake a finger at companies that won’t buy into their delusion. Their contribution to the Australian community consists of burning public money on the altar of feminism. (Postscript November 2018: Budget doubled)
Men’s Referral Service (Government funding was around $2million/annum but they are now to be the recipient of a further allocation of $13 million over four years)
The E-Safety Office (Annual government funding is currently around $100 million)
In this blog post my intention is to eventually corral and list basic details of other similar organisations, and then subsequently do further research on each.
Who’ll be the next cab off the rank? Oh, we have oh so many contenders …
Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre – Hmm, where to start here. Well firstly check out how many men they have on board with regards to Advisory Board members/key researchers/HDR researchers/visiting scholars. Think, one or none tokenism. But more to report here folks – back soon.
Women’s Safety NSW – This group came to my attention due to their lobbying against a proposed Family Law Inquiry. You can review their tweets (@womenssafetynsw) in relation to that issue distributed around mid-late September 2019. Their ACNC register entry is here – you will note that they received $253,869 in government grants in 2019/20 whilst spending $192,710 on “Employee Expenses” (with only one fulltime employee). The CEO and Board are wholly female. (Newsflash: Their Twitter account states “Women’s Safety NSW is no longer in operation” as at 27 July 2021. Their former CEO, Hayley Foster, is now CEO of another organisation called ‘Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia’).
Full Stop Foundation is registered as a charity with annual income approaching $2 million. Their patron is feminist Tara Moss, and all seven board members are women. Looking at their web site and ACNC register entry, it’s uncertain though to what extent they receive government funding. What exactly is “contract income”? (See note 4). Also, whilst they list the Australian Human Rights Commission as supporters they don’t seem to clarify what form this support takes (?)
Or another … this one is called ‘Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre’, but don’t let “family” fool you. Safe Steps “is committed to assisting all women and children in the community experiencing family violence. We are an organisation that values inclusivity, diversity and intersectionality”. All female board and staff. Income of $12 million in financial year 2017/18 according to latest annual report on their web site, but which doesn’t specify the extent of grant funding. Safe Steps is listed in the ACNC register but no information seems to be held for them. (?)
Just out of curiosity I typed “male victims” into their web site search facility, and got “Oops, we are really sorry but no results were found“.
Or how about Women’s Community Shelters Ltd who came to my attention via their daily paid placement in my Twitter feed? Their ACNC register entry mentions a total annual income of almost $3.5m, of which just over 1/3 arrives by way of government funding. This mostly comes from the NSW Dept. of FaCS, who explain here the “facts” about domestic and family violence (no need to complicate things by mentioning male victims).
Or perhaps Relationships Australia? I understand that they don’t have many male counsellors nowadays, and one less after the departure of Rob Tiller.
“International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) has an EEO exemption (H298/2018) and requests applications from women only. IWDA has a Child Rights and Protection Policy and directors are required to undertake a National Police Check and endorse IWDA’s Child Rights and Protection Code of Conduct.”
I wonder why IWDA were granted an EEO exemption and whether an application from a MRA organisation would be treated similarly? See here and here. Oh and IWDA seem to get plenty of government financial support too:
“Grant income represents 81% of our total income and grew by 43% in 2016/17. This is based on a combined Grants total of $8.59mil, of which 29.81% is sourced directly from the Australian Government’s Aid Program.” (Source, p27)
Or how about ‘The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault‘? This is the page that I came across first. It reads like a grant application for a feminist spend-fest doesn’t it? I had a very quick look at their site and found nothing along the lines of guidelines to help female perpetrators, or anything about male victims. I searched on “sexual assault of men” and did come across a page entitled ‘Engaging men in sexual assault prevention‘ though. You know the sort of advice that helps us men curb the frothing rapist lurking within each and every one of us.
The ‘About us‘ page tells us that there are no male staff at the Centre, as well as providing the following information:
The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) was established in 2003 by the Commonwealth Office for Women. It is funded by the Department of Social Services and is hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
ACSSA is a central collection point for research, information and resources about sexual assault in Australia. Our key role is to facilitate access to the growing evidence-base on sexual assault and to support organisations, agencies and others use research and evidence in shaping policy, practice and research directions in responding to, and reducing, sexual assault.
We collect, synthesise and summarise developments in:
research and evaluation;
practice knowledge and resources;
law reform and legislation; and
policy initiatives.
OK, well there is no mention there of the agency being restricted to only dealing with the sexual assault of women by men. Given, however, that it’s an offshoot of the ‘Commonwealth Office for Women’, I think it would be a safe bet that that is in fact the case. Of course if there was a corresponding ‘Office for Men’, then I guess that they would deal with male victims and female perpetrators. But there isn’t, because … men can deal with it (?)
With regards to their budget, all I’ve found at the moment is this somewhat dated page for the Government’ entire ‘Womens Safety Agenda‘, which mentions a total budget of $75.7 million over four years. The 2014/15 budget shows an allocation of $3.5 million for the Office of Women this year (refer page 31), but there may well be further allocations under the Social Services budget (and elsewhere?). On 23 June 2014 I sent an email to Treasury seeking this information:
“I am aware that a womens budget statement is regularly prepared to identify expenditure that is expressly designed to support Australian women. I would like to know if there is a similar statement identifying expenditure designed to support men.
Alternatively, and assuming there is not … is there any source that you can either provide me with – or point me towards – that enables a side-by-side comparison of expenditure for men and women? I look forward to receiving your advice on this matter. Thank you”
… but no reply since. Hmm.
Postscript: Sarah Game MLC has provided the following information regarding the Office for Women in a Twitter discussion thread (February 2024)
Meanwhile over in the USA Barack Obama introduced one (1) federal program to assist men and boys (as against the dozens that assist women and girls), only to have the feminist backlash begin immediately (and see related reddit discussion here). Somehow, sadly, I can’t see Malcolm Turnbull stepping into the breech with anything similar here in Australia. Ooh, please don’t call me a misogynist, please, please! (See this blog post re: lack of political support for men/boys)
See the article at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/women-are-the-biggest-budget-losers-20140523-zrl4n.html (22 May 2014) It seems quite extraordinary to me that the journalist who wrote this piece felt justified in claiming that “women are the biggest losers” without providing any information whatsoever about what men received/lost in the budget. It’s moments like these I feel like a member of the forgotten gender!
Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia Senior staff and Board members are all women. In the year ending 30 June 2015 the organisation was the recipient of $8,194,146 in government grant funding, out of a total annual income of $8,795,650. Their main expense was ‘Salaries and On-costs’ at $7,502,877 (Source)
The latest annual report and financial statement provided in the ANROWS web site as of July 2022 is for the financial year 2020-21. ANROWS receives substantial government funding support and in 2020/21 “grants income” was listed as being $6,628,189. In 2019/20 it amounted to $10,410,025, and the year earlier it received $4,995,793.
Now I wonder how much the federal government budgeted for researching men’s issues in recent years? Absolutely nothing? But I shouldn’t ask naughty questions like that – it’s probably why ANROWS blocked me on social media.
The Centre is listed in the ACNC register here. That’s just as well as there does not appear to be any financial details provided in their web site, and only vague information about who is running the organisation – and how. The Centre employs 12 f/t employees, 20 p/t employees, and three casuals.
The Centre is wholly supported by government funding, with no donations or bequests received in 2014/15. The consolidated income statement shows receipts of around $2.8 million per annum in goverment grants (refer page 5). The main costs for the Centre are “salaries and on costs” ($1.9 million per annum), “office and centre expenses” ($407,167), rent ($227,841), and superannuation ($174,128).
An article from May 2016 citing disparaging comments about male victims of DV made by Centre director Amy Compton-Keen can be accessed here (NB: Reader reaction to that article was illuminating).
Y-Gap/Polished man campaign (level of government support currently unknown). Y-Gap’s ACNC register entry is here. Related Reddit mensrights discussion thread here.
Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research based at CQ University, Mackay Campus. All female staff? tick Only consult with female-focussed groups with just a token male for appearance sake? tick Statistics within web site ignores male victimisation and resources for men assume they are perpetrators of violence? tick (see ‘Working with Men’).
“The Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research receives defined term funding from the Queensland Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to undertake research and develop educational resources pertaining to domestic and family violence in Queensland. In addition, CDFVR is supported by CQUniversity and receives grants from a range of other sources to conduct research and professional development activities.”
Queensland University of Technology, Crime and Justice Research Centre Perform research and teach in subject areas including sexual assault and domestic violence. They appear to have a strong pro-feminist bias and from what I have read of their work thus far, they routinely follow and promote the men perpetrators/women victims model. (More details here)
The 2013 Annual Report here tells us that DVV’s total income in 2013 was $677,211 of which $609,361 arrived in the form of grants. Some of their major expenses included wages $489,783, super contributions $42,618, media awards $35,251, provision for holiday and long service leave $32,789, consultants $10,675, board fees $4,500 and staff training/welfare/amenities $3,261 (these items totalling $618,877)
Canberra Men’s Centre Outwardly compassionate about men’s welfare but it’s been suggested that CMC are a feminist ‘Trojan horse’ that dances to the men bad/woman victim tune. Their annual report for the year ending 30 June 2013 (the most recent in their web site as of March 2015) informs us that they received around $2 million from the ACT Dept. of Disability, Housing and Community Services in both 2011/12 and 2012/13. Their main expenses were lease payments ($340,118 in 2012/13) and salaries ($277,799 in 2012/13).
This Victorian organisation first came to my attention when I heard about a function they were planning for 6 May 2015 at which they will be lighting candles for women and children. On 27 April 2015 I submitted a cordial post to their Facebook page just querying why men killed through domestic violence would not be similarly remembered. Well, that post was deleted faster than you can say ‘feminist censorship’.
One hundred per cent female directors and staff (Source, see p9)
Total income in both 2012/13 and 2013/14 exceeded $3 million – nature of source not disclosed. Salary costs and director remuneration not disclosed (p10)
Fast forward to 28 January 2020 and Safe Steps issued this tweet:
“Women, children and young people are not the only ones affected by #familyviolence. Often, women need to leave but are reluctant to leave their beloved pet behind. We assist where possible to enable women and their children to leave safely with their pets.”
That’s right, no men in the families that this group deals with. Funny thing that.
I’ve just watched a couple of segments on ‘Sunrise‘ that I feel are worth mentioning.
The first segment concerned Angelina Jolie and the ‘End Sexual Violence in Conflict global summit‘. The Australian representative at that event was Natasha Stott Despoja, who is Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls. Natasha spoke on Sunrise this morning, and I was pleased to note that she mentioned that men and boys – as well as women and girls – are also victims of sexual violence in wars.
The background to Natasha’s appointment to the role is provided here. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly, there is no corresponding Ambassador for Men and Boys.
What was good to see about this discussion was that initially John Mangos, and then each of the other participants (excluding Andrew*), readily conceded that:
there tended to be a lot of talk about sexism towards women and very little about sexism towards men (although such sexism did occur)
there was too much talk about sexism towards women bearing in mind the progress that has already having been made in that area
most of the talk about sexism towards women focussed on women in elite roles (e.g. politicians and CEO’s/executives) and not enough about ordinary women
that some women, such as Julia Gillard, were probably too quick to play the “sexism card” in order to gain sympathy or support
It was just a shame that the segment was so short as it was clear that everyone had more that they wanted to say on the topic. Hopefully we will see more balanced discussion on the issue of sexism on Sunrise and other TV shows in the near future.
* No surprise there, given that Andrew is well-known to be a regular ‘white knight’ when it comes to gender issues, as mentioned in this earlier post.
