My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015.
There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. In the interim several articles on the issue emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).
Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.
This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.
This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:
“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”
Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:
“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)
Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”.
Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.
Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.
“Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.
This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.
This page, from within the AHRC’s web site, is aptly entitled ‘About Sex Discrimination’. And it sure is.
The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damselling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.
This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.
Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.
Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.
Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.
Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:
I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.
On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).
On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?
The Hunting Ground & the campus rape study
Now in the light of all the preceding evidence, one would hope that the AHRC would consider the most appropriate course of action to be a gradual pulling-back from their position of anti-male bias. But no, they doubled-down instead through their involvement with a project that sought to justify, and to continue, their focus on women’s rights through the feminist lens.
It was no accident that the promotion of ‘The Hunting Ground’ coincided with the conducting of the campus sexual assault survey, and the subsequent release of the results in July 2017 as discussed in the following articles:
Manufacturing Australia’s next epidemic (26 July 2017) Video. First promote the (debunked) film ‘The Hunting Ground’ then a survey (with self-selected respondents) and now for the hysteria and demands for punitive action. Against … drumroll … men.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer review assessment of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States every five years. Australia’s next review will take place in January 2021. The Commission contributes to Australia’s UPR alongside civil society organisations. Take a look at the ‘fact-sheets’ that the Commission has prepared in relation to various key issues. Let’s start with ‘Gender Equality‘ shall we? Would it surprise you to know that there are no issues related to the welfare of men & boys?
Note this page in the Commission’s web site in the Education section, and how ‘Women’s Rights’ is a designated ‘Hot Topic’ whilst men’s/boys rights is excluded. Whilst ‘Homelessness’ is also listed as a hot topic, the gender differences in those afflicted is simply ignored.
At a session entitled ‘Smashing the Patriarchy!’ at the 2019 National Community Legal Centres Conference, Kate Jenkins served on “a diverse panel of powerful women as they reflect on their own experiences and work. The discussion will include possibilities for collective action, ways to challenge existing systems of power and patriarchy and the rights and experiences of women across Australia. This plenary will provide an opportunity to discuss key issues such as sexual harassment; the fight to de-criminalise abortion; systemic racism and discrimination experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and Muslim women …“
Face the Facts: Gender Equality 2018 – This web page and linked sources appear to have been written on the assumption that gender equality and women’s rights are synonymous. The rights or issues of men & boys are simply not mentioned.
Unleashing the power of gender equality (November 2017) by Kate Jenkins. Men and boys are essentially missing in action in this document. Word search on the term ‘men’ then scroll through each of the 89 mentions to quickly confirm where the author’s interest (bias) lies.
Financial rewards provided only to women are “smart”, even when part-time and/or low income male workers also retire with low Superannuation balances. Little wonder feminists hate the term “Apex Fallacy”.
Australian report finds disturbing evidence of gender inequality | Women | The Guardian (8 March 2017) The three letters of ‘men’ appears 67 times in this article by Kate – count how many times it related to actual men (twice). And one of these times merely refuting the claim that there is no International Men’s Day. Oh please! Lame shot! It’s not recognised by the UN, and is ignored by the AHRC and most (if not all) Australian state & federal agencies.
Firstly, what do I mean by the term “fudging” in the context of this blog post?
to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead and/or
to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.
So how do feminists and their allies, go about fudging statistics? Well the most common technique used, so prevalent that it’s virtually a hallmark of feminist literature, is to report statistics in relation to female victimhood in the absence of comparative figures for men and boys. Such information is (or at least, was) generated in surveys but usually went unreported, unless doing so would support the feminist perspective.
Thus subsequently, and in a worrying trend, more and more research projects undertaken by pro-feminist organisations don’t include male subjects in surveys. Nor do they investigate impacts on males or attitudes towards men (examples here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Clearly with corresponding data in relation to males unavailable then rapporteurs can easily deflect requests for contextual information. Information which would, in many cases, otherwise weaken their claims of gendered victimhood.
Thus biased researchers can represent a social problem as being gendered when it is not. And so the next researcher builds on existing incomplete research and concludes and/or implies in their report … this problem rarely affects men, or affects men in different & lesser ways, etc (but we can’t be sure because no data). And the cycle of gender bias in research, and subsequently in policy formulation, rolls on.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believe the reverse to be true, and that there is a ‘gender data gap’ with “male-biased surveys that fail to capture women’s perspectives, their needs and their economic value”. They provide a 3rd world example upon which I am not qualified to comment, but with regards to 1st world countries their proposition is laughable. This Australian feminist writer, Kristine Ziwica, is pushing the same line (12 March 2019).
A paper by Dr. Murray Straus addressed the issue of feminists distorting domestic violence data. He identified the seven primary methods they used as being:
To suppress Evidence
To avoid obtaining data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
To cite only studies that show Male Perpetration
To conclude that results support Feminist beliefs when they do not
To create “evidence” by citation
To obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict the idea that male dominance is the cause of PV (see this post)
To harass, threaten, and penalize researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs (see this post)
I was studying the readers comments in relation to a rather biased article about domestic violence. One comment was from a respected spokesperson on men’s health issues, Adam Blanch. Adam was talking about the latest ‘Personal Safety Survey‘ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is what Adam had to say:
“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.
The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.
PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.
The 2012 report sampled less than 20% the number of women than men, down from 25% in the 2005 survey. though overall they increased the numbers for both genders for 2012, the male sample size is so small that many of the findings are unreliable again.
They were criticised for only using female interviewers in 2005, so in 2012 they trained a few male interviewers to be available on request. However, they don’t appear to have told the interviewees that they were available. This was based don ‘expert advice’ that both men and women would be more comfortable with female interviewers, these experts are unnamed. Who are they. Are they male? have they worked with male victims of abuse? What qualifies them as experts. I’ve worked with thousands of men, and I can assure you that most men will not reveal the same information to a woman that they will to a man.
This lack of transparency and sample balance is unacceptable for research conducted at this level.”
The Bureau shrugged-off this criticism and in September 2016 successfully obtained AHRC approval to only employ female interviewers in relation to a survey that encompasses the issue of domestic violence.
“Professor Triggs granted the ABS the exemption, accepting their submission, which included studies from not-for-profit groups, stating men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women” And so disregarding the flipside … that male victims would be more likely to tell THEIR story to other men.
This is hardly the first time I have encountered concerns raised by authoritative sources regarding the credibility of domestic violence research, and in fact it appears to be an ongoing issue.
Australia’s ABC has a reputation for pushing the feminist agenda, with one example being the article ‘Domestic violence of epidemic proportions a ‘national emergency’: campaign groups‘ by Ursula Malone and Juanita Phillips. Nothing like turning up the rhetoric to keep that government funding flowing through to feminists and their organisations during these difficult economic times. And all based on fudged statistics, in particular that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45“.
“The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Given for example that only 17 percent of women who experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator (in their most recent incident of violence) reported it to the police (ABS 2012), the actual percentage of false cases is likely to be tiny. By one estimate, the actual percentage of false cases as a proportion of all rapes (reported and unreported) may be closer to 0.005 percent.” (Flood, M, 2014)
An Australian MRA by the name of Paul Rogers brought this error to their attention stating (in part) that:
“Even Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that false rape allegations are as low as you claim, which is saying something. I have provided an excerpt below from Wikipedia to highlight that your claim is many orders of magnitude lower than even the lowest value claimed by most authorities … I urge you to state the truth rather than continue to cherry-pick outlier claims because they support your misandry.”
I should also point out that it’s not only feminist groups that engage is this sort of misrepresentation. In this media release, the advocacy group SAVE denounces the use of misleading information on domestic violence by none other than (then) President Obama himself.
Demonstrating the remarkably one-sided manner in which feminists view the world, in the following article a feminist journo criticizes a men’s rights group on their use of statistics:
The references listed below alternately discuss or exemplify bias against men, as perpetrated by journalists and others (often working in the sphere of domestic violence, sexual violence and related fields):
Elite journal under fire over racism (13 April 2021) Article by Stephen Rice which is currently behind a paywall at ‘The Australian’. I’ll try to provide a link as soon as one is available. Not directly related to misandry, but an example of how social problems are massaged to satisfy the fears or preferences of woke folk.
Not the full story (30 March 2021) Media Watch video. Yet another example of what happen when you start with a pre-determined narrative and then have to make everything fit around it.
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*. Here is a link to the web page of the agency that produced this research.
Domestic Abuse: The latest lie (19 July 2019) Most men who are victims of partner violence are in homosexual relationships, right? Wrong. But it doesn’t stop feminists from claiming it is true.
Whose research got us a picture of a ‘black hole’ in 2019? It was a girl right? See this tweet from Tom Golden with linked video that tells the story that the media didn’t.
Articles like the linked one now tell us how horrible the “trolls” are for “targeting” the female scientist, but funny how they don’t address the facts of the case – did she only produce 6% of the coding or not? See also this paper from ‘A Voice for Men’.
‘Blatant spin’: SBS accused of sifting data to show ‘sexist’ Australia, and SBS’s ‘sexism’ doco is just blatant propaganda (21 November 2018) Both of these articles appeared in The Australian newspaper, and are behind a ‘paywall’. Watch this Bettina Arndt video for some good background on this issue.
La Trobe bans my talk on the fake rape crisis, by Bettina Arndt (2 August 2018) This article concerns the exaggeration of the incidence of sexual assault in Australian universities by the Australian Human Rights Commission and others.
When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) As I state in this post, most papers on financial abuse ignore the reality of male victimisation, and this is yet another example. In the absence of conclusive proof that only women were victimised one would expect a researcher to survey men and women. Failure to do so, as in this and many other cases, is evidence of gender bias to support a particular ideological narrative.
Cutting to numb the pain of sex abuse: interviews with young women in drug treatment (12 August 2016) Australia. Although this article focuses on the needs of young women, the underlying research surveyed both genders. Whilst I have yet to review the findings in detail, my default position is one of disquiet regarding the merit of applying different fixes to men and women. Without a very thorough understanding of all contributing factors, esp. in relation to cause/effect, there is a real danger that we may misinterpret the true situation. Also, from what has happened in the field of domestic violence for example, there is a real danger of a monopolisation of all available resources for the treatment of women.
Anti-abuse campaign targets university students (22 February 2016) Australia. Typical of Our Watch research this survey appears designed to deliver a pre-determined finding of gendered female victimhood. The article reports one part of the picture, but where are the responses to (for example) how many boys were pressured “to do sexual things”? Whether girls respect the ability to consent in relation to boys who are drunk, etc.
(I believe there to be a question mark over the extent to which the Australian Research Council is itself free of gender bias. I say this not in terms of funds provided to male versus female researchers, but in terms of social research projects with a feminist orientation being strongly favoured. Consider the examples provided of feminist research mentioned in this other blog post, as well as this article which will be discussed in a future post. The author of this article presenting a feminist-concordant perspective on the gender pay gap was also ARC-funded. These spreadsheets look at the nature of projects funded by the ARC)
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. This conveniently neglects to mention that as many Aussie kids have seen their mum hit their dad as vice versa (See footnote 7)
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Are domestic violence figures bogus? (22 February 2014) Includes discussion of the notorious ‘intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45’ statistic myth
I spoke to hundreds of men about rape and domestic violence (24 September 2014) Note that this is a different survey to that discussed by Adam Blanch earlier. It is certainly feasible that interviewers might influence survey respondents. It hardly fills one with confidence about the reliability of the results when interviewers are prepared to go on record with such strong views on the matter being investigated.
If manipulating and misrepresenting statistics to suit an agenda was a crime then the feminist authors of this “fact-sheet” should be in jail. Many of these so-called facts are debunked in papers listed in this other post about domestic violence, whilst others demand the smallest measure of common-sense to confirm just how misleading they are.
“A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15% of killers, and in murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers” (Source)
The paragraph above was extracted from a 1994 publication, not because patterns of gender perpetration have changed greatly but because the feminist filter has been imposed so completely now, that we only see articles like this one that present statistics in a manner suggesting that women are the perpetual victims of oppressive male malevolence. (Refer to Reddit discussion thread here)
Regarding the table below … hardly an ‘epidemic’. The only increase is in male victimisation. It’s no wonder that, in pushing its ‘epidemic’ barrow, the Domestic Violence Industry increasingly relies on statistics generated by help-line call centres instead. And of course we can trust the integrity of those sources.
“Advocacy research consists of collating available evidence or producing new information to support a pre-determined policy position. Advocacy research is commonly carried out by pressure groups, lobby groups and interest groups (such as trade unions) and, occasionally, by political parties, journalists and academics – especially those working in the social policy field.”
“It is difﬁcult to criticize advocacy research without giving an impression of caring less about the problem under consideration than do those who are engaged in magnifying its size. But one may be deeply concerned about problems such as rape, child abuse, and homelessness yet still wish to see a rigorous and objective analysis of their dimensions. Advocacy research that uncovers a problem, measures it with reasonable accuracy, and brings it to public attention performs a valuable service by raising public consciousness. The current trend in advocacy research is to inﬂate problems and redeﬁne them in line with the advocates’ ideological preferences. The few impose their deﬁnition of social ills on the many – seeking to incite moral panics. This type of advocacy research invites social policies that are likely to be neither effective nor fair.”
With regards to the Latrobe Uni study noted above, why not include people of any gender who are concerned about any form of harassment or assault on public transport? In other words get the big picture of what’s occurring. Ditto for all the studies/article regarding workplace harassment that restrict themselves to considering ‘sexual harassment’, knowing full well that this is likely to focus attention on the female perspective.
My initial post about domestic violence within this blog can be found here, whilst other DV-related posts can be located by clicking on the ‘domestic violence’ tag at the bottom of this page. It is suggested that this post also be read in conjunction with: