I came across this fellow’s plea whilst web surfing the other day, and thought it was quite a good question:
“Is there a news source that doesn’t have a pro-feminist bias?
I order “The Week” and most magazine issues have at least one article discussing a women’s issue; 50-70% of the issues discussed are either non-existent, highly exaggerated, or are only looking at the female side where the issue can affect anybody, and I have yet to see a single men’s issue being discussed in that magazine. I’ve been getting issues of that magazine for about two years now. I’m stopping my order as soon as I can, but I’m still going to have to deal with this crap with EVERY news source except …..?
And I don’t want a source that is specifically anti-feminist, and I don’t want a republican source like Fox News either.”
The question has only attracted two answers thus far, but ‘Elana’ responded as follows:
“I think you’re going to find it very difficult to find something without bias unless it avoids a subject entirely.
Really the only way you can do it is by reporting lots of different points of view and how it effects lots of different people.
My problem with feminism has always been that it NEVER reports what effects its policies has on men. I’ve never thought that women don’t need advocacy – they most certianly do – but to claim that feminism is all about equality and THE ONLY people who are all about equality, when in fact they are nothing more than a rather single minded advocacy movement for women – makes them dangerous.
At least MRAs point out what they are doing and why.
As MRAs gain traction, I’m 100% positive we’ll be muttering the same things about them, but right now, the vast majority of them, at least in the West, are fighting an uphill against court systems, political systems and media systems that are singularly feminist.”
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review states that “Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
Those of you who have spent time in Asian countries might have noticed a lot of western women reading books in cafes and looking somewhat bored. In various web sites and discussion forums one may read their plaintive cries about feeling “invisible” (e.g. Japan/China) and having trouble finding guys who will give them the attention they feel they deserve.
It would appear that most western guys in Thailand, for example, have little time for western women. Instead they appear to prefer the company of more feminine, laidback (and yes, often more attractive) Thai ladies. And cynics note that I am referring to Thai ladies in general, and not simply bar-girls.
I even read a post the other day where a female expat stated that she was tired of western men in Thailand “disrespecting” western women in the way they pointedly ignore them. Tragic, just tragic.
In my blog post ‘I thought women were meant to be more empathetic‘ I talk about the issue of western women in Thailand flaunting local dress standards. Is this ‘look at me! look at me!’ behaviour in response to the ‘attention deficit mode’ that many western women appear to descend into within days of arrival in Asia? Or is it simply a reflection of a broader attitude of ‘my need to indulge myself trumps your right to have local social mores respected’?
Why don’t Western men in Asian countries lift their game and jump at the opportunity of approaching western women? Oh wait, they have already tried that back home and were rewarded with looks of disdain or contempt – or even accused of harassment. I can see this is going to be a tough sell.
So what then, you may ask, is the current situation in western countries such as USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia?
Well in the West men are confused, for they are routinely dragged over the coals for alternately either paying too much attention to women, or not enough. Or about the right amount but they are doing it wrong. Oh, and the goalposts regarding the ‘right’ way are continuously being moved.
On that first point, readers would be aware of the surfeit of publicity regarding the unwanted looks and attention that women attract from men, and how such behaviour threatens and disgusts them (example here).
And then every now and then there is an incident that serves as a lightning rod and focus for demands for action. Let’s look at the example of THAT infamous New York street harassment video …
Of course governments never step in and ask women to deal with other women who transgress one ‘rule’ or another, err like sexually abusing students for example. Because that would be hateful or misogynistic or something bad. Or something.
Unsafe in the City – A Tale of Five Cities, by Plan International (October 2018) This pro-feminist ‘study’ unsurprisingly completely ignores not just all the people who manage to remain safe in the city, but also both male victimisation and female violence.
“Why are the events like the mass groping at Cologne used as an example of how immigrant men pose a threat to “our women”, yet white Australian men acting in a similar fashion at a car show is dismissed as “boys being boys”?”
And this with no evidence provided – aside from two vague anecdotal accounts – that any man laid a hand on a woman at Summernats 2017. No mention, for example, of any actual police reports. In fact, I have been advised that in the entire 30 year history of Summernats there have been only two reported sexual assaults. And yet this being, allegedly, in a “similar fashion” to the outrage that occurred on NYE in Cologne? Talk about a reach!
These two pictures were both taken at Summernats, guess which one featured in Clementine’s article?
Breast enlargement remains the most popular procedure (UK) and in the United States too (2013). In fact if you want a good chuckle then google on ‘feminism and breast augmentation’ and see the fur fly as feminists who have had their chests packed with silicon try to rationalise their decision (“I did it for myself, really”). Of course you did.
See the readers comment by ‘Okrahead’ about the spandex ‘lady’ in the gym in this article
Men and women are individuals whose position with regards to interacting with other individuals is influenced by many variables including age, relationship status, sexual orientation, cultural background, etc. There is no ‘one size fits all’.
Men are criticized both for approaching women, and for not approaching women. Some women live for male attention, others want none, with the remainder happy to engage at the times, and in the manner, of their choosing. Oh, and an individual woman’s position may change on a daily basis and/or depending upon the perceived attractiveness of the male who approaches her.
As women do not hold up signs advising of their own particular preferences, even well-meaning men – who comprise the overwhelming majority – are in a constant state of uncertainty, unease and frustration. Maybe if all women could organise themselves onto the same page, and circulate universal guidelines, things might be different. But we all know that’s not going to happen.
Feminists stoking the fire of misunderstanding and paranoia between the genders sure doesn’t help things, and only serves to propel ever more men towards a MGTOW lifestyle.
Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:
Earlier generations of Australian women were mostly empathetic to a fault. Nowadays not so much.
Empathy with the resident citizens of overseas countries
Some time ago I was reading the results of a survey of overseas travelers. It found that most travelers were disturbed by displays of cultural insensitivity by fellow travelers. Unfortunately the survey did not breakdown its results on the basis of variables such as gender.
This got me thinking about my own experiences living and travelling in Asia.
Thai culture is quite conservative but Thais will rarely inform tourists when they have crossed the border of social acceptability, unless they venture far beyond the bounds of decent behaviour. Expressions of polite conduct such as kreng jai – the Thai version of our ‘good manners’ – is highly important to them.
Mention Thailand and most people think of men behaving badly. And indeed some men do … as do some women. The difference is that those western men who misbehave tend to do so within touristy nightlife areas, in many cases within recognised ‘red light areas’. Their behaviour generally involves drunken debauchery within the confines of go-go bars or the like. There is nothing laudable about this, but at least the local Thai people in such areas tend to be inured to witnessing this type of behaviour. Outside these areas I have witnessed exceedingly few examples of western male travellers displaying overt cultural insensitivity.
In contrast I have seen many examples of western women behaving inappropriately outside the bar precincts. A common issue is that of wearing skimpy and revealing clothing in and around temples, and in public places such as markets or parks. This occurs despite the fact that any guidebook on Thailand clearly states that such clothing is considered unacceptable, as well as there being signs installed in many locations.
On this note I happened across the following comments by a female editor of an English-language magazine in Thailand:
“Then there is the trio of English lasses who were found wandering around Wat Phra Singh a few weeks back in their bikinis! It has nothing to do with cultural insensitivity or ignorance. It is just a willful refusal to give a crap. Their grandmothers would have taken a wooden spoon to their bottoms had they trotted into the local church dressed that way.”
I have never confronted anyone about this particular transgression, but from discussions in online forums the attitude seems to be “this is my style, why should I have to change to suit them?”, or they are old-fashioned/sexist and *they* should change. I have also noticed plenty of instances of western women exhibiting exceptionally intrusive, pushy and loud behaviour in public places (particularly for example during community events).
Anyway that’s what this correspondent has noticed in going about his daily business, but discussions with Thai women revealed some other issues. These were women who either ran businesses, or worked in other peoples shop-front businesses (not bar-related, I hasten to add). I must first explain that Thai women are generally in awe of western women, and in general there is no underlying animosity whatsoever.
One after the other these women told me similar accounts of their dealing with western female customers, and of their surprise, dismay and occasional anger at the rude behaviour they often encountered. This included body language (like eye rolling and pained expressions) plus clicking noises of annoyance, and rude gestures and insulting words.
As noted, these were just my own observations – what do others think? Are western women travelling overseas less inclined to observe and maintain local cultural decorum, than western men? And if so, why? Do you think it might it be related to an increasingly overdone feeling of entitlement, and of being beyond criticism/censure? That sense of feeling oneself to be a ‘special snowflake’?
Well the term ‘patriarchy’ gets thrown around a lot by feminists. Apparently it’s like hell for women. Sort of a catch-all for all the bad things that happen to women that can’t be (in their minds) blamed either on themselves or one particular guy.
“Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination.”
Basically feminists claim that men have constructed, and continue to maintain, a social paradigm expressly designed for our own benefit. If that were the case then it’s hard to explain statistics like these and these, showing men at a disadvantage is so many areas. I figure that us guys could build a better paradigm than that.
Yes, there are ruling elites present within our society. And yes, well over 50% of their members are probably men. But a social system created by men for men? A fairy tale. And don’t anyone dare suggest that the ruling coven of contemporary feminists are in fact a ruling elite in their own right (and one that continues to grow in influence).
The following articles explore the concept of patriarchy in some detail:
A while ago I came across a US state program that was designed to encourage males to have respect for women. The organisation ‘A Voice for Men’ responded with a provocative and graphic statement along the lines of “we’ll have respect for those people who are deserving of respect”. Read the comments that follow the pictures to capture the essence of the ensuing discussion.
David was one amongst the many feminists and camp followers to bite back. David’s article concluded with the statement:
“The logic here is airtight: because some women get drunk and urinate in public, women don’t deserve respect.
I guess men never get drunk and urinate in public, or ever do anything vaguely embarrassing that gets caught on camera?
Is it really asking too much to respect people as people, foibles and all?”
Well David, yes it is too much to ask of feminists apparently. Can you name even one single male “foible” that feminists are willing to accept?
Men do some gross things, and its usually no-one’s fault but our own. The difference is that we admit it instead of denying it to maintain a moral high ground above the opposite sex … or alternatively blaming our behaviour on someone else or some mythical matriarchy. Hell when some guys really go too far we even express pointed criticism of their behaviour, and urge them to lift their game. Another significant point of difference, yes?
If feminists were truly into equality then surely they would support a reciprocal program that urged girls and women to ‘Respect men’. No? What’s that I hear? Guffaws of laughter instead? Telling, isn’t it?
In fact on that point, a post that I recently contributed to an online discussion was zapped by a moderator because I concluded with the suggestion that women should respect men (in the same sentence I also said men should respect women). It wasn’t even a feminist site either. This is what things have come to … simply suggesting that women should respect men is just cause to be labelled a ‘redneck’ or similar.
I guess one gender must be more equal than the other, or something.
YouTuber promises to release sex tape (23 January 2017) Feminists can find the time to criticize men on the basis of just about anything, but criticise a woman for eroding respect for women? No way, well not unless they are conservative and/or anti-feminist.
“What happened to the modern man? I think he got left behind and died of starvation because I don’t see any around these days. I went on a date the other night, shocking right? But when the dinner came to an end and we were laughing away into the sunrise and the check came out- he slid it towards me. If you need to re-read that last sentence then please do so now.
Ahh yes, he slid the check to me and asked to split. The worst word in the English dictionary. Right next to debt and vegetarian. I mean, nobody wants to split their pants, their hair line, alcohol, or especially, a check. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some mega bitch, but guys will always make more money than girls.” (Source)
Why feminists hate debating anti-feminists (26 August 2016) Feminists feel entitled to not have their opinions challenged because only they can know their experience as a woman. Although they see no such contraint to understanding/explaining/judging men’s experiences.
White House meets with activists calling for gender equity in My Brother’s Keeper (15 July 2014) The current US administration shamelessly panders to the feminist hierarchy. They finally introduce one (1!) program aimed at helping males, and even then they had to exclude white males because of the anticipated backlash. Were feminists willing to make this one small concession? Oh no. Let’s not worry about the scores of pre-existing programs from which males are excluded. It’s pathetic, it really is. When are people going to wake up to what is going on?
Feminist Lara Witt advises that “on a weekly basis, cisgender men ask me how they can be (better) allies. I don’t usually respond because I’m forever tired of teaching for free. So because I’m super generous I decided to put together this primer on … How men can be slightly less trash” (4 March 2019)
Ryerson’s independent student newspaper the Eyeopener reports the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has “rejected the last appeal” to have the school sanction the Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS).
According to the group’s president, Kevin Arriola, the point of the group is to raise “issues that have never been [talked] about or usually disregarded.”
MIAS has received its major opposition from the school’s Feminist Collective.
In November, Ryerson Feminist Collective organizer Arezoo Najibzadeh called the idea of the group “horrifying.” Najibzadeh said, “I think it’s just horrifying. I don’t see the benefit of having them on campus.”
““We have a women’s ministry which is to escalate and ensure women’s issues issues are brought to the forefront and to the centre of government policy because at this time there’s clearly serious gender inequality in society…It is almost like nullifying the efforts of the women’s ministry, having a Men’s Affairs Department,” Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) executive director Sumitra Visvanathan said in a phone interview with Malay Mail Online”
“I’m just going to say it: Sometimes I feel sorry for men” (July 2015) This is a fairly typical NAFALT ‘look, feminists understand’ piece – the closest thing to genuine sympathy that any feminist will put her name to. But nowhere will you see any form of acknowledgement that women are partially responsible for the pressure that men face. Instead it is always “people” or “society” that force men to adopt/maintain assigned gender roles. And of course no examples are provided as to where women have actively assisted with any problematic issues affecting men/boys.
Some people call the notion of a gender pay gap a ‘myth’, but it does in fact exist. A certain mythical element arises however in the way that feminists blatantly misrepresent the pay gap to support and advance their peculiarly jaundiced view of the world. You see, feminists would have us believe that women earn substantially less than men for doing the same work, and that this is primarily the result of sexist bias by employers. Such a position is equal parts over-simplification and outright falsehood, yet it forms a key prop in the gender feminists’ claim of perennial victimhood at the hands of a cruel and unyielding patriarchy.
Indeed, all manner of people – even ex-President Obama – keep spouting this bunkum, and the mainstream media laps it up and repeats it ad nauseam. (Oh, and by the way, Politi-Fact rated the President’s statement as ‘mostly false’, with further comments here).
Feminists conveniently neglect to tell everyone that:
as you drill down into the data looking at particular segments of the workforce, one is increasingly likely to find that the wage gap favours women – not men
pay disparity is the outcome of many different variables, of which sexist discrimination by employers is just one – and a relatively minor one at that
Indeed the most significant variables affecting pay rates relate to personal choices made by individual employees, choices such as type of job, amount of overtime worked, etc.
“In Britain, lesbians are paid an average of eight per cent more than straight women, with the trend even more extreme in other western countries. In the US, the difference is 20 per cent …
Dr Nick Drydakis, senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in the UK who authored the World Bank report, said pay differentials were explained by the career and lifestyle choices that gay women were more likely make.
“Lesbians may realise early in life that they will not marry into a traditional household,” he said.”
So, does this mean that employers actively discriminate against straight women?
“Love the way it’s so obviously special pleading. Gay men earn less? Must be discrimination! Lesbians earn more? Must be lifestyle choices. Women earn less? Must be sexism. Men earn less? Must be lifestyle choices.”
Please take a moment to review some or all of the following sources:
The Factual Feminist‘ (Christina Hoff Sommers) looks at the wage gap issue Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3
“The easiest way to solve the ‘gender pay gap’ would be to make it a criminal offence for a man to financially subsidize ANY woman, even his wife. Then women would have an incentive to work to the best of their earning potential regardless of the wealth of their male spouse.”
Earnings inequality among men soars (13 January 2017) UK. There are many significant pay gaps other than all men v all women, but any gaps that don’t support the feminist narrative tend to be ignored. This study is just one of many examples.
Daniel Radcliffe: How can this still be happening? (25 April 2016) Harry Potter actor talks about how much more male Hollywood actors are paid. Neglects to mention factors inconsistent with feminist narrative – like the pay differential for fashion models for e.g.
“Here is a list of the ten most remunerative majors compiled by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Men overwhelmingly outnumber women in all but one of them:
1. Petroleum Engineering: 87% male
2. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 48% male
3. Mathematics and Computer Science: 67% male
4. Aerospace Engineering: 88% male
5. Chemical Engineering: 72% male
6. Electrical Engineering: 89% male
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: 97% male
8. Mechanical Engineering: 90% male
9. Metallurgical Engineering: 83% male
10. Mining and Mineral Engineering: 90% male
And here are the 10 least remunerative majors—where women prevail in nine out of ten:
1. Counseling Psychology: 74% female
2. Early Childhood Education: 97% female
3. Theology and Religious Vocations: 34% female
4. Human Services and Community Organization: 81% female
5. Social Work: 88% female
6. Drama and Theater Arts: 60% female
7. Studio Arts: 66% female
8. Communication Disorders Sciences and Services: 94% female
9. Visual and Performing Arts: 77% female
10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs: 55% female”
Re: “But they make less money no matter what the job”
Wrong. “In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” (See ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/26/bil10326.htm)
That’s just one of countless examples showing that some of the most sophisticated women in the country choose to earn less while getting paid at the same rate as their male counterparts.
A thousand laws won’t close that gap.
In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap – tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is another feel-good bill that turned into another do-nothing law (good intentions do not necessarily make things better; sometimes, the path to a worse condition is paved with good intentions)…. Nor will a “paycheck fairness” law work.
That’s because women’s pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:
Despite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….” at tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)
As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they’re supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)
The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to, or is wrongly dismissed as irrelevant by, feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands’ incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:
-accept low wages -refuse overtime and promotions -choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do (The most popular job for American women as of 2010 is still secretary/administrative assistant, which has been a top ten job for women for the last 50 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/gender-wage-gap_n_3424084.html) -take more unpaid days off -avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (tinyurl.com/3a5nlay) -work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time instead of full-time (as in the above example regarding physicians)
Any one of these job choices lowers women’s median pay relative to men’s. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.
Women who make these choices are generally able to do so because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who feels pressured to earn more than if he’d chosen never to marry. (Married men earn more than single men, but even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.
This last reference is also quite dated, and is not about feminist misrepresentation per se, but just shows how easily incorrect statistics can be created (in this case by Australian politician Joe Hockey) and then go into circulation:
Both feminist literature and articles in the mainstream media (which is heavily biased towards the feminist perspective) make common use of various ‘facts’ to support their arguments. Some of these include:
That 1 in 4 women will be raped.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid for equal work
1 in 3 women suffer from domestic violence
90% of the world’s poorest people are women
The conviction rate for rape is 6%
These are not facts. They are examples of what is a sustained effort to mislead the public, with the aim of building public (read: political) support for the feminist cause.
Some of the common ‘red flags’ in relation to pro-feminist statistics include:
lack of citation of the original source, with countless instances of incorrect and debunked statistics being used again and again
no context being provided for statistics used, and in particular the comparable figure for males is very rarely provided
“While most men don’t perpetrate violence, approximately 90% of all violence committed against children is perpetrated by men.” So states the ‘Polished Man‘ web site. A complete lie that they subsequently amended after adverse feedback. Here is the related reddit discussion thread.
Fear: The terrible feeling every woman experiences by Melissa Hoyer (6 November 2014) and Pray for Clementine (4 December 2014) Two similar articles by Australian feminist journalists concerning their sickening level of paranoia regarding men. In the second article Clementine Ford is freaking out because a stranger in the street, a man, tried to talk to her.