More feminist censorship: Cancellation of the Australian premiere of The Red Pill movie

“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The Red Pill challenges the audience to pull back the veil, question societal norms, and expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.” (Source)

The Australian premiere of The Red Pill was to have been in Melbourne in early November 2016. That didn’t happen. A feminist petition on change.org saw Palace Cinemas crumble and give in to their demands to cancel the event. This discussion thread looks at some of the misrepresentations made in the text accompanying that petition.

There were then several change.org petitions underway seeking to have Palace Cinemas reverse its decision, a link to one of which is provided below:

Stop Extremists Censoring What Australians Are Allowed To See. Save The Red Pill screening

More than 8,000 people signed this – almost four times the number of people who signed the petition that saw the screening axed! This petition provides a copy of the letter sent by Palace Cinemas advising that they were cancelling the event. The comments added by petitioners are also quite instructive.

In response to the number of people calling on Palace Cinemas to reverse their decision, feminists then rallied in opposition to make sure the film did not go ahead.

Feminists say publicly that they don’t want The Red Pill screened because of it’s alleged hateful and misogynistic message. That’s only partly true. In actual fact they are more frightened by the prospect of:

a) ordinary people being exposed to an alternative perspective on various gender-related issues, and in particular the public becoming more aware of, and sympathetic towards, the men’s rights movement

b) the public questioning aspects of both the feminist narrative and the actions of feminists in the community. They are quite simply terrified of the prospect, knowing that exposure to those ideas will inevitably further erode the already dwindling level of support for their tainted ideology.

To my knowledge (at the time this blog post was uploaded) no-one in Australia had yet seen The Red Pill. Not the feminists who started and signed the petition, nor Palace Cinemas, no one. All we know about it comes via interviews with the film-maker, a movie trailer and reviews from screenings in the USA. There is no evidence to indicate that the film contains anything offensive or upsetting to the average adult.

This is what feminists do. Not the benign dictionary-definition feminists, I mean the ones in real life. You only need to see how often the ‘censorship’ tag appears in posts in this blog. Censorship and the erasure of dissenting voices, by whatever means, is absolutely a central theme in gender feminism.

What does that tell you about the inherent nature of this ideology? Why do not more people recognise this for the enormous red flag it is, and speak out accordingly?

Update April 2017: Dendy Cinemas in Canberra and Newtown cancelled scheduled screenings of The Red Pill. And again a petition was started calling on the cinema operators to reverse their decision.

Update June 2017: Cassie Jaye visited Australia to speak at the International Conference on Men’s Issues. During her stay she was a guest on Channel 10’s ‘The Project‘ and on Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise‘ program, both of which generated a lot of media attention.

Rachel Corbett (who was on the panel for The Project when Cassie was ‘interviewed’) wrote an article, and this is Paul Elam’s response.

This tweet and the comments appended is typical of the response to the ‘Sunrise‘ interview on social media … zero support for the program hosts

“Extreme misogynists”: Cassie Jaye vs the Aussie media (13 June 2017) Video

Director of “anti-feminist” documentary leaves The Project panel in stunned silence (8 June 2017) Despite this being a feminist forum, most of the reader’s comments are supportive of Cassie Jaye and/or her film.

A remarkably biased and unprofessional interview on ‘Sunrise’ TV show (11 June 2017) The following viewer asserts that many comments were subsequently removed from the Sunrise Facebook page. I can confirm that a video of the segment was not available via their Facebook page when I checked, and there was no relevant entry in their timeline.

Not content with that, in the face of a tsunami of condemnation on social media, Sunrise then demanded that Facebook remove copies of the interview from The Red Pill’s FB page and presumably elsewhere. So rather than do the right thing and apologise, Channel 7 tries to hide the evidence instead. This mishandling of the incident has only served to create further publicity for the film (and again here). Such clowns, and what a great example of why people have lost all faith in the MSM.

 

 

Our feral media attacks Cassie Jaye, by Bettina Arndt (12 June 2017)

A message for Andrew O’Keefe (12 June 2017) Video

Go ahead and see this prize-winning film for yourself:

There are now many avenues via which you can rent or buy The Red Pill.

The Red Pill Movie Facebook page / comments added to the Palace Cinemas Facebook page

IMD movie review page for The Red Pill

Related articles:

Cassie Jaye’s film on the men’s rights movement shocked Australia. Why? (29 July 2017)

A feminist review ‘The Red Pill’ (26 June 2017)

Sargon of Akkad comments on the University of Sydney protest at the Red Pill screenings (16 May 2017) Video, and here is a video on the incident by Karen Straughan

Professor writes dishonest review of The Red Pill Movie, gets REKT by Cassie Jaye’s mother (12 May 2017) Cassie’s mum goes feral at some jerkov named belov, who wrote this article (note the reader’s comments section).

Protesters clash, one arrested, outside The Red Pill screening and The Red Pill: What happened at the Sydney University screening protest (11 May 2017), which were followed by
The Red Pill screening divides campus ‘libertarians’ from pro-women groups (13 May 2017)

Articles in response to Dendy Cinemas shutting down scheduled screenings (April 2017): here, herehere, and here. Some letters to the editor of The Australian can be found here.

University of Sydney Union Board disallows screening of men’s rights film THE RED PILL (11 April 2017) Australia. Further discussion of this matter here

Jaye’s Red Pill documents social failure to promote gender equality (10 April 2017)

Well met, Professor Sullivan (13 March 2017) Video with Karen Straughan

The Red Pill takes top award at Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema (18 January 2017) USA

Feminists you’re wrong. The Red Pill is not a hateful film (17 January 2017)

The Red Pill in Brisbane: a hero’s journey (15 January 2017)

The Red Pill – An uncomfortable but important conversation (9 January 2017)

Feminists, don’t ban The Red Pill, watch it instead (7 January 2017) Even when feminists try really hard to appear mature and empathetic, they fail to convince … e.g. “a movement based on the notion that men and boys, not women, are the real victims of structural inequalities in modern society“. Said by no MRA, ever, Lauren. MRA assert that men and boys are ALSO “victims of structural inequalities in modern society“.

Are the Cards Stacked Against Men?: Censored Filmmaker Speaks Out (4 January 2017) Video

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys (3 January 2017)

Wedding Reception Under Feminist Attack Over Movie Screening (23 December 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Video interview between Steven Crowder and Cassie Jaye (16 December 2016)

Video regarding the difficulty experienced by organisers in screening The Red Pill in Canada (3 December 2016)

Men are now the downtrodden sex: Feminist (and mother of a son) reluctantly admits women’s fight for equality has gone too far – as two men reveal how they were pushed to the brink of suicide (1 December 2016)

Permission to screen ‘The Red Pill’ at Western Sydney University denied (29 November 2016) The author of this letter to WSU points out the double standard in relation to the University’s screening of ‘The Hunting Ground’

A Young Feminist’s Compassionate View of Men (28 November 2016

Some thoughts on the Berlin screening of ‘The Red Pill’ (17 November 2016)

The Red Pill, by Bettina Arndt (5 November 2016)

Is this the world’s most dangerous feminist? by Bill O’Chee (3 November 2016)

How a feminist petition to stop a film became an own goal (2 November 2016)

Dear Feminists, please stop telling us what to do, by Corrine Barraclough (31 October 2016)

Another feminist petition (31 October 2016) I live in hope that this one will turn out to be a hoax. Failing that these people need the assistance of mental health professionals.

Video interview with the organiser of the Melbourne screening (30 October 2016)

Studio 10 TV show debates the banning of The Red Pill (30 October 2016) It’s concerning to see Jessica Rowe (and others) adopting a view, and imposing it upon others, with so little effort made in terms of research or impartiality.

The Red Pill makes the Cut in Crowded Race for Oscars (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate, by Bettina Arndt (29 October 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Even Clementine Ford thinks the Red Pill should be shown (28 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Security guards hired for Melbourne screening of The Red Pill (27 October 2016)

Will you take the Red Pill? (27 October 2016)

Media coverage of The Red Pill (27 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Why Australian Men’s Rights Activists Had Their Bullshit Documentary Banned  (26 October 2016) The article belongs in the bottom of the cat litter tray, but some of the readers comments are good.

The Red Pill film review ~ Inciting compassion for men’s issues (26 October 2016)

Men’s rights group vows to push ahead with documentary screening (25 October 2016)

Cassie Jaye on Feminism and Men’s Rights Activists (24 October 2016) Youtube video

More Reddit/r/mensrights discussion threads on The Red Pill movie

redpill3

Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

My post today begins with a panel discussion entitled ‘Have men become second-class citizens’ that featured on the ‘Sunrise’ TV program in Australia.

“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”

Eyeroll

Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.

vanbadham6

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

vanbadham5

 

 

 

Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.

Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.

vanbadham4

Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle.  And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.

So this is how strong independent women behave? No, but it’s how feminists behave.

This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.

Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.

But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:

“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”

Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.

Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …

Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!

vanbadham2

And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:

I have sympathy for Mark Latham. He’s barking at a cloud that’s passed him by (4 May 2016)

Van Badham and Steve Price went head-to-head on Q&A (12 July 2016) See also this article in The Age. Response from  Steve Price here.

Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.

Look what I found in a Reddit discussion thread about Van Badham’s stouch with Steve Price … apparently Van wanted to put Tony Abbott underwater. Wait, where have a heard a comment like that before? Oh yes, Eddie McGuire.

From The Spectator, ‘Van Badham and the ugly facts of an ugly matter‘ (15 July 2016)

Readers might care to seek out a tweet by @RitaPanahi on 12 July 2016 for further examples of what Ms Badham considers appropriate to dish out (but not receive). Gems such as:

badham

And on a parting note, an item by Andrew Bolt entitled ‘How Van Badham attacks even children‘ (2 March 2017).

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

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

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

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

The Sunrise Facebook page (17 August 2014) states:

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

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

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

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

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

margie4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

More on Eman Sharobeem’s rorting (17 May 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do women prefer female bosses? (18 September 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex in the boardroom (6 June 2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

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

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

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

That tired old feminist chestnut that is the ‘gender wage gap’ lives on in the Australian media

It’s hard to believe, but white knight politicians, feminists and media commentators alike are still banging this drum. How many times does the existence of a ‘pay gap’ arising from gender discrimination, need to be debunked before it is finally put to rest?

It’s notable that the relevant Australian Wikipedia entry simply compares the average male and female rates of pay, which is clearly not ‘comparing apples with apples’. By that I mean that we need to compare pay rates for men and women doing the same job (incl. same hours worked), and with the same qualification and experience in order to tease out any meaningful gender-based differences.

While there are certainly differences in the average salary earned by men and women, such differences reflect personal career choices, rather than being an indicator of gender bias in the workplace as is routinely asserted or implied by the feminist lobby. Further, once you drill down into the data it becomes clear that the nature of the gap is  no means uniform ‘across the board’ – which you might expect if it was in fact a meaningful indication of ingrained gender bias across Australian society. (Refer statistical sources provided in this other blog post)

One of the things that feminists don’t mention is that, even when using the average pay rates they base their argument on, the gender gap actually favours women in certain age groups or in certain types of jobs. I would suggest, however, that we don’t all hold our breath waiting for Elizabeth Broderick to take “bold measures” to address those particular areas of ‘inequity’.

Back in March 2014  this article appeared, asserting the existence of gender-based wage  disparity. I emailed Westpac bank requesting supporting information and got a reply from their PR section wanting to know why I wanted the info. I was eventually pointed towards the media release section of their web site where I found this. As you can see no mention of male/female salary data at all, so I’m left wondering where Westpac CEO, Gail Kelly (who also features in this Youtube video), sourced those stats.

This week the ‘gender pay gap’ was mentioned here in an article on news.com.auherehere and here in segments on the Australian morning TV show ‘Sunrise’, and here in comments by Tracey Spicer. Tracey was quoted as saying:

“To be a working woman in Australia is to know that you are valued less than your male counterparts. Our (rising) double digit gender wage gap means you’re earning less than guys doing the same job, you have a reduced chance of making your way to a senior leadership position (particularly if you’re angling to be on the board) and no matter where you are in the business hierarchy you stand a 17 percent chance of sexual harassment on the job and a one in five chance of being discriminated against if you become pregnant.”

Why is it that when I see articles that purport to discuss gender differences, but only provide the relevant statistics for women, I immediately think *feminist author*? I wonder if this technique, i.e. don’t provide any context or basis for comparison, is something they are now teaching everyone in ‘gender studies 101’ because it really is so prevalent now.

The wage gap statistics that Tracey refers to were sourced from a government agency, the ‘Workplace Gender Equality Agency‘ (WGEA) which defines the gender pay gap as “the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings.”

As is explained in my previous blog post about the ‘pay gap’, comparing average male/female earnings is utterly unhelpful and inappropriate given the large number of variables involved (of which gender discrimination by employers is only one, and only a minor one at that).

I see in this article that the WGEA has previously been subject to criticism for their interpretation of source statistics.

You might be interested to know that only two out of twenty-nine staff in the WGEA are men. And how many of them would identify as feminists? I’m guessing, almost all. Just putting this thought out there, but could it be that perhaps this situation is introducing some teensy, weensy measure of bias into the Agency’s priorities and findings?

In terms of addressing the agency’s staffing imbalance, dare I suggest that they could probably speed things along via the introduction of an enforced gender quota? I mean to say, feminists are proposing gender quotas right left and centre, and what’s ‘good for the goose is good for the gander’ as they say.

But in the meantime the suits at the big end of town clearly think that pandering to feminists makes business sense, as many are falling all over themselves to support the WGEA’s latest ‘pay gap’ initiative.

Postscript … and on and on it goes:

Cafe of Confusion (7 August 2017) Video

What we miss when we focus on the gender wage gap (10 July 2017) Why is it so very difficult for pro-feminist researchers to provide like-for-like statistics and an objective unbiased presentation of the facts of the matter. This articles excludes consideration, for example, of the reality that men are more likely to support others and women more likely to be supported. Therefore now, and in the absence of wide-ranging structural reform, unemployment or underemployment of men has a far more serious impact on welfare of affected persons.

Instead of tweeting his ‘support’ for Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher should have coughed up the cash, by Clementine Ford (31 January 2017)

She’s Price(d)less: The economics of the gender pay gap (October 2016) KPMG study for Diversity Council Australia. Exaggerates the significance of gender discrimination – hardly surprising given the agenda of the commissioning organisation. KPMG in turn clearly have their eye on the ball with regards to winning further lucrative ‘women as victims’ consultancies from pro-feminist agencies.

8 September 2016 was ‘Equal Pay Day’. This triggered a flurry of pay gap articles, only one of which challenged the feminist narrative. And oddly that was an article published in news.com.au, entitled ‘How common sense shows gender pay gap is a myth‘.

The others were ‘Closing the gender pay gap won’t just help women. It’ll help men too‘, ‘Will the real gender pay gap please stand up?‘ & ‘It’s time to dispel the myth that women’s choices cause the gender pay gap’ (8 September 2016) None of the pro-feminist articles found it relevant to note that the pay gap favours women in many instances – and in an increasing number of instances – depending on sector, seniority, etc. From the readers comments, many people are far from convinced by the feminist position. This comment from ‘mythbuster’ was a classic:

“Men earn an average total of $27,000 a year more than women”. Yes, EARN, not, “are paid”. That calculation is based on averaging the incomes of all male and all female full time workers. It doesn’t take into account overtime, differences in jobs, female choices. In lower paid, similar jobs they earn more because they do more overtime. There are 12.2 million workers here, split 55/45 men to women. To get equality, you need to conscript 600,000 women out of their homes and into work. You also need to sack 600,000 and put them in front of the afternoon soaps, and then have women support them. There are 1.2 million workers in construction, forestry and mining, 85% male. This pays higher than the 1.1 in health services, 80% women. So lets take about 360,000 women out of counselling or aroma therapy and get them down the mines or out building us houses. That’s where the pay is better, in back breaking, dangerous work. We should also swap some teachers with long distance truckies and oil rig workers, since that will help close the pay gap and the death gap since 93% of workplace deaths happen to men. More dead female workers will be a sign of equality. Its illegal to pay a man or woman a different wage based on gender, if you know of an example of this, please give us the EBA or Award name, otherwise, if you want to be paid like a man, work the jobs women tend not to want to and do the hours men do at it. That’s equality.”

Women catching up to men on wages: ABS (23 August 2016)

“Women’s wages have grown at almost three times the rate of men’s over the past year”

Young men blamed for not believing the feminist misrepresentation of the gender pay gap (Australian Financial Review, 17 July 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Opinion: Gap in logic over gender pay discrepancies (8 May 2016)

University of Queensland to host Bake Sale that charges based on gender (3 April 2016) and then ‘The feminist cupcake sale that led to death and rape threats‘ (6 April 2016)

Just thinking out loud now, but I’d love the opportunity to look at these threat messages. Of those that actually exist IRL, I’d like to see how many were sent from newly created accounts with IP addresses that matched those of the recipients.

Higher proportion of gender pay gap ‘unexplained’ in Australia than in US, UK, research shows (24 March 2016) Laughably inane. Headline should be ‘Wage gap found to be insignificant’ … 39% of 3.9% (= 1.5%), only some of which actually results from discrimination

How the work gap affects women, by Jasmin Newman (14 March 2016)

Gender parity still lacking in Australia’s workforce, by Roy Morgan Research (8 March 2016) See chart below – would be interesting to see these results cross-referenced by years of experience in role.

annual_incomes

Gender equality in the workplace can prevent violence against women (1 March 2016) In this article the feminist authors vainly attempt to create a causal link between the pay gap and domestic violence against women. Talk about a reach. And needless to say there is zero acknowledgment of workplace harassment or discrimination against men.

Why women graduates don’t get paid as much as men (14 February 2016) OK, so women freely choose to take courses that lead to lower paying job. It’s not men’s fault, and the only problem seems to be in the minds of feminists. WTF?

Workplace gender equality scorecard puts Australia to shame (26 November 2015)

ANZ bank launches a Super deal for female employees (29 July 2015) And now dodgy interpretation of statistics is used to justify gender discrimination

The Only 2(3) Cents I’m Giving Up Because of the Pay Gap (16 April 2015)

Gender pay gap misinterpreted again (16 October 2014)

Get Fact: do men make much more than women for the same job? (7 March 2014)

Pay gap due to women’s choices, not gender bias (9 March 2015) International Women’s Day 2015 saw a flood of pro-feminist articles about the gender pay gap. I won’t even bother including links here as none of them contributed anything new or useful to the discussion – just the same old debunked nonsense. This article (linked above) was the only one I saw that said anything sensible on the matter.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One the same web page ‘Guest’ wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sunrise’ provides equal time for feminism and men’s rights

The ‘Weekend Sunrise’ show surprised and pleased by providing separate interviews with MRA Paul Elam and feminist Laci Green.

On Saturday morning there was an interview with Paul Elam

Paul discussed the fact that mens work/life choices are more limited than women, but most of the all-too-brief interview was taken up with a discussion of rape hysteria and the need to address the problem of rape in a more rigorous and fair-minded manner.

Reddit discussion thread here and here is an article about Paul’s interview

On Sunday morning it was the turn of Laci Green

The intro provided by Andrew O’Keefe – and his comments throughout the interview left absolutely no doubt where his allegiance lies … “The history of feminism is long, strong and proud …. in fact (if not for feminism) married women, you would still be the property of your husband“. Oh please.

Feminism is wonderful – just badly misrepresented, feminism is not about hating men, feminism is just about equality and stopping sexual objectification, blah blah blah. Keep moving folks, nothing new to be seen/heard here.

The boobs are used to sell everything …” Yes indeed Andrew, and that’s nowhere clearer than watching Laci’s efforts on Youtube.

Reddit discussion thread here which features the comment:

“[Laci] is what we call one of the “Aren’t Like That” feminists that all the other feminists use to cover their bigotry. You want to know what kind of person Laci Green is? Let me tell you.

First, I have to explain a few things. In the hood, we like to have parties. We like to get rowdy, smoke some herb, get crunk. We like to play music loud and act a fool. The problem with this is, the cops show up. Now, I’m not sure you all know what its like having the cops show up, but some people at this party have illicit drugs, or arrest warrants, or just no fucking sense. So someone has to talk to the cops. You always want to have a well spoken, easygoing, friendly person at your parties so that THEY can talk to the cops and make sure none of the other people at the party get into any shit.

Thats who feminists like Laci Green are. They’re the person Feminism has answering the door when society comes knocking and wants to know what’s going on.”

More about Laci Green here and here

 

Good news: Males acknowledged on morning TV (not in a bad way)

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.

The second segment was a panel session comprising the two Sunrise hosts Andrew O’Keefe and Edwina Bartholomew, as well as John Mangos and Gretel Killeen. The topic of discussion was comments made by Hillary Clinton concerned the alleged “outrageous sexism” suffered by former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

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.

 

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

In a segment on the ‘Sunrise’ morning TV show there appeared a video where actors simulated a display of partner harassment/violence in a public space. In the first scenario the man was the aggressor, and in the second scenario they reversed the roles. The differing reaction by members of the public was profound. The same clip has been circulating on the internet for some time now and has been the subject of much discussion in fora such as Reddit Mens Rights (see link below).

I was interested to see how the topic was dealt with on Sunrise for a couple of reasons. Firstly in promotional clips they seem to suggest that the story was about whether members of the public should intervene in instances of partner violence – rather than about the different reaction to having a male as aggressor versus female as aggressor.

Secondly, I was interested because one of those presenting the story was Andrew O’Keefe who is heavily involved in the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ in Australia. The issue here is that the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ is complicit in injecting into the public’s consciousness the notion that ‘domestic violence = men’s violence towards women’. In so doing the ‘Campaign’ and other domestic violence advocacy groups like it, divert attention from the other facets of domestic violence (i.e. M+M, F+F, and female on male violence).

It was indeed ironic then that Andrew tut-tutted the contrasting public reaction to female on male violence shown in the video, given that could be viewed as an outcome of the message broadcast by the White Ribbon Campaign and many pro-feminist organisations like it.

The unfortunate fact is that the average member of the public simply does not now recognise a woman’s aggression towards a male as being domestic violence, or that women’s aggression generally is of any particular social significance.

Jeremy Kyle slams audience for LAUGHING at male domestic violence victim who threw himself off a balcony (12 May 2015)

Youtube has apparently removed at least one video showing women abusing men (after it hit 6,000,000 views), but has left online videos showing men abusing women – details in this reddit discussion thread (30 October 2014)

Here is a good blog post about the video by Ally Fogg

An article in the The Independent (27 May 2014) and related Reddit discussion thread

An article about the same video in The Daily Mail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbPmdePpfG0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks (A second/separate video showing public reaction to women abusing men)

In this hidden camera experiment a women is seen spiking her date’s drink – see how bystanders react. And yes, drink-spiking by women occurs quite often in real life – here is just the latest incident to appear in the media.

In this hidden camera experiment first a woman, and then a man, take money from a sleeping homeless guy. See the differing reaction by members of the public.

Another hidden camera experiment – Many people come to the aid of a women being abused, but yet again no-one comes to the aid of a male being subjected to abuse by a woman

A feminist justifying the differing public response to M/F and F/M violence and a related reddit discussion

This discussion thread and linked video isn’t about partner violence, but it does show how many members of the public will paint a man as the aggressor even when a woman initiates violence and continues despite efforts to reason with her.

This paper contains many links to further sources proving examples of male victims of domestic abuse not being taken seriously.

Also not about partner violence but still relevant – this video shows a female student assaulting a male student while a female teacher watches on but fails to control the situation.

Why didn’t I stop to help a woman in need? (5 August 2014)

Reaction to women abusing men in public (26 March 2008) Video

But maybe public reaction will be different in the case of sexual harassment. Hmm, maybe not

See also:

Bystanders often don’t intervene in sexual harassment – but should they? (21 February 2017) Although artfully camouflaged, the gender bias runs deep in this article. It ignores violence against men, ignores violence by women, and suggests that women more likely to intervene to stop violence.

VIDEO: Do our beliefs about domestic violence match the facts? (12 January 2017)

Dash Cam captures the moment a ‘disgruntled’ wife rams her husband’s van (4 January 2017) Australia

An Open Letter To Eddie McGuire & TripleM (13 March 2016) Australia

Gang of ‘vigilantes battered a man to death with a hammer after they saw him having an argument with his girlfriend in the street’ (4 March 2016) UK

It’s not clear whether this incident at a US school was partner violence or not, but I have included it here as the media coverage and school commentary certainly display a gender-based double standard (18 February 2016)

No more slapping (15 February 2016) Video

Would YOU intervene if you saw a woman slap her boyfriend? Shocking video shows strangers ignoring domestic violence in the street – but they rush to help a female victim (10 November 2015)

Anti-bullying video carried empowering message (29 October 2015) But no mention of the corresponding reaction when a boy was bullied. Why not? Well perhaps because it was produced by the same guy who did the infamous street harassment of a woman in New York video.

Feminist Student repeatedly assaults boy until he responds (16 June 2015)

Taraji P. Henson Slaps the Hell Out of SNL‘s Taran Killam in New Promo (9 April 2015)

Physically Abused Boyfriend Hits Girlfriend Back In Public Experiment! (6 April 2015) Another hidden-camera video

The ‘Women are Wonderful’ effect (Wikipedia entry) and this video by Christina Hoff Sommers (30 March 2015)

Reality TV actress slaps male contestant. White knights in studio audience beat male contestant when he slaps her back (12 February 2013) Youtube video

An article about gynocentrism: This paper concerns the mindset that underpins the widespread failure to recognise men as being worthy of assistance or positive intervention in situations like domestic violence. This concept is further explored here.

 Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

How men are portrayed … Haw Haw Haw! The jokes on us

‘Sunrise’ TV show offers sop to feminists

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

‘Sunrise’ TV crew stir up the feminists again

Sunrise‘ is a popular Australian morning TV show. In an earlier post I discussed how team members of that show incensed feminists by standing up for themselves after a scathing article appeared in a pro-feminist web site.

Well a female member of the ‘Sunrise’ team, Natalie Barr, has now poked the feminist hornets nest again by writing an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper highlighting the trend of women to blame men for problems they encountered in their lives – particularly at work. A related segment appeared on the ‘Sunrise’ show on the day the article was published (20 March 2014).

It is pleasing to note how many of the comments submitted by readers (both male and female alike) were supportive of what Nat had to say. Despite this it was still evident that further supportive comments never saw the light of day due to overly-enthusiastic vetting. I myself attempted to contribute about half a dozen comments to the online discussion, and I think the final score was two posted and four disappeared.

Of those opposed to what Natalie said, the typical responses were:

well, that’s just your opinion” OR “so what if you have never experienced discrimination, you’re just one person

feminism isn’t about hating men” OR “standing up to discrimination isn’t the same as men-hating

how can you possibly say that there is no discrimination?” (Nat didn’t) OR “you can’t speak for all women” (she never said she did)

Those that sought to provide ‘proof’ that gender discrimination was commonplace (with of course women as victims) invariably relied upon that hoary old feminist chestnut, the male/female wage gap.

In another web site ‘Carli‘ described her disgust at those expressing support for Natalie Barr’s perspective in the following manner:

“… too many important issues being trivialised and too many bottom feeders feeling empowered … “

And here is a sampling of the other, predictably haughty & incensed, feminist response that followed:

Natalie Barr brought the ‘bitchy’ feminism backlash on herself (5 May 2014)

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/editor-s-agenda/hey-natalie-barr-it-s-not-about-blaming-men/201403203762

http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/natalie-barr-feminism/

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/natalie-barr-doesnt-speak-for-all-women-20140320-354w6.html (and then read this rebbutal by ‘A Voice for Men’)

http://thehoopla.com.au/hating-men-ms-barr/ (This includes a video showing a panel of feminists – including the obligatory mangina  – to simulate the appearance of a balanced perspective – attacking Natalie’s position)

http://www.woman.com.au/natalie-barr-got-feminism-gender-equality-wrong/

Several hundred comments were also added to the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page (scroll to 19 March 2014), as well as many tweets to Nat Barr’s Twitter account.

Again the message is oh so clear, “don’t you dare say anything that runs contrary to feminist dogma, or else we’ll get you!” Indeed the article in ‘The Hoopla’ includes the statement:

“… all that is wrong with Barr’s pretty unhelpful contribution to the feminist debate”

Poor choice of words, I reckon they probably meant to say ‘monologue’ rather than “debate”, because in a debate people are expected to put forward alternate views and engage in open discussion – with no points awarded for shaming. Kind of like hell for feminists.

Reading the comments that attacked Nat’s position on discrimination, it is clear that many of the contributors are either woefully ignorant or in a state of serious denial about the misandric aspects of contemporary feminism. They simply can’t, don’t or won’t recognise the gap between the warm fuzzy inclusive variety of feminism that exists only within their own well-coiffed heads, and the reality of what connected feminists are actually saying and doing.

See also: 

http://au.avoiceformen.com/feminism/lets-make-march-20-natalie-barr-day/

Women like Natalie Barr, as well as men, have a right to be heard on feminism and womens issues‘ by Sam de Brito in the Sydney Morning Herald (Great to see this in the mainstream media – well done Sam)

Why is it only women who see sexism everywhere? (21 May 2014)

What Ceiling? Prudie advises a woman puzzled by reactions to the fact she hasn’t faced much sexism at work (9 February 2015)

Some related posts within this blog:

About feminism & how it’s not about hating men
On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
The myth of male/female wage disparity