The Duluth Model: The theoretical basis for the feminist approach to domestic violence

The cornerstone of the feminist approach to domestic violence is known as the ‘Duluth Model’, which is often illustrated as follows:

The Duluth Model is “based in feminist theory positing that domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners”. (Source)

It is my position, and I am certainly not alone in this regard, that applying this theoretical framework to most (let alone all) incidents of domestic violence is highly misleading and inappropriate.

Further, if gender inequality is the most significant precursor in relation to domestic violence, then:

Why is the incidence of domestic violence greater in lesbian couple than in heterosexual couples?

How might one explain the already high and growing levels of female-perpetrated violence generally?

How might one explain the significant geographical variations in the incidence of domestic violence? The chart below, for example, looks at variations in the incidence of DV in the Australian state of New South Wales.

highrateDVareas

Why does there exist a very considerable number of male victims of domestic violence?

How might one explain the relatively high levels of child abuse and neglect involving single mothers?

Why is the level of domestic violence so high in countries like Sweden that, even feminists would agree, have a higher than average level of gender equality?

These categories or situations of domestic violence are not the inconsequential anomalies that many propose them to be. On the contrary, they constitute very large and substantial pieces of the domestic violence jigsaw.

In an intimate partnership between two people of different genders, an unequal balance of power can be a factor contributing to DV. But what feminists refuse to concede is that the partner asserting most power need not be male, and often isn’t.

The Duluth Model and its chief proponents are discussed at length in this illuminating series of email exchanges (mirror here).

“… the Duluth model essentially views all female transgressions as being self-defensive in nature (even against children!) and can be attributed either to previous victimization by a male or to an allegedly oppressive “patriarchy” (Dutton and Corvo, 2007)”

I would urge you to take a moment now to read Jason Dale’s detailed and insightful commentary.

See also:

Setting the record straight on Duluth (6 February 2017)

Taking an in-depth look into domestic violence research – The Duluth Model (6 September 2015)

The Gender Paradigm In Domestic Violence: Research And Theory (2005) by Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Bremner was also quoted as saying that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear. 

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

CFMEU

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men.  At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

harassed

 

No place for feminist propaganda in our schools or universities

I was reading an article the other day about the ongoing push to have feminist propaganda introduced into our schools under the guise of ‘respectful relationships’ programs (or some other similar label).

The article in question, entitled ‘Bid to teach anti-violence to schoolkids‘ (Jessica Marszalek, Courier-Mail, 30 July 2015) included the following statements:

“She (QLD Minister Shannon Fentiman) said both teenage boys and girls would benefit from positive messages as they began in the dating world.

“We know that there are attitudes with particularly young men who think it is appropriate to pressure a woman for sex,” she said.

So as part of challenging those attitudes, those respectful relationship-type programs really help combat those views held by teenage boys. And for young girls, what they should and shouldn’t put up with.”

“We need to be running programs around respectful relationships but also we need to be running programs about how we view women, so tackling those attitudes is going to be central,” she said.

Queensland is not alone in this regard, with other states considering similar moves. This article concerns such a proposal in New South Wales.

In September 2015 Prime Minister Turnbull announced that “$5 million will also be provided as a longer-term measure to change the attitudes of young people to violence, through expanding the Safer Schools website to include resources for teachers, parents and students on respectful relationships.  This will build on the $30 million national campaign (jointly funded by the Commonwealth, states and territories) to change young people’s attitudes to violence, which will commence in early 2016.” (Source)

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the concept of ‘respectful relationships’ programs in schools, but I am concerned when the focus is wholly on the need for boys/men to respect girls/women. This is the very type of school program that has been provided and/or vigorously lobbied for by many pro-feminist groups such as the White Ribbon Campaign.

I believe that children should not be put in a position of being alternately shamed or absolved of responsibility due to their gender.

A gender-neutral approach, on the other hand, sends the correct message that people need to respect one another regardless of gender, and that harm can be caused by both males and females alike.

Postscript February 2016: And now, ladies and gentlemen, please put your jazz hands together to welcome the ironically-labelled ‘Safe Schools‘ program. A program which the feminist lobby formulated and then rushed to defend when mainstream Australia voiced their disquiet. This is a progressive social engineering project masquerading as an anti-bullying program.

Ward departs La Trobe following program’s scrapping (19 June 2017)

An epidemic of transgender children is Safe Schools’ legacy (16 April 2017)

Safe Schools program to be overhauled and founder Roz Ward removed (16 December 2016)

Girls who are girls but not girls — It’s time to stop the Safe Schools subterfuge (24 July 2016)

Miranda Devine: Marxist agenda a red flag for not so safe schools, by Miranda Devine (29 May 2016)

Flag slur underlines concerns: Turnbull (28 May 2016) What’s the bet that Premier Andrews eventually comes to regret getting into bed with these leftist radfem nutters?

Victorian Labor Government deceives on Safe Schools (19 March 2016) Australia

Does Imposing Queer Theory Really Lead to Safe Schools? (14 March 2016)

Bullying linked to gender and sexuality often goes unchecked in schools (3 March 2016) “Gender-based bullying”? Oh please! Desperate feminist author tries to invent nexus b/w ‘Safe Schools’ program and as many topical issues as possible to make it look like a great idea.

Trojan Horse gay claim laughable, by Wendy Tuohy (2 March 2016) Australia

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia, by Moo Baulch (26 February 2016) Australia

See also:

The feminization of everything fails our boys (9 May 2017)

‘Feminist Collective’ strategy in schools (26 April 2017) Australia. More feminist/SJW madness from the Victorian government

In The Name Of ‘Gender Equality’, Kindergarten Teacher Doesn’t Let Kids Play With Legos (April 2017)

The ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Trend Blames Boys For Being Born Male (12 April 2017)

Fake anti-domestic violence programs just demonise our little boys, by Miranda Devine (12 April 2017)

Sydney Girls High School prefects hit back after Sydney Boys’ viral video (13 March 2017) This oughta teach those boys to stand up for feminism

Gender theory banned in NSW classrooms (9 February 2017) Australia

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Talk about the (feminist) fox looking after the henhouse

How much can a teddy bear? (14 January 2017)

Recognising ethnic identity in the classroom: a New Zealand study (21 December 2016)

“This article argues that … rather than promote the affirmation of student identity, the enactment of this directive might, in fact, lead to ethnic division. Second, attempts to recognise and affirm identity have led to the displacement of school subject knowledge in classroom programmes. These unintended outcomes are not only unacknowledged, but they continue to disadvantage the community the identity directive was intended to address.”

B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion (7 December 2016) Canada

Melbourne high school teacher says she would refuse to teach ‘lewd’ safe schools and respectful relationships program (29 October 2016) See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Kids program teaches men are ‘greatest threat to women’ (25 October 2016) Australia

Toxic identity politics polluting Victorian schools, by Rita Panahi (24 October 2016)

Masculinity is not to blame for domestic violence (24 October 2016) Australia. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

The dangers of brainwashing our children, by Jasmin Newman (22 October 2016) Australia

Globally and historically men are the greatest threat to women” (October 2016) A slide from a Powerpoint presentation shown to Australian schoolchildren

Victoria, a misandrist state of child indoctrination (17 October 2016) Alternative link here

Lessons on ‘male privilege’ in $21.8m Victorian schools program (14 October 2016)

Girls feelings are far more important than the truth, by Mark Dent (12 October 2016)

A dummies guide for teenage girls on how to respect boys (20 September 2016) Not the sort of relationships message that feminists would stand for.

ReNew program for sons aims to stop family violence (15 September 2016) Australia with related Reddit discussion thread here.

VCAT green light will let Ivanhoe Grammar School offer more places to girls (11 August 2016)

Reducing ‘mean girl’ behaviors in classrooms benefits boys and teachers too (2 August 2016) USA. The sort of program that should be in schools, but unlikely to get the feminist tick of approval.

Sonia Kruger objects to scholarships for gay, lesbian and transgender students as ‘reverse discrimination’ (1 August 2016)

It is not enough for schools to address sexism after the scandal, by Dana Affleck (29 July 2016) Ordinary men are the enemy, not (just) bad men. Meanwhile no mention of female teachers having sex with students, or girls bullying, harassing or objectifying boys.

Clementine Ford teaching your children (18 July 2016)

Feminist/PC brain-washing of boys in US school system (12 July 2016)

Teach Him Early (29 June 2016) USA feminist video campaign, with discussion thread here

Why our 7-year-olds desperately need to learn about feminism (23 June 2016)

Truthful debate is slurred into silence by the Left, by Mark Latham (7 June 2016)

The Left doctrine that no one can criticise (18 May 2016)

Kids of 7 learn ‘gender diversity’ from Safe Schools Coalition (14 May 2016)

Transgenderism: Has anybody seen my girl? by Miranda Devine (29 April 2016) Australia

We all wear the White Ribbon (April 2016) Video. Australia. Completely and utterly one-sided … men hurt women/men must respect women

University defends research used as basis for Same Sex program (5 April 2016) I find the readers comments more persuasive that the entreaties of the Deputy Vice Chancellor. Only good research gets through the rigourous vetting process? Yup, how about the research project mentioned in this post? Or the ones mentioned here? This post is worth a read too

Controversial sex-ed program will teach Aussie toddlers about cross-dressing (6 March 2016) Australia

Domestic violence cycle continues as children as young as 10 offend (20 February 2016)

Principal Corrine McMillan said she was proud of her students, who will this year mark White Ribbon Day. “Students will present a declaration to make a stand against domestic violence,” she said. “I’m proud to see the students – particularly the male population – live up to the challenge.”

These uni students are holding feminist workshops in Sydney high schools (5 January 2016)

Inspiring STEM literacy package will aim to get more girls interested in maths and science (21 December 2015) Australia

Domestic Violence Awareness Video Claims Abuse is ‘Just Something Boys Do’ (18 December 2015)

Stop encouraging boys to ‘say no to feminism’ (15 December 2015) Radfem journalist Clementine Ford presents the case for ramping-up indoctrination

Why We Need To Stop Telling Boys Not To Hit Girls Because ‘She Is A Girl’ (4 December 2015) India

Boys should have the right to say no to feminism. The evangelical drive to teach boys to be feminists reached a new high last week with the news that every 16-year-old in Sweden is to be given a free copy of the book “We Should All Be Feminists” with reddit discussion thread here

Fightback: Addressing Sexism in Australian Schools (undated)

Maybe This Is Why Boys Don’t Respect Women (30 November 2015)

When Society Encourages Mean Girls to Bully Boys (26 November 2015)

Newington College has launched a powerful domestic violence campaign (27 November 2015) Australia

The make-believe world of child-abuse campaigners (26 November 2015)

Feminism campaign sparks controversy at Vic High (25 November 2015)

Feminist bullies and the pernicious myth that sexual morality is just about ‘consent’ (24 November 2015) UK

Blakely teacher restricts Lego-play to her girl students in the pursuit of gender equity (24 November 2015)

Campaigners’ fury at bid to cut feminism from politics A-Level syllabus: Call for department of education to reverse ‘insulting and misguided’ move (20 November 2015) UK

Men are not monsters (19 November 2015)

Breaking the Silence program: Schools in South East SA raise awareness about domestic violence (17 November 2015)

In Brazil, the high school national test essay theme was “Violence against women”. Any students with dissenting opinions automatically failed the test (15 November 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Feminism to Become an Official School Subject (2 November 2015)

Fighting school sexism: feminist theory hits classrooms (1 November 2015)

Keep Gender Politics out of Scouting (29 October 2015) UK

Gender-based violence prevention in the classroom is just a start (25 August 2015) Australia

Brisbane teacher wins scholarship to develop program to reduce domestic violence, coward punches (10 August 2015)

We must stop indoctrinating boys in feminist ideology (20 July 2015) More than 1,000 readers comments!

Bankstown Public School boys “all say no” to abuse against women in their own hip hop song and video (24 March 2015) Hmm, no sign of a girl’s choir singing nice things about boys … funny that.

We mustn’t make boys feel bad about being male (3 December 2014) with 193 reader’s comments

The thought police telling kids heterosexuality’s not the norm, by Miranda Devine (17 October 2012)

Do these girls represent the next generation of Australian women? Products of PC/feminist-corrupted education system … amoral narcissists with an abundance of entitlement and little respect for themselves, let alone men/boys?

 

 

 

 

 

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

The trouble with boys and learning

Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Differing public response to partner violence depending on gender of victim

On violence carried out by women and girls

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

Australian government announces intention to reprogram boys to reduce domestic violence

“BOYS as young as nine will be targeted in the new fight against domestic violence.

Social media will also become the new way to deliver the Federal Government’s $30 million education campaign.

The Assistant Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, has revealed boys aged between nine and 12, non-English-speaking women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are among the groups chosen for special focus …

We want them to understand the girl standing next to you is the same as the boy standing next to you,” she said.” (Source)

With respect Minister, but that is a nonsense. If you really believed that to be true then both boys and girls would be given the same instruction. In other words there would be a corresponding expectation that girls/women treat men/boys with respect. But no, that is not what is being proposed.

So congratulations Minister for swallowing the feminist narrative hook, line and sinker. In so doing you are complicit in the ongoing process of downplaying female perpetration of violence (increasing), and ignoring the many male victims of DV.

cuteAnd this incredibly sexist and biased policy move seemingly based on a survey that didn’t even bother to ask about public attitudes to violence towards men, thus robbing it of proper context in which we might interpret its findings.

See also:

Editorial in the Courier Mail

Courier Mail Facebook post See readers comments, most of whom call for the inclusion of girls in the proposed program

A November 2015 article by Australian feminist journalist, Wendy Tuohy, put forward as an example of just how one-sided (i.e. gynocentric) the discussion about respectful relationships has become

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

No place for feminist propaganda in our schools or universities
Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?
On violence carried out by women and girls
On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence
The trouble with boys and learning
My response to the report of the Queensland Task Force on Family Violence

On feminists, white feathers and Anzac Day

For the benefit of overseas readers, Anzac Day commemorates “all Australians and New Zealanders who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations” and “the contribution and suffering of all those who have served.”

This year (2015) is of special significance in that it marks the 100th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli (Turkey) in April 1915. As a consequence we are currently being bombarded with all things Anzac – documentaries, mini-series, promotional products, and so on. But this is understandable as the Anzac phenomenon is recognised by most Australians as a pivotal element in our ‘nation building’ narrative.

Whilst the focus has always been on our fallen soldiers, an increasing amount of attention is now being given to the role played by women in the First World War, particularly with regards to nurses working close to the front line.

Nevertheless the feminist lobby have long associated Anzac Day with ‘toxic masculinity’ and men’s innate desire to initiate wars and engage in wholesale violence (for example).

The wikipedia entry cited in my opening paragraph, for example, mentions that in 1978, “a women’s group laid a wreath dedicated to all the women raped and killed during war, and movements for feminism, gay rights, and peace used the occasion to draw attention to their respective causes at various times during the 1980s. In the 1980s, Australian feminists used the annual Anzac Day march to protest against rape and violence in war and were banned from marching.”

In condemning Anzac Day as a celebration of men’s propensity for violence, feminists appear to be either be blissfully unaware of, or to conveniently overlook, the existence of a movement known as the Order of the White Feather.

“The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.

This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.

The White Feather movement facilitated the war deaths of untold numbers of young men, as well as the shaming and suicide of many other men who either chose not to join the army or who were denied active service (which could occur for a variety of reasons).

On a final note, some have compared the White Feather movement to the present-day White Ribbon campaign, given the level of feminist influence surrounding both and their shared emphasis on male shaming.

See also:

15 articles about men and war that will make you think again (1 July 2016)

Lest We Forget, by Mark Dent (20 April 2016)

A reminder that suffragettes did not get women the vote but instead commit terrorism (27 December 2015)

The White Feather campaign in the Second World War (29 October 2012)

Pankhurst: The white feather betrayal of history (15 November 2012)

White Feathers during World War II Caused the Suicides of Two Teenage Boys (30 November 2013)

15 articles about men and war that will make you think again (9 November 2014)

Christabel Pankhurst – The White Feather betrayal of history (12 December 2014)

A couple of related reddit mens rights discussion threads:

TIL that early feminists would attempt to humiliate men who were not soldiers during WWI

The order of the White Feather

Other posts in this blog that may be of interest:

Do feminists have any male heroes?

On masculinity and ‘real men’

Further thoughts regarding the White Ribbon Campaign (feminist version)

On 25th November 2014 the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) celebrated its annual ‘White Ribbon Day’, whereupon they beat their chests about the wonderful job they (say they) are doing, and sought to fill their coffers via donations and merchandise sales.

I visited their Facebook page at that time and noticed quite a number of dissenters posting comments there. In true feminist fashion these were slyly removed during the course of the day (as discussed in this blog post). WRC representatives responded to the nay-sayers by castigating them for complaining about WRC’s focus on female victims, and/or by telling them to go and start their own organisation to address violence towards men.

Without doubt there would be many people out there who would say, how could anyone be so mean-spirited as to criticise the White Ribbon Campaign? So what if they focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, at least they are still helping someone? Surely any publicity that raises awareness of the problem of domestic violence is a good thing? Lots of celebrities support WRC so they must  be doing something useful otherwise those people wouldn’t risk their reputations, right? Right?

The WRC believes, or at least tries to make others believe, that those opposing it are misogynists who are angry about its sole focus on female victims. In actual fact, in most cases, that is not the root cause of disquiet about their operation.

So, if this issue isn’t the main issue of concern, then what is?

1. WRC’s lack of honesty and transparency, and their censorship, shaming and attacks on others holding alternative views

Publicly, the WRC’s rationale for focusing solely on female victims is based on their claim that the “overwhelming” majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by males upon females. Privately, the driving force behind WRC is its rigid adherence to feminist ideology.

Misleading statements, concerning the nature and extent of domestic violence, sabotage the efforts of others to institute fairer and more effective programs to combat domestic violence. It is hard to believe that this continual misrepresentation of statistical ‘evidence’ to support the focus adopted by WRC is inadvertent. The strategic invention &/or misrepresentation of ‘facts’ in this manner is a hallmark of contemporary feminism.

These false assertions have the effect of denying male victims of domestic violence appropriate recognition or support, and of unfairly demonising men in general. Another outcome is the lack of attention given to abusive women through, for example, the provision of behaviour modification programs for female offenders.

Thus the problem is not that the WRC focuses on male violence towards women, but that – for strategic reasons – they fail to acknowledge other significant elements of domestic violence. No, in fact they do more than that. They argue that those whose priorities differ from their own are (at best) ignorant and misguided, and at worst that they are abusers themselves.

The message disseminated by WRC seeks to make a complex social issue appear simple. This is useful in attracting and maintaining the interest, and subsequently the financial support, of the public. Part of this involves inventing  a single easily-identifiable bogey-man – the heterosexual male.

WRC’s approach also handily puts the onus for addressing the problem onto men and absolves women of any responsibility in relation to either causing the problem or fixing it.

2. The fact that WRC diverts, both strategically and inadvertently, public and private funds away from programs where they might be used more effectively in the fight against domestic violence and/or in assisting victims of DV

The effects of misrepresentations by WRC, when combined with substantial marketing efforts, political acumen, and a social environment highly supportive of feminism, sees WRC exert a significant influence on government policies and decisions regarding resource allocation to DV.

WRC compromise efforts to reduce domestic violence and assist male victims because they misrepresent both the nature of the problem and the nature of potential solutions. In so doing they side-track us from identifying and implementing more effective solutions. This skews the nature of research undertaken, in turn skewing the nature of support services provided.

WRC are not satisfied for a reasonable share of funds to be directed towards feminist groups like their own, they want all available funds so directed.

Questions have also been raised as to WRC’s ability to competently manage public funds, and the extent to which its operations are financially self-serving. Ironically this is happening at the expense of men, given that men contribute the majority of tax revenue.

Browsing through a recent annual report for White Ribbon Australia was illuminating. To give an example, unless I have misread this page, WRC burnt more than $400,000 in one year just on share trading.

According to White Ribbon Australia’s corporate annual report for 2013, they gambled their donations in the stock market and lost one fourth of their current assets! In other words, they lost almost $500,000 AUS playing the stock market with the public’s donations! Here is what their corporate annual report states:

“Total equity declined from $1,193,398 to $751,611 as a result of the trading loss.”

Society’s current predilection for placing feminism and feminist organisations on a pedestal, goes hand in hand with inadequate government oversight and serious lapses in accountability. History has shown us that this type of situation usually ends badly. It is quite simply a scandal waiting to happen. (I talk about this problem in my post on the Domestic Violence Industry)

WRC’s involvement in running programs in schools

White Ribbon’s involvement in running what are essentially feminist indoctrination programs in schools has been a source of considerable concern for many. This is the subject of the sources listed below, and is discussed further in this blog post.

Senator Says Making Boys Pledge The White Ribbon Oath Is “Public Shaming Based On Gender” (23 November 2016)

Bankstown Public School boys “all say no” to abuse against women in their own hip hop song and video (24 March 2015) Hmm, no sign of a girl’s choir singing nice things about boys … funny that.

We mustn’t make boys feel bad about being male (3 December 2014) with 193 reader’s comments

Why does the White Ribbon Campaign make these errors of judgement, and why will it continue to do so?

WRC will continue down its current path because doing so supports feminist ideology and helps grow the influence of that movement, a goal that is of paramount importance to them. As a consequence, targeting anything or anyone that threatens the feminist narrative in relation to domestic violence is accorded a high priority (see my posts on Tanveer Ahmed and Sallee McLaren for example).

Secondly, it is financially lucrative for WRC to continue their current operating model. Misrepresenting the nature of domestic violence, and exaggerating its scale, stimulates further public support and government funding. This then channels additional funds towards themselves, other feminist enterprises and individual feminists (as per my post on the Domestic Violence Industry).

See also:

White Ribbon Australia entry in ACNC database with links to annual reports

Public money wasted on domestic violence organisations, by Bettina Arndt (9 July 2016)

We stop violence at the source. And the source is men (28 June 2016) White Ribbon CEO Libby Davies defends White Ribbon (see article below), and in so doing happily throws men under the bus. Oh, but see the readers comments that follow (240+ at last count), NONE of which support Libby’s misandric stance. Here is a subsequent radio interview with Tom Elliot concerning Libby’s article, with further comments from Tom here.

Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon, by Nina Funnell (23 June 2016) Australia. Feminists turn on their male allies. Again. And in November Nina’s at their throats again.

Reddit discussion thread concerning RSL employee forced to recite White Ribbon pledge (29 February 2016) See also detailed comment by ‘Imnotmrabut’

Domestic violence and White Ribbon day – help change the debate, by Bettina Arndt (21 November 2015) Australia

The secrets and lies of White Ribbon (November 2015)

Men’s anti-Domestic Violence advocate says scourge “is a male problem” (13 September 2015) Unlike Tanveer Ahmed this WRC Ambassador stuck to the script … good boy Dean … good boy <pat on head>

White Ribbbon misinformation (11 September 2015)

Say goodbye to the burly blue-collar face of unions: they’re now feminist (4 June 2015)

Paul Elam from AVfM on the White Ribbon Campaign (4 December 2014) Video interview

Video critical of White Ribbon Campaign blocked in Australia (1 December 2014)

White Ribbon Australia lies – Interview with Dr Greg Canning (24 November 2014)

False claims undermine good causes (24 November 2014)

White Ribbon Day overestimates reported rapes eight-fold (25 November 2014)

White Ribbon Australia fraud exposed (23 November 2014) with more related details here, including the statement:

Please click on the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ tag at the bottom of this page to see further blog posts related to this organisation.

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

The most visible elements of the Domestic Violence lobby in Australia are advocacy groups such as ‘Our Watch‘ and ‘White Ribbon Campaign‘, and front-line service provides such as ‘DV Connect‘ and ‘Domestic Violence NSW‘. There are however several more significant pieces in this jigsaw, including:

  • Feminist politicians and male colleagues imbued with a surfeit of chivalry (aka ‘white knights’)
  • Feminists and their allies leading or working within state and federal public agencies such as, for example, the Department of Social Services and the Australian Human Rights Commission
  • Feminists leading or working within academia and in market research/consultancy companies, and
  • Feminist and ‘white knight’ journalists and media commentators

‘Six degrees of Kevin Bacon’ is a parlour game based on the six degrees of separation concept, which posits that any two people on Earth are six or fewer acquaintance links apart.

I would suggest that an even closer degree of inter-connectivity exists between those involved in the Australian Domestic Violence Industry (ADVI). The links in this web comprise mutually-beneficial flows of tangible and intangible benefits such as funding/employment opportunities, power/prestige, and a sometimes misguided sense of achieving greater social justice.

Each of these groups or individuals perform an important function within the network, the unifying theme being a shared desire to maintain and expand the network and to defend it against perceived threats.

I would hazard a guess that many of these individuals share very similar demographic characteristics, with further points of commonality that include:

  • having studied the same university courses
  • enjoying social and/or personal relationships with others in the network, and
  • there being varying degrees of financial inter-dependency between them

The tangible outputs of this particular industry should encompass offering support for victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, facilitating training of front-line workers who provide that support, and public education concerning the nature of domestic violence and available avenues of assistance.

The ADVI’s public education function has, however, been subverted to disseminating propaganda that is heavily imbued with feminist dogma. This has the effect of generating heightened hysteria which serves to generate further public/political support. It has created a deeply misrepresentative picture of the nature of the problem, and hence the nature of the most appropriate policy response.

One particularly egregious aspect of the ‘community education‘ undertaken by the ADVI is diverting attention from the growing incidence of violent behaviour by women, whilst engaging in the wholesale demonization of men within the community.

Anyway let’s turn our attention now to the really important stuff – are these people getting runs on the board in terms of reducing the incidence and severity of domestic violence. For if they were then I might be inclined to keep these other concerns to myself. The reality is though that, as best we can tell, they seem to be making very little progress at all.

How is the ADVI’s effectiveness measured? Well for the most part it isn’t, and that’s a big part of the problem. Most industries have measures of output, sometimes known as ‘key performance indicators’ (KPI). An obvious KPI for the ADVI would be the incidence of domestic violence in the community. But based on what the ADVI itself is telling us though, that figure is moving in the wrong direction (think descriptors like ‘epidemic’).

On the issue of  KPI’s, I came across a table in this article entitled ‘Survey of public information on key performance indicators for combating domestic violence in Australian jurisdictions‘. Sadly I note that the performance indicators for national, ACT, Tasmania, South Australia and Victorian government don’t address the safety of all citizens, only that of women and children.

In July 2016, a pro-feminist government agency (ANROWS) released a report that might constitute the first attempt to evaluate efforts to reduce the incidence of domestic violence against women. The summary included the following observations:

“Most evaluations used a mixed-methods design but few had robust outcome measures and none assessed the relative impact of specific components, so the authors were unable to identify effective components or service models.”

“To build an evidence base on effective integration, the report found that future evaluations should be theory-driven, measurement focused and comprehensive, including process, output and outcome indicators.”

Every industry includes dedicated and hard-working people who make a positive contribution. In the case of the ADVI however, an inordinate amount of energy and resources are devoted to simply sustaining itself … and to ballooning ever larger.

On that note, I have noticed a recent trend whereby larger players in the DVI are ‘up-sizing’ their services (and income streams) through a strategy of extending their influence and claimed expertise into other areas such as workplace harassment and in-school ‘educational’ programs.

Most of those calling for more money to be spent on domestic violence appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that the government is spending very little in its battle against domestic violence. Their memories extend no further back, nor broader than, the latest trumpeted hand-out. In truth, and in contrast, the amounts involved are quite staggering.

The total outlay towards combatting domestic violence, whilst difficult to accurately measure, is certainly be in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was confirmed in a statement in 2015 by (now Prime Minister) Malcolm Turnbull:

“The fact is there are hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, spent across government that address issues connected to and related to domestic violence. You know, look at money that goes into homelessness, for example.”

It’s most troubling that no-one seems to have produced a detailed tally of how much money has been injected into the ADVI at the federal and state/territory level, including how funds were spent, by whom, and what the outcomes were. Not the media, nor feminist advocacy groups, not even hugely costly government inquiries.

Such an exercise would be difficult, but certainly not impossible. All that is required is sufficient political will to compile such a resource. The main difficulty arises because applicable funds would be allocated in various different portfolios even, for example, within a particular jurisdiction. Then again, such references usually only appear in the public domain when they paint a politically palatable picture. Perhaps that’s the real issue here.

A 2014 paper produced by the Parliament House library, although woefully incomplete, is one possible starting point in compiling such a spreadsheet. It’s weakness is that it only provides details of the dollar value of some of the relevant federal funding, and nothing whatsoever regarding state/territory funding.

One indicator of the scale of expenditure at the state level is provided in the 2016 report of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, which informs us that “the Victorian Government estimates that funding for programs and services aimed at dealing with family violence in 2014–15 was $80.6 million” (p41).

A few further snippets of info can be gleaned from this other blog post wherein I briefly examine several feminist advocacy groups, noting both the level of public funding received and the nature of expenses incurred by each.

Recent financial statements for advocacy groups ‘Our Reach‘ and ‘White Ribbon Australia‘, for example, tell us that most of the funding received goes into the pockets of staff, directors and consultants. The average staff salary within such organisations is in excess of $80,000/year, consistent with information obtained from an online salary comparison site (pictured).

payscaleRegrettably though, only a trickle of money subsequently makes its way past generously-rewarded tertiary-educated femocrats and consultants to reach front-line workers assisting female victims of violence.

Clearly, maintaining, building and controlling this torrent of public funding is central to what is at stake in maintaining the circle of influence that is the ADVI.

It is only common-sense to recognise that when one combines the elements listed below, one creates an environment in which substantial waste might occur and in which corrupt conduct could flourish:

  • a significant degree of cronyism
  • federal and state governments that equate being seen to care about an issue, with throwing money at it, with the aim of fashioning electoral popularity
  • little accountability and poorly defined or non-existent review or audit processes with regards to the expenditure of public funds
  • an ‘ends justifies the means’ mind-set borne from ideological fervency.

Regardless of whether criminal intent is present, or simply misguided or self-serving behaviour, the key common-sense questions that need to be answered include:

Exactly how much public money has been spent by federal/state/territory government in recent years? Who received it?

Have public funds been distributed fairly, responsibly and cost-effectively? To what extent has auditing or program evaluation occurred, and was this done independently?

Are the resourcing decisions that emerge from this feminist milieu in the long-term best interests of the broader Australian community?

The subject of feminist enterprise centred around the issue of domestic violence has been addressed by well-known Canadian MRA Karen Straughan:

“Violence against women in any form has been a HUGE cash cow for feminism. The more they inflate their claims regarding its pervasiveness in society, the more money pours in, and the more power they have to tinker with legislation and policy. Because it is such an emotionally charged subject, any rational scepticism of these claims (as to whether they are true in the first place, or whether feminists are accurate in their estimates of pervasiveness), is easily deflected by attacking the sceptic.”

“You can demonstrate until the cows come home just how much certain feminists are profiting from generating an inflated fear of violence against women among the public (the average [almost always feminist] director of a battered women’s shelter here in Alberta rakes in over $100k/year, and in the US, that number can be significantly higher), and people won’t care, because ending violence against women is THAT important. They won’t see the people who claim to be working to end it as the exploitative con-artists or ideologically driven religious inquisitors that they are.

If you point out that a very lucrative industry has formed around these issues, and that like any organic entity, this industry will work to sustain and grow itself rather than the other way around, you get called a conspiracy theorist. Even though none of these claims require a conspiracy to be valid–all they require is human nature.”

Another good paper concerning the nature of the domestic violence industry can be found here (Dalrock, July 2013).

In closing I would make one further observation in relation to the ‘old girls club’ character of the ADVI. Most organisations within the ADVI have a board of directors and/or an advisory group. Whilst my research was hardly exhaustive, I was unable to find a single example of a board or advisory group that included representation by a men’s group or fathers group. This exclusion of relevant stake-holders, and general lack of gender diversity, is accentuated by the fact that many DV-related organisations have few or nil male employees. Surely this is very much at odds for a movement that elsewhere stridently champions the benefits of gender diversity and inclusiveness?

Let’s take the example of WESNET who state that they work “within a feminist framework“, which most would assume to include a strong commitment to gender equality. And yet in the next breath, WESNET supports women only management committees as most appropriate to women and children focussed services and to services employing women only.”

WESNET makes a feeble effort at an appearance of objectivity, stating that although “pro-women; this has sometimes been misconstrued as meaning “anti-men” but this is not the case.” Yet search as I did I could not find a single admission regarding female perpetration of violence nor an expression of support for male victims of their violence.

Another similar example is an allied organisation known as AWAVA, whose advisory board is entirely female.

Finally in this interview with Rosie Batty on the ABC’s 7:30 program, Rosie discloses her frank assessment of likely progress in combating DV in Australia (based on continued reliance on the feminist/Duluth approach):

“HAYDEN COOPER: … We’ve all heard that horrendous statistic of one in three women who’ve experienced physical violence. Have you seen any sign yet that that statistic, that figure is improving?

ROSIE BATTY: Look, it’s going to be a heck of a long time before we start to see changes to our statistics turn around.” (Source)

Well no-one can accuse Rosie of setting the bar too high. Meanwhile just keep signing those cheques.

rebecca

 

 

 

 

 

neave

See also:

An illuminating account of the early history of the DV shelter movement

Senior Australian public servants demonstrating their unswerving support for the feminist narrative and the DVI (12 April 2017) Video

Feminists against men’s domestic violence shelters (24 May 2017) Video

Victorian budget 2017: record spending to break family violence (2 May 2017) Open wide all those feminist snouts!

“The same policies will only produce the same tragedies. That’s why I promised to change it all.” So said Premier Andrews, and yet the same fundamental approach is to be followed – with the addition of all those millions more taxpayer dollars. In other words an approach underpinned by feminist ideology/the Duluth Model, and with ‘awareness’ and support services run by the same feminist lobby groups who have previously received funds in the past. And this despite those groups shunning male victims, turning a blind eye to female perpetrators, and producing no measurable improvement in the incidence of DV.

Family Violence Workforce Census (April 2017) Interesting to see the feminist Victorian Government acknowledging this glad-handing network as an ‘industry’. Further details available here.

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) An obvious conflict of interest, but might as well keep the $$ within the family, right?

Domestic Violence Industry: Nights with Miranda Devine (12 January 2017) Miranda talks with Sex Therapist, Psychologist and Men’s rights activist, Bettina Arndt about the misuse of AVO’s and the industry that surrounds it. Australia

The White Ribbon Breakfast ~ where the cash cow meets the gravy train (28 October 2016)

Feminist charity quits Scottish Women’s Aid network in dispute over male director (21 October 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Domestic violence double standards – male MP was forced to stand down when cautioned for assaulting partner yet Sarah Champion receives support for same crime (26 September 2016) UK

UK Domestic Violence Charities’ Finances (16 September 2016) Recommended reading.

“What is the overall level of public funding to UK Domestic Violence (DV) charities? The answer is not widely known (is it known at all outside the closed doors of the sector itself?). The financing of the DV sector is obscure partly because of the many hundreds of different charities in the sector.” Just as is the case in Australia

Exposing the fraudulent DV lobby (9 September 2016)

Bashing of ‘domestic violence industry’ beyond the pale, by Anne Summers (3 September 2016) Wishy-washy defence of the ADVI that avoids ALL of the points of criticism, relying primarily on the straw-man argument that if you disrespect the ADVI then you are also disrespecting victims of domestic violence:

“How despicable – and un-Australian – for politicians and journalists to so cruelly mock those who suffer racism or violence with the ugly inference that they are just fodder for an “industry””

“the people who work to end the epidemic”? Firstly there is no “epidemic”, and secondly I am unaware of any evidence to support the assertion that the feminist ADVI is doing anything to “end” it … or even reduce it.

Vested interests ‘have taken over the domestic violence debate’: Leyonhjelm (26 August 2016)

Always beating up on men, by Bettina Arndt (20 August 2016) with introductory piece here

The Domestic Violence Industry – Parts 1 & 2 (17 July 2016 & 6 August 2016)

Stop the man-bashing: It’s time to fight back against feminism, by Corrine Barraclough (29 July 2016) Australia

Victoria Is Spending More Money On Domestic Violence Than The Federal Government (15 July 2016)

Revealed: The Lavish Spending That Brought Down Britain’s Only LGBT Domestic Abuse Charity (5 July 2016) UK, with related Reddit discussion thread here

Public money wasted on domestic violence organisations, by Bettina Arndt (9 July 2016) More than 180 readers comments at last count, the vast majority of which support Bettina’s position on the matter.

ACT government dreams up a new way to top up the coffers of the DVI – A domestic violence levy, by Angela Shanahan (18 June 2016)

F4J call for inquiry into violence & drug taking at contact handover involving Domestic Violence charity in Greenwich (17 May 2016) UK

Domestic violence ad campaign to focus on ‘influencers’ in bid to change attitudes (20 April 2016) Australia. This is the new campaign. There is little/no evidence that such campaigns actually reduce the incidence of DV, but by jingo $30million sure will help some lucky pro-feminist PR/marketing company. And here Mary Barry, CEO of feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch’ barracks on the irresponsible people feeding the feminist juggernaut with ever-more $$$

Family Violence royal commission proposes policing, social services, courts overhaul (31 March 2016) Australia. Commissioner Neave admits we don’t really know how much is being spent on combatting family violence, only that millions, maybe billions, more needs to be spent. Even if it requires a special tax levy.

Letter to Malcolm Turnbull: domestic violence must be a budget priority (16 March 2016) More sir!

Shane Warne Foundation not alone in charity spending ambiguity (15 March 2016) Australia. More and better scrutiny of not-for-profits? Bring it on – and let’s start with feminist organisations.

To see just how out-of-control the DVI can get, please read ‘Spain gender laws: A country against men‘ (18 February 2016)

Australian of the Year David Morrison’s $15,000 speaking fee (4 February 2016) Elizabeth Broderick $10k/gig and Rosie Batty a bargain at only $5k. Oh and now it transpires that he’s getting $200,000 for 25 days work. Hands up who thinks the same sorts of generous arrangements would be uncovered if anyone was brave enough to delve into the finances of high-profile SJW women?

Rosie Batty’s legacy: more women leaving abusive relationships (24 January 2016) Please Sir! May I have more (money)? More calls from women (based on statistics generated by groups with a pecuniary interest, and which are unlikely to ever be verified/audited) does not necessarily equal lowering the incidence of domestic violence at all, let alone doing so in a cost-effective manner.

Thanks for your words about respecting women, Mr Turnbull. Now show us your deeds (7 January 2016) Australia

“I’m not discounting Turnbull’s commitment of $100m for domestic violence services. It is a good start” Except of course this commitment was hardly a “start”, more like the latest big ladle of mash in a very large trough. Note the author is already using the DV Connect call figures as leverage to argue for more funding.

Influx of calls to domestic violence helplines this year (6 January 2016) And of course the veracity of DV Connect’s record-keeping will be subject to careful scrutiny.

How feminists and a Police Commissioner’s Office conspired against male victims of domestic violence on Twitter (5 January 2016) UK

Smoke, Mirrors And Violence Against Women (5 January 2016) Australia

Vera Baird facing probe after awarding more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money to the charity she runs with force police chief (26 December 2015) UK

Why I’m backing QLD Labor Premier on male victims | Talk About Men (25 October 2015)

Domestic violence initiatives to receive $41 million funding package from Federal Government, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to go hard against domestic violence, and Domestic violence experts welcome $100m boost, but say more is needed  (24 September 2015) That’s a lot of happy feminist snouts in a very large trough of public funds, whilst female perpetrators and their victims continue to be ignored.

Former Premier Anna calls on men to report mates guilty of domestic violence (15 September 2015) Domestic violence unabated? It’s nothing to do with the strategies being utilised and the underlying philosophy (i.e. feminism/Duluth Model), nope it’s because a) more government funding needed and/or b) men aren’t doing enough. Priceless!

Vernon Beck – How the Domestic Violence Industry Destroys Families (19 July 2015) Canadian video

Anti-Islam group deregistered for masquerading as domestic violence group (2 July 2015)

Rosie Batty – The Opposite Case (28 June 2015)

A welcome response from government to domestic violence crisis (5 June 2015) Since when does handing millions more to the same groups, running the same programs, whilst not reducing the problem one iota, constitute governments “lifting their game“?

How £210,868 (88.6%) of the 2013/14 income of Engender, a radical feminist campaign organisation, was paid by Scottish taxpayers (27 May 2015)

Anti-violence funding ‘lacks transparency and cohesion’ (16 May 2015)

Budget 2015: ‘Government failed domestic violence test’ (13 May 2015) A ‘fail’, yet another $17 million goes into the pot. Oh, and just a few days later (17 May 2015) here is another $4 million

This article exemplifies the ‘hurry up and spend more’ tone of most DV-related coverage in the mainstream media

$17M boost for domestic and family violence support (1 April 2015) Queensland Minister fails to identify the nine organisations that will get the $$$

Three Accused of Stealing Funds from Domestic Violence Shelter (31 March 2015) Expect to see more stories like this

Coalition reverses Labor’s funding cuts on homelessness with $230 million commitment prioritising victims of domestic violence (23 March 2015)

National $30 million campaign to tackle domestic violence (5 March 2015) Open wide, here comes lots more public funding for “awareness”

Baird promises Domestic Violence Minister (6 March 2015) More costly affectatious pandering to the feminist lobby. Disregard the fact that the cost of changing letterhead paper, brochures, business cards and office signage etc, would probably be enough to maintain a refuge for male victims of domestic violence for a couple of years. How about a Minister for Skin Cancer? Minister for Stopping Motor Vehicle Accidents? (Refer this blog post)

White Ribbon CEO Libby Davies jumps the cash cow (22 February 2015)

Domestic violence funding in NSW: Rosie Batty as Australian of the Year raises profile of state ‘epidemic’ (26 January 2015)

In January 2015 the West Australian government went against the flow and bravely decided to terminate a costly failed experiment (Domestic violence court axed). Despite the fact that they made it clear the decision was not based on saving money – that it was counter-productive in terms of victim outcomes – they were castigated by feminists on the basis of being uncaring about the welfare of ‘women and their children’:

“Attorney-General Michael Mischin’s decision comes nine months after the release of details of a draft review which found that offenders dealt with in the five Perth family violence courts, which cost close to $10 million a year to operate, were 2.4 times more likely to go on to commit further acts of violence than matched offenders in the mainstream system.”

And yet despite the WA decision, just a week later either the same, or a very similar, system was proposed for Queensland.

In reading this article one recognises certain parallels between ‘rape culture’ and the ‘epidemic of domestic violence’, and the two-legged remoras that attach themselves to each: ‘The Hunting Ground’: Reaping Profit from Rape Hysteria (26 March 2015)

A brilliant funding strategy” – How and why feminists took over the domestic violence movement Interviews with Erin Pizzey, Senator Anne Cools, Warren Farrell and others (Youtube video)

How Much Taxpayer Money is Enough for Domestic Violence Programs? (20 April 2009) USA

Finally, this series of email exchanges is really quite eye-opening about the theoretical basis for the way in which feminist domestic violence agencies conduct themselves. See NCFM South African Member Jason Dale, a must read email exchange about the Duluth model of domestic violence (23 March 2015)

dvfordummies

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Going Batty: The making of a champion of the Domestic Violence Industry

Two awareness campaigns. Only one can be criticised. Cowed by feminism?

Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

Australian Government cuts back funding to advocacy groups, except feminist ones

NSW feminist groups seek to roll back reform of domestic violence shelters

Australian Government cuts funding to advocacy groups, except feminist ones

“As Scott Morrison prepared to step in as Social Services Minister, his new department was contacting housing advocacy groups and other community services providers on Monday to inform them their funding had been cut and contracts with the Commonwealth would be discontinued.

Social Services posted letters responding to requests for grants from the community sector for ongoing and new funding streams after a process first announced in March.

The government has previously warned it could satisfy just $800 million of the $3.9 billion in grants requested by the sector.” (Source)

Back in May 2014 around the time the federal budget was released, and when he wore a different hat, Scott Morrison was quoted as stating:

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says he axed funding for a refugee organisation just two weeks after guaranteeing it in the budget because he believes taxes should not be propping up advocacy groups.

“It’s not my view, it’s not the Government’s view, that taxpayer funding should be there to support what is effectively an advocacy group,” Mr Morrison said.

“They’re entitled to be an advocacy group; they do very good work in the community and the Government will continue to support that organisation for contracted services.

“But in terms of administrative funding for an advocacy group, in a tough budget like this, frankly I just formed the view that taxpayer funds were not going to be spent on those types of activities.”

Many groups have been affected by these cuts, not just immigration advocacy groups such as the one referred to above. Not only Scott Morrison but other Ministers have, in justifying the cuts, been at pains to differentiate between those organisations who provide “advocacy” and those that provide “frontline services” to those in need.

As I ran my eyes over the list of groups for whom funding has been withdrawn, one curious thing stands out. No groups that cater predominantly to the welfare of women or girls appear on the list, not even those that are quite clearly advocacy groups who do not provide frontline support services.

Consider the example of ‘Our Watch’, a feminist group within the domestic violence sector, who seem to have emerged from the budget maelstrom unscathed. Indeed ‘Our Watch’ received $4,675,550 in government funding in 2013/14, whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations.

What’s more, that sum incorporated only a portion of total promised federal funding of $13.1 million. ‘Our Watch’ will also act as a middle-man (oops) and conduit for additional government funding for sporting groups that successfully compete for the feminist tick of approval. Why it was considered appropriate to delegate this role to an NGO defies logic.

Turning our attention now to those groups that were subject to cuts in government funding. Some of those groups appear to cater to a predominantly male clientele, and I’m thinking in particular of those providing services to the homeless.

Why is this so? Surely if we did in fact exist within a patriarchy then the opposite should be true? Or could it be that feminists/white knights are the ones that really wield the power in Canberra? Is taking an axe to any organisation that has the feminist lobby’s tick of approval now just too scary for our civic ‘leaders’ to contemplate?

See also:

Community sector funding cuts begin (23 December 2014)

Homelessness advocacy groups lose $21m in federal government funding (23 December 2014)

Disability advocates warn Government cuts to social services grants could affect NDIS rollout (24 December 2014)

ABC interview with Scott Morrison (24 December 2014)

Brandis ties NGO funding to non-advocacy (26 July 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

Re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement in Australia? Bring it on, but consider men too

Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)

White Ribbon Day – Parliament House Library says dissenting voices “deemed not to be relevant”

I happened to be browsing the parliament house website one day and came across an article entitled
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day)—25 November 2014“. Below the article was the statement:

“We welcome your comments, or additional information which is relevant to a post. These can be added by clicking on the ‘Add your comment’ option above. Please note that the Parliamentary Library will moderate comments, and reserves the right not to publish comments that are inconsistent with the objectives of FlagPost. This includes spam, profanity and personal abuse, as well as comments that are factually incorrect or politically partisan.”

I considered it to be a rather biased and obviously pro-feminist attempt at addressing the issue of WRD and domestic violence. I subsequently submitted a comment that pointed out the one-sided nature of the information presented, noting that many had concerns about the approach adopted by the White Ribbon movement, and mentioning some of the issues noted elsewhere in this blog.

Anyway my comment never emerged from moderation and so I wrote to the head of the Parliament House Library, Dr Dianne Heriot, on 1 December 2014:

“Dear Dr Heriot
I’m sorry to trouble you with this matter but I could not find an email address related to the Flagpost section of your web site. Would you mind please passing it on to the relevant member of staff?

Some days ago I posted a response to an article in Flagpost (URL below), and received an auto message that it would be reviewed by a moderator. My comment, which was quite inoffensive, never appeared and I am wondering what happened. As other items in Flagpost all seem to be lacking any comments, perhaps any such comments have been lost in the system (?) Pls advise.”

Joanne James, Director Client Relations, responded the same day, stating:

“Dr Heriot has asked me to respond to your enquiry. Your comment was received on Friday afternoon, and was forwarded on this morning to the author of the post for consideration (we do not work on the weekends). We do not receive a lot of comments on our blog, but we do receive quite a bit of spam directed as comments – these tend to take a bit of time to sift through.

Janet will consider your thoughts as soon as possible, but as it is a sitting week, she may be caught up with other requests from the parliament.”

I thanked Joanne and waited patiently until 16 December 2014, when I wrote to her again:

“Hi Joanne. Just touching base again about the reader comment I contributed. 

The comment has yet to be uploaded, nor have I heard from Janet. Given that my comment does not appear to breach your posting guidelines, it would be appreciated if you would kindly pass on a gentle reminder. You mentioned that not many people contribute comments to the blog – this might be one reason.”

Thus finally on the 17th December 2014 I received the following news:

“I have spoken to the author and their Director. They advise that the comment wasn’t published as it was deemed not to be relevant to the post, which was specifically about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day).

They also indicated that the Parliamentary Library paper referred to in the post, Domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, updates several previous Parliamentary Library publications specifically on the levels of violence experienced by women in Australia. The paper acknowledges that men experience high levels of violence and refers readers to the ABS Personal Safety Survey for more detail on the nature of the violence experienced specifically by men in Australia.”

Harking back to the comment that I originally submitted (and of which I regrettably neglected to retain a copy), let’s just quickly run through the Library’s criteria to see if I crossed the line:

Spam – no, profanity – no, personal abuse – no, factually incorrect – I don’t believe so, politically partisan – no. That just leaves “the objectives of FlagPost“, so I wrote back to Joanne seeking details thereof.

Jonathan Curtis, head of the research branch in the Library, kindly wrote back to me on 19 December 2014 advising:

“The general objective that appears on the website is: “FlagPost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament”. More generally, it is to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.

However, as Joanne noted, your comment was not published because the Director considered that it was not directly relevant to main subject of the post.”

So in other words ‘we reserve the right to use hitherto unmentioned reasons to block reader feedback in relation to our articles, as and when it runs contrary to the personal views of the author’.

My subsequent response to Jonathan read as follows:

“Thank you for getting back to me with those further details.

So it would appear that I was correct in my assumption that my comment was blocked on the basis of criteria other than those stipulated in your web site.

The article provided background to White Ribbon Day, together with a degree of embellishment that presumably reflected the author’s own perspective on the matter. In my comment I sought to indicate that many people have significant reservations about the appropriateness or effectiveness of addressing domestic violence by focussing solely on violence against women – this being at the core of the White Ribbon movement. I also sought to indicate the existence of reasonable and fairly widely-held concerns regarding the accuracy of statements made by White Ribbon Campaign to support their position.

You note the primary function of the Library as being “to provide timely, brief, summary information to our clients (ie. MPs and Senators) and to alert them to recent research, publications and information.” I believe that it is vitally important that our elected representatives are kept abreast of alternative perspectives, rather than only being exposed to one particular position that happens to be most in vogue at the time.

I believe that blocking the voices of those who question or disagree with a particular position put forward by a member of the Library’s staff amounts to censorship of the basis of ideology, and that that is not an appropriate function of an Australian library. This same view is noted for example at http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/services/public_libraries/docs/accesstoinformation.pdf:

“A public library has a role as an unbiased source of information and ideas, including online content. It must accept responsibility for providing free access to materials and information presenting, as far as possible, all points of view on current and historical issues, including controversial issues.””

book_burningDeleting blog posts is so much cleaner and easier than burning books. It’s a win/win situation … for feminism and the environment.