Australia – Page 10 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

‘DV Connect’ is “non-judgemental” (but men calling their helpline are sneaky perpetrators)

I read an article yesterday entitled ‘A connection to hope in a world of violence‘, concerning the operation of a charity active in the sphere of domestic violence and sexual assault called ‘DV Connect‘. It featured the usual feminist spin that comes with the territory, but the part that turned my stomach was the following:

“Every now and then a perpetrator calls, desperate to find where his spouse is. Often these men present themselves as victims, hoping to unearth the addresses where their partners might be seeking safety from the storm.“

Now, just a quick reminder to readers that at least one third of the victims of domestic violence are men. Staff at DV Connect are apparently so astute that they can confidently differentiate between those men (actual victims) and that very small minority of men who are actually abusers. A remarkable feat by any standards.

In their web site DV Connect describe themselves as follows:

“DVConnect is the only state wide telephone service offering anyone affected by domestic or family violence a free ‘crisis hotline’ 24 hours a day 7 days a week

We offer free, professional and non-judgemental telephone support, wherever you live in Queensland.

DVConnect Womensline takes over 4000 calls every month from Queensland women who are in fear of or in immediate threat of danger from Domestic or Family Violence, and on average we assist over 350 of them and often more than 400 children to be moved to safety every month.

We can arrange practical assistance such as counselling, intervention, transport and emergency accommodation for Queensland women and children who are in danger from a violent partner or family member”.

Yes, you read that correctly, their telephone support is “non-judgemental”. I guess they just mean the service provided for female callers, because they seem perfectly willing to judge the men who call … as mainly comprising perpetrators.

And notice how, within the space of a few lines, they morph from an organisation providing services to “anyone affected by domestic or family violence“, to one that’s here to help “Queensland women“.

DV Connect provides both a Mensline and Womensline service. The Mensline page in their web site has been re-written since I originally wrote this post, and now makes mention of men seeking help as both perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. The Womensline page assumes that women can only be victims of domestic violence despite this being obviously untrue.

Details regarding how the Mensline services operates in a discriminatory manner can be found in this reddit discussion thread.

I was unable to locate DV Connect within the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission’s register, but their 2013/14 annual report can be downloaded here. A few extracts illustrating the gynocentric bias within this organisation are shown below:

(p9) “We not only work with almost every specialist and community service throughout Queensland around the safety needs of women and children but we also have the unique position of having a ‘helicopter view’ of the sector as a whole … The physical and psychological safety of women and children living with domestic violence is the overriding focus of our work both on Womensline and Mensline.”

(p14) “An even smaller number of men call Mensline because of violence from a female partner or family member. Often this violence is on a very different level to that experienced where the male is the perpetrator of violence. Most of these situations do not have the element of fear in these relationships …”

(p17/18) “Sadly, hundreds of women, children and their beloved pets across Queensland are constrained in violent and fearful relationships because the fear and practical challenges of leaving are just too overwhelming.”

“Every month in Australia six women die at the hands of their intimate partner, at least one of them is from Queensland” and “Sadly in the year ended June 2014 we held 10 rallies for 18 women who died at the hands of their male partners“.

Minimal mention is made of male victims, apparently less important than pets. And when they are acknowledged (as above) their experience is discounted/diminished. And no mention anywhere, in the entire report, of female perpetrators.

I wish I could say that this type of unfair gender-stereotyping was rare or unusual, but I can’t. The fact is that most organisations working in the field, both government and non-government, are just as biased. Their web pages, their helplines, and their brochures and PR material, all relentlessly drive home a message of men as perpetrators and women as their victims. I provide a few examples of this in other posts within my blog, such as this one.

One of the outcomes of this situation is that only a small number of men call seeking assistance and/or to report what is happening in their homes. I would further suggest that another outcome is the large number of suicides by men involved in situations of actual or alleged domestic violence.

Perversely, DV advocacy groups then use this fact (very small number of male callers versus female callers) to to ‘prove’ their claims that very few men are victims of domestic violence. They also use it as a basis for, for example, reducing the level of services provided for men whilst ramping up the services for women.

Men know full well that they won’t be taken seriously if they call these organisations, and that they may be accused of being perpetrators in denial. Many also know that even if they are given a sympathetic hearing then there are no actual support services available to them (e.g. beds in shelters). In fact, by and large, the only services provided for men are anger management classes (yet, ironically, no such classes are available for the women abusing them).

And invariably (and ridiculously) when anyone dares to question the status quo they are attacked on the basis that they are either ignorant, wilfully denying that women are victims of DV and/or uncaring about the plight of female victims.

But back now to DV Connect’s annual report. The financial statement included within the report informs us that the organisation’s total revenue in 2014 was $3,231,446. The statement does not provide a breakdown of their revenue sources, which is somewhat unusual. I have, however, subsequently been advised by the relevant agency that:

“DVConnect Ltd received $2,853,133 in 2013-2014 and $2,666,064 in 2012-2013 from the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to provide domestic and family violence and sexual assault support services.”

As is typical for the sector, the overwhelming bulk of DV Connect’s expenditure goes towards salaries and employee-related expenses:

“DVConnect now employs 54 staff including a small management and administration team and almost 50 counselling staff all of whom work varying shifts to cover our 7 day 24 hour telephone service.”

In May 2015 it was announced that “DV Connect will receive an extra $750,000 per year for two years, on top of existing funding ($3.17m in 2014/15) for services including counsellors to expand its Womensline telephone support service.”

This reddit.com discussion thread discusses the discriminatory nature of the Mensline service, and calls on people to write letters in an attempt to resolve this situation.

Further information about DV Connect is available from their web site and Facebook page

And elsewhere in Queensland?

Here are two screenshots from the web site of a Queensland Government agency. The wording assumes that any men seeking help in relation to domestic violence are perpetrators, and that any women seeking help are victims.

Unfortunately this bias is replicated in the web sites of other similar Australian government and non-government agencies. One example, involving a Western Australian government agency, is addressed in another post in my blog.

Postscript 27 March 2015: In order to provide further insight into the mindset within DV Connect, let me relay what just occurred. I contributed a comment to the Facebook page of DV Connect, in relation to an item about the release of the QLD Task Force report on family violence. I simply noted that I had prepared some comments on the report and included a link to the relevant page (refer screensave below). By the next morning the comment that I posted had been removed from public view. It seems that DV Connect wants to prevent their supporters accessing alternative perspectives. That looks a lot like ‘controlling behaviour’ to me.

To the left is what I see when I visit DV Connect’s page whilst logged-in to my Facebook account. The screen-save below shows what is visible to members of the public, i.e. no comments

Postscript 14 April 2015: Further censorship with the removal of my comment in response to an inaccurate statement in the DV Connect web site. I simply cited the relevant ABS statistic, but I guess the reality that men face more violence than women was just too triggering.

On 11 September 2015 Di Mangan was quoted as saying that they couldn’t justify running the Mens Helpline on a 24 hour basis as so few calls were being received. Gee, I wonder why?

Fast forwarding now to January 2016 and along comes another advertorial for DV Connect, naturally with male victims & female perps air-brushed out of the picture.

This January 2016 article includes the following quote from the CEO of DV Connect:

“Mangan said abusive men were “emboldened” by the public murders that shook Queensland in 2015, noting that many of the calls received by DV Connect were from men warning that they wanted to harm their partners. Some of the men wanted help while others were calling to make a threat.”

In November 2017, the Courier-Mail published ‘DV Connect chief executive Diane Mangan axed from role amid dispute‘. I’d like to think this move was about improving efficiency & accountability, rather than just personalities, but have little faith in either of the parties involved.

The sort of gender discrimination practiced by DV Connect has been discontinued in one part of the United Kingdom as described in this November 2017 article by HEquel.

Postscript 3 May 2020: ‘Inside the Men’s Referral Service, a call centre dealing with Australia’s abusive men and domestic violence‘. Gender-biased fruit off the same tree?

Postscript 6 May 2020: This video concerns a UK example of gender-biased caller-screening

Postscript 6 March 2022: This form of anti-male gender-bigotry is now VIC government policy

“I’m proud to announce the Palaszczuk Government is providing additional funding of $2 million to DVConnect to keep up with the high demand” said Shannon Fentiman (3 August 2022).

Postscript 18 January 2023: Family violence perpetrator focused screening and risk assessment: identifying current practice and future opportunities. A Monash Uni study. According to this Tweet, the issue of screening women was also addressed, but I am yet to find any reference to this issue in the papers I’ve read (?)

DV Connect left more than 10,000 calls unanswered in three-month period, investigation finds (8 August 2025)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in these posts:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

My submission to the Premier’s Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland

My response to the report of the Queensland Task Force on Family Violence

Ms. Annastacia Palaszczuk MP
Premier of Queensland and Minister for the Arts

Dear Premier

As you are aware, the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence released its report entitled ‘Not Now Not Ever’ on 28 February 2015. I am one of many people who earlier contributed a submission for consideration by the Task Force. I have now reviewed the Task Force’s report and wish to provide you with my thoughts on it.

Firstly some general observations

My first impression of the report was favourable in that its tone was generally inclusive and gender neutral in comparison to the more overt anti-male bias of many other reports regarding domestic violence (DV), such as The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2010-2022. The weakness of the Bryce report though was that the words were not followed-up with conclusions and recommendations when it came to the issue of female perpetration and male victimisation. In addition, there were many things left unsaid in relation to these aspects of DV that should have been addressed.

No mention was made in the report of the extent of anti-male bias in the pre-existing debate concerning DV, nor for example of the corresponding lack of resources devoted to male victims. Likewise no mention was made of the puzzling lack of family violence perpetrator intervention initiatives provided for violent or abusive women.

The report continues the trend of earlier reports in that it features an inflated emphasis and reliance on communication/education/awareness programs, without properly justifying what had been achieved to date – nor what gains might be predicted in the future. This is confusing as the problem does not seem to be that people are unaware of domestic violence, as was confirmed in the focus groups. How and why will more “awareness” result in lower rates of perpetration? Has this been achieved in Australia? In any other countries? Indeed no effort was made to detail the full extent of previous expenditure in this area, either absolutely or relative to total government expenditure related to DV.

The fact that a document word search of the Task Force’s report, using the terms ‘male survivor’ ‘male victim’ or ‘female perpetrator’, returned no results is indicative of the extent of gender bias present therein.

I am curious as to why copies of public submissions were not made available online (except of course those people who sought anonymity). Publishing submissions, as for example occurred with the federal Senate Inquiry, would have been consistent with the desire for awareness raising advanced in the report. I have no doubt that there would have been many submissions lodged that, like my own, challenged the dominant feminist narrative regarding DV. It is of concern that no extracts/quotes from such submissions featured within the body of the report, and that all of the references cited were written by those adopting and promoting a pro-feminist perspective. It appears, for all intents and purposes, that all such submissions were simply swept aside.

There is a major anomaly in that no ’round table’ was held with members of mens/fathers groups, yet special meetings were held with (for example) members of the Indian and African communities? This despite the fact that the need to involve men was stressed within the body of the report, and that men comprise a substantial number of the victims of DV.

It was pleasing to see that the LGBTI community was included in the discussion, as was the issue of elder abuse. Given the latter however I am unclear why (non-sexual) child abuse that occurred in the home was not also discussed in the report. Was this decision made because the pattern of perpetration was at odds with the dominant feminist narrative?

Comments in relation to specific matters raised in the report

Foreword: “Today there are more than 300 women’s refuges around Australia and there have been many advances in the past 40 years in how we deal with domestic abuse”

Why was there no mention of how many beds in refuges are currently available for men?

“It is through listening, sharing and understanding the experiences of those subjected to abuse and violence that we can start to understand how we can put an end to violence, and the action that must be taken.”

And yet no serious effort was made in the report to listen to and understand the circumstances of male victims, and men generally.

Executive Summary: “On average, across Australia, one woman is killed by her partner every week.” (p6)

Why was no mention made of the corresponding number of male victims?

“Initiatives such as White Ribbon (a male-led campaign) and Australia’s CEO Challenge (a workplace domestic violence prevention program) are driving campaigns to break the silence surrounding domestic and family violence.”

Yet no attempt was made to quantify the extent to which rates of perpetration have been affected. Does simply “breaking the silence” actually help survivors? Especially when the ‘awareness’ campaign relentlessly drive home a gender-biased and blame-ridden message of ‘men are violent/women are their victims’?

“The majority of people who experience domestic and family violence in Queensland are women. This is not to say that women cannot be the perpetrators of fear and violence upon male victims.”

On a positive note it was pleasing to see that the Task Force did not follow suit and use the misleading phrase “overwhelming majority” as has featured in many other similar reports.

“Men can be and are victims of violence and coercive control, and are victims of domestic and family violence homicides. Any domestic and family violence, regardless of who the victim and perpetrator are, is unacceptable.”

It transpired that this is/was essentially the report’s sole concession to specifically recognising the existence of male victims and their right to be heard and to receive support.

“The Taskforce recommends that Government commission specific reviews into the impacts of domestic and family violence for two targeted vulnerable groups – people with a disability and the elderly. There is a distinct lack of sound and helpful evidence on the impact of domestic and family violence for these two groups, and the Taskforce strongly believes that more is needed to understand the needs and dynamics of elderly and disabled victims”.

The inclusion of these two groups is to be applauded, but men should also have been included and discussed as an at-risk minority for the same reasons as given for including the other minority victim groups.

“The attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of individuals and communities can and do create a culture that justifies, excuses, perhaps trivialises or even condones or encourages domestic violence.”

I disagree with this assessment. Later in the report the Task Force offers, as its sole supporting evidence, the findings of a national survey that did not even bother to ask questions about the community’s views about violence towards men. Thus its findings were compromised by the lack of statistical context or any valid point of comparison.

(p8) “Culture and attitudes affect the ability of victims to report violence and seek help, and influence the willingness of the community to hold perpetrators to account. It affects the behaviour of the professionals within our police, justice, welfare and service-provider systems when called on to deal with and respond to domestic and family violence. Importantly, culture and attitudes inform and influence the decisions of bystanders to either intervene or ignore incidents of domestic and family violence.”

This is highly applicable to the situation of male victims yet no mention was made of them in this regard – a further reason why men should have been included as an at risk minority and consulted with via a separate round-table meeting.

(p12) “Leaving a violent partner or home situation is a difficult step for a victim. If a victim does not know where to go, or does not feel understood or supported by a service, or worse, if there is no service for the particular need, the victim may return to the violence and not try to leave again. Compassionate, coordinated responses provide much needed support to victims trying to leave and will ensure greater success than disjointed and disengaged services can.”

It would have been highly relevant to note here the fact that many helplines and related web pages pointedly assume that male callers are perpetrators and female callers are victims. All such information, and such services, should be made non-judgemental and gender neutral.

(p13) “Much of the focus in this report and elsewhere is placed on victims, but cultural change needs to happen to stop perpetrators from using violence and coercive control in their relationships. Any integrated service response must include programs to address perpetrator behaviour and hold perpetrators to account”.

Why was no mention made of the need for perpetrator programs for violent women? There is a cultural problem with the community ‘looking the other way’ in relation to abusive women and the Task Force report only perpetuates that situation.

No male perspectives were provided in section 3, and Section 3.3 made no mention of the mens/fathers rights perspective put forward in any of the submissions. This section of the report was given over to advancing one ideology, and one alone, that being gender feminism.

(p105) “Training and games provide opportunities to engage boys and men in conversations and actions around understanding domestic and family violence, without the involvement of women and in a traditional or stereotyped ‘masculine’ environment. Just starting the conversations will make significant steps toward changing attitudes and behaviours.”

This implies that men/boys are the problem and/or that girls don’t play sport, and/or that sporting venues constitute a “a traditional or stereotyped ‘masculine’ environment”. This is inaccurate, unhelpful, and simply conforming to dated stereotypes. Why not have the same program for girls/women? Why could this not have been written as:

‘Training and games provide opportunities to engage adults and children in conversations and actions around understanding domestic and family violence, without the involvement of members of the opposite gender’

(p142) “Further, in the National Crime Prevention Survey, one in four young Australians admitted having witnessed physical domestic violence against their mother and/or step-mother”.

It would have been more appropriate to report that ‘23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather’ (Source)

(p151) “Alarmingly, the most recent national survey about community attitudes towards violence against women revealed that significant numbers of Australians believe there are circumstances in which violence can be excused. More than 1 in 5 agreed that partner violence can be excused if the person is genuinely regretful afterward (21%) or if they temporarily lost control (22%). These statistics are disturbing and indicate attitudes that trivialise violence by suggesting that violence against a partner can be excused. There is no excuse for domestic and family violence”.

It should have been noted that this survey did not ask about community attitudes towards violence towards men, thus there is no context in which the results may be interpreted. If the surveyors had bothered to ask about men, they might well have found that the community was even more complacent about violence towards men than women. This is not to suggest that any such complacency is good/better, but rather that the issue is one of social attitudes towards violence generally rather than sexism towards women.

(p152) Both Our Watch and White Ribbon ignore female perpetration of violence. There are other groups working in the field that hold a different perspective. Why was no mention made, for example, of the One in Three organisation?

(p154) “We will only achieve long-term and lasting change if we address the causes of domestic violence. International evidence shows the causes are complex – unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women, rigid or narrow gender roles and stereotypes, and a culture and attitudes that support violence”

The two references cited to support this assertion were written by a hardline feminist researcher and a feminist advocacy group. Feminists rely heavily on a theory known as the ‘Duluth Model’ in their approach to DV. Whether or not the factors they mention are, in fact, the primary “contributing factors” is highly debatable. Alternative perspectives should have been provided in this section of the report, in order to provide a more thorough and more balanced coverage of the topic. An example of an alternative perspective worthy of consideration is presented in this article.

(p155) “The most recent data released from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in August 2014 shows a widening of the wages gap between men and women in Australia with women currently earning 18.2% less than men.”

This is an average figure for all men and all women and cannot and should not be extrapolated as an indicator of gender bias or discrimination. The so-called gender gap is a complex issue and one that is routinely misrepresented by feminist advocacy groups

(p156 and again at p162-167) “There appears to be a significant gap between an individual’s belief that the violence is wrong, and the willingness to talk about the violence or take action to do something about it.”

It would have been relevant to note that this gap is greater in the case of people witnessing a man being assaulted than in the case of a woman

(p159-160) Mention should have been made of the fact that the media focuses overwhelmingly on male-perpetrated domestic violence, and on promoting a view that only men are responsible for such behaviour. This mirrors the message disseminated in most existing education/awareness campaigns such as those mentioned in the Task Force’s report.

(p171) “It is crucial for men to show leadership in the community in their actions to prevent domestic violence and to address the social and cultural causes of domestic violence. It is also important for them to demonstrate the value of healthy and respectful relationships.” Surely the same could, and in fact should, be said about women? Why wasn’t it?

(p173) The White Ribbon ‘breaking the silence’ campaign has been criticized for only focussing on the responsibilities of boys to treat members of the other gender with respect. It basically shames boys for being male and let’s girls ‘off the hook’ entirely in terms of how they act towards boys. This is not gender equality, it is gender bias or sexism.

(p176-179) This section is unbalanced and excessively influenced by feminist ideology. It absolves women of any responsibility whilst pushing all responsibility onto men (despite the fact that it admits that few men commit violence against their partners)

“Domestic violence is a men’s issue because their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends are being harmed. We know that most men do not commit violent acts in the home, however their attitudes are pivotal to accountability and responsibility for that violence because the majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men.”

Instead of that wording, why not this version instead?

Domestic violence is a women’s issue because their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons and friends are being harmed. We know that most women do not commit violent acts in the home, however their attitudes are pivotal to accountability and responsibility for that violence because a substantial proportion of violence against men is perpetrated by women.

Women must also challenge violence committed by other women!

Some further revised wording for the Government’s consideration:

‘There are three key forms of action that people can take in helping to reduce and prevent intimate partner violence:

Avoiding the personal use of violence against their partner
Intervening in the violence of other people
Addressing the social and cultural causes of violence’

(p235) “Currently, there are 14 services funded by the Queensland Government to provide perpetrator intervention initiatives for the following regions: Townsville; Mount Isa; Gold Coast; Murgon; Toowoomba; Rockhampton; Brisbane; Cairns; Roma; Maroochydore; Ipswich; and Logan. In addition, there are two services funded by the Commonwealth”.

How many of these cater for violent women? Any of them? Surely this is relevant to the discussion?

Comments in relation to the Task Force’s recommendations

17. It was most pleasing to note that the monitoring and evaluation of programs was identified as a priority area

18-23. These recommendations demonstrate an excessive emphasis/reliance on communications. How will this help? Apart from just sounding good? No clear nexus between spending money here and actually fixing the problem

24-29. It should have been made clear that such programs should be aimed at both boys and girls (re: respecting the other gender) and not simply a platform for anti-male messaging.

Why was there no suggestion of using female role models? This goes against the general thrust of the report, and implies that it is only male behaviour that is the problem, and that no effort/adjustment is needed on the part of women/girls

31-37. The recommendations in relation to domestic violence leave should have clearly identified that both men and women would be eligible for such leave

67-70. The names of alleged perpetrators and victims should be protected to the same extent. If the victim’s name is withheld until such time as a conviction is recorded, then so to should the alleged perpetrators name be protected from publication

“… reviews and updates the Professional Practice Standards: Working with men who perpetrate domestic and family violence”.

To be consistent with the general thrust of the report it would have been desirable to have this document reviewed and re-launched as Professional Practice Standards: Working with PEOPLE who perpetrate domestic and family violence OR have a separate document written for female perpetrators. To do otherwise is simply to unquestioningly accept an unacceptable and gender-biased status quo.

84-88. Why was no mention made of the existing supply of and demand for shelter beds for male victims?

96-98. Why was no mention made of the fact that this type of specialist court has just been de-funded by the WA Government as they were found to be counter-productive? (Source)

Conclusion

The continued focus on the feminist perspective towards domestic violence, and the exclusion of other perspectives that are equally or perhaps even more valid, is deeply troubling.

Mens violence towards women is a very important issue, but at the same time we must remain mindful of the fact that it is but one component part of a bigger issue. Everyone is important and we need to focus on achieving a reduction in violence to adults and children whether they be male, female or transgender.

I believe that real gains will elude us until such time that we adopt a holistic, practical and non-ideological approach to this most pressing and complex social problem.

Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

I spent some time the other day browsing content within the ‘Facebook page of Domestic Violence NSW’. As a first-time visitor I was somewhat taken aback at the extent of anti-male and pro-feminist bias evident in the material posted there.

By way of background, Domestic Violence NSW is a Sydney-based charity that received over $6 million in government funding in the period August 2013 – August 2014.

During my visit I submitted a review of their site, noting that:

“When people google your organisation this is what they read: “Domestic Violence information site for Australian mothers seeking to leave abusive relationships, including contact details for various help services.” Yet when they arrive at your home page the message stated is that ‘domestic violence can happen to anyone, any gender, etc…’

My question is then, if you recognise male victims of domestic violence then why not amend the google summary to be consistent? ie. “information site for Australians seeking to leave abusive relationships…” The only reason to not do so would appear to be a desire to appease the feminists who seem to control the DV ‘debate’ in this country. Please consider and respect both sexes”.

At the same time I submitted that review, I contributed three comments in response to various items posted in the timeline. Whilst the review remained in place for a couple of days (I’m guessing they took a while to notice it), my comments disappeared within hours.

DV NSW then blocked me from making further posts on their Facebook page, and lodged a complaint with Facebook admin. Both of these moves are recognised as common feminist tactics used to try to silence those with whom they disagree.

I saw no evidence of dissenting views posted by others, and from that I assume that the timeline is regularly sanitised as is often the case with online feminist forums.

My crime? My crime was simply to put forward a view at odds with the material posted in the timeline. I can assure readers that my comments were quite cordial and offered free of malice, the most offensive terms included therein probably being “male victims” and “female perpetrators”.

Domestic Violence NSW forwarded this message:

“Hi Chris, All content DVNSW posts comes from credible media sources, using statistical information gathered by that source. We CLEARLY use descriptors when posting content that is an opinion or editorial. DVNSW does not prescribe to these opinions, we simply post the content. Our media monitors capture the daily media involving domestic and family violence and we share articles that meet our policy guidelines.

The issue with your post is that a) it comes from a source outside of Australia, which means it is not drawn from our ABS data collected here and b) it does not contain credible sources of information and references.

If you’d like to read about male victims of domestic violence, we would suggest looking into the work of Dr Michael Flood. He is well researched and knowledgable in this area and highly respected within our Australian context.”

I wrote back seeking clarification:

“I’m afraid I’m a little confused as to how I have infringed your posting guidelines. Your message refers to my post, but it would appear that you have removed several of my posts from your timeline. As far as I recall only one of my posts included a hyperlink, and that was linking to an Australian blog. That blog page did in turn include further links to a variety of sources, most if not all of which I would categorize as “credible”.

As I clearly have an interest in the subject and will no doubt visit your page again, I would like to better understand the nature of your concerns. Would you mind providing copies of the posts that you removed, in each case identifying the offending elements of each? Many thanks for your assistance. Chris

PS: I am aware of Mr Flood’s work and I regret to inform you that, outside of feminist circles, he is anything but “highly regarded”.

I’ll post their reply here should I receive one, but I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Postscript (later the same day): Oh (massive facepalm) this reaction is either juvenile beyond belief … or indicative of a generous measure of paranoia. Upon visiting the Twitter stream of Domestic Violence NSW I was alerted to the following announcement:

Dear followers,
Sadly we have become aware that our Facebook page is currently being targeted by troll groups who remain highly opposed to our exposure of latest boosts in media surrounding the current, credible statistics concerning the death rate of people (the majority women and children) from domestic and family violence this year and last. We are aware that these individuals are creating fake profiles and recruiting others to attack our page with spam from a particular mens rights website. As such, whilst we investigate this and proceed with a course of action, we are regrettably restricting all comments on our posts. We are incredibly disappointed by having to do this as we love your interaction and support of awareness and changing the culture that exists around Domestic and Family violence.
We have made this choice for several reasons, these are;
1. These individuals are posting links to websites and media that we believe could trigger and distress many of our audience who have had experience living with violence. We do not wish to risk the health and safety of any of our supporters.
2. Our media is unable to be monitored 24/7 and it is monitored by staff members, thus making it a work environment. As we would never allow our staff to work in an unsafe work environment, we feel that this content is inappropriate for staff members to have to work around.
3. We feel that whilst we investigate this behaviour, and possible breaches in legislation, we can actively end this continuing further and reach out to those who feel this behaviour is appropriate.
Please note: WE WILL STILL BE POSTING MEDIA AND THIS WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHARED BY YOU.
We can assure you we are still able to be contacted whenever necessary and you can contact us via the information on our website: www.dvnsw.org.au/html/contact.htm and we encourage you to do so.
We will aim to enable comments again ASAP and we thank you all for your continued support.
We all have a right to be heard and to present diverse opinions when this is done respectfully and with maturity.
Thank you and please be kind to one another.
The DVNSW Team

Assuming this is not droll humour, I’m embarrassed for these people.

Feminists reject the term ‘victim’ in favour of ‘survivor’. And yet dismissing those with alternative perspectives as trolls, and concealing or misrepresenting their message, embodies the very essence of perpetual victimhood. It is the behaviour one might expect from infantilized, narcissistic sissie-girls.

Those who are so invested in equality could begin by extending equality to others. You value inclusiveness? Then include others. You want to fashion meaningful reform directed towards achieving real social justice? Come back to the table when you’re ready to act like grown-ups.

Postscript 16 March 2015: A couple of days after DV NSW deleted my posts they inserted a statement in their timeline saying that they supported all victims of domestic violence (pictured). They also inserted a couple of posts about male victims and one about a girl bashed by her mum. In and of itself that’s a good thing, but I suspect it was done more ‘for show’ than to demonstrate real commitment to gender equality.

I also happened across an interesting post online which immediately struck a cord given that it mirrored my own experience with DV NSW:

“The fact is the people pushing this notion that Family Violence is a gendered issue know full well they are lying. I used to believe they were misguided or ill informed but I have had a couple of personal dealings with groups running online support and fundraising for the female victims of domestic violence. When I questioned them and presented some facts in a very polite, respectful manner, the same two things happened on three occasions. 1. My comments were deleted. 2. An article on male victims of DV was posted with a statement reminding everyone that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. When I scrolled down their page I discovered this was the only mention anywhere on their page of male victims. They only put up that one because they want to cover their arses in case another informed reader questioned their bigotry.” (Source – See comment from Mark Mooroolbark)

I posted a brief response noting my experience with DV NSW, and then things got even more interesting when Mark replied to me in the following manner:

“That is one of the mobs I was referring to! Just this week I wrote a polite comment on their Facebook page and someone responded with that false statistic that DV is the leading cause of death and disability in women between the ages of 15 and 49. I responded by simply stating that this was not correct and listed the five leading causes of death and disability before adding a few more points-all reasonable and polite. I returned to find my comments deleted and a post explaining that due to trolling from a Men’s Right Group they are blocking all comments -they said the women monitoring the site may feel unsafe and that the comments posted were disrespectful, immature etc…

I was so angry that I immediately wrote to Moo Baulch the CEO of the Domestic Violence NSW organisation stating exactly what happened and asking for an explanation. She responded to my email and said she would ring me sometime this week. If the call ever takes place it will be interesting to hear her defence of this censorship”.

Could it be that DV NSW interpreted two individuals independently offering feedback on DV NSW’s priorities as constituting a targeted attack by “troll groups“? Could they really be that stupid or delusional? What do you think?

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia (26 February 2016) Moo Baulch equates parliamentary debate regarding the value and appropriateness of a feminist-supported program in schools to “state-sanctioned hate speech“.

Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates? (11 June 2015)

A most informative Powerpoint presentation on the nature and treatment of paranoia (Come on ladies, it can’t hurt you just to have a look at this)

The CEO of Domestic Violence NSW, Moo Baulch, is quoted in this article indicating her resistance to free and open discussion of domestic violence, and criticizing the nature of statistics provided by the Police.

As one reader subsequently observed:

“Interesting how bigots like Jenna Price bemoan the ‘lack of context’ and a ‘proper breakdown of the statistics’ when the greatest concern most non feminists have about feminists is their complete and utter disregard for context and the the proper representation of statistics. In fact, it is feminists who are the greatest abusers of ‘statistics’ through misrepresentation.”

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy

Footnote: DV NSW Annual Report 2022/23

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

Dubious public policy borne from the denial of female violence

Whilst browsing the daily news I came across an article entitled Domestic violence register to protect women who fear their partners’ past (6 March 2015)

(If you haven’t already read my blog post about violent behaviour by women, then now would be a good time to do so)

Mike Baird (Premier of New South Wales, Australia) has proposed the establishment of a register of violent men. The intention is that potential female partners can check to see if their ‘person of interest’ has a track-record of abuse.

Mike’s proposal is based on a system now operating in the United Kingdom, known as Clare’s Law. Thus far I have been unable to locate any serious analysis of the efficacy of the UK system. The Premier has promised to introduce the system if re-elected. Has his staff determined that the proposed system would be likely to be effective? To be cost-effective? Does he really care? Or is the perceived potential for electoral mileage sufficient to justify a scheme that will no doubt involve a considerable outlay of taxpayer dollars?

“It is understood the list will first be made up only of men convicted of a charge of domestic assault, but the government will consider extending this to men who are the subject of an ADVO after consultation with the Justice Department.

Safeguards will be put in place so that people asking if someone is on the register have to prove they are in a domestic relationship.”

At this stage the operational details are unclear and many questions remain unanswered. For example:

How would women prove that they are in a relationship with the man in question?

What measures would be taken to prevent men being listed on the basis of false allegations?

How much will the register cost to establish and maintain, and will such a service significantly affect the rates of perpetration of domestic violence? Or will it, in fact, make any difference at all?

It is of concern that a political leader would contemplate such a ‘service’ without thought being given to the fairness and desirability of including violent women. That this fellow has done so demonstrates just how far under the spell of feminism our leaders seem to have fallen. And unfortunately the NSW opposition party offers the community no better alternative in this regard.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it reinforces the negative and inaccurate stereotype that domestic violence consists entirely of men abusing women, and that women do not perpetrate violence.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it denies to men whatever limited protection the register might provide to women.

It may well be that after Mike’s proposal has been subject to proper analysis and consultation, it will be found to be non-viable. If it is to proceed, however, then the records of everyone with a history of violence must be made accessible.

“Premier Mike Baird and Minister for Women Pru Goward said the groundbreaking registry, announced on Friday, would be set up if they win the state election on March 28. “Quite frankly, I’m sick of excuses,” Mr Baird said“.

Well quite frankly I’m sick of politicians pandering to the feminist movement by diverting millions of dollars of public funds each year to feminist NGO’s like these. Feminists whose voices, by the way, now represent only a small minority of Australian women.

My concerns would be mitigated if, at the end of the day, there were clear benefits for the Australian community. More often than not, however, the outcome is one that sees the Government achieve very little with regard to the problem/s that they originally claimed they set out to address. Conversely, the collateral damage and the wasted opportunities that result from such a course of action are not inconsequential. No matter, the next news cycle will no doubt provide some convenient diversion.

Update 2 April 2015: Mike Baird was re-elected and has now appointed feminist Pru Goward as the first ever ‘Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’

Update 22 May 2015: The NSW Government has released a discussion paper on the DV register concept. The receipt of public submissions in relation to this document ended on 19 June 2015. I provided a submission noting, amongst other things, my concern that the discussion paper did not explicitly state that both men and women were to be included in the register.

Update 15 February 2019: Violent offenders on GPS trackers to lower domestic violence in Australia (15 February 2019) A tech-ed up variation on the register concept – but will it make any difference in terms of decreasing the incidence of DV?

Update 23 January 2023: NSW women and men will be able to check partner’s violence history online with disclosure scheme. Video of news item here. Here we go again #FacePalm

Update 25 January 2023: New domestic violence scheme is a quick fix for a massive issue. Zero mention of female perpetrators or male victims, but they happily predict that there needs to be “resourcing the specialist domestic violence sector to provide critical referrals and support to victim-survivors engaging with the scheme”. You can almost hear all those feminist hands rubbing together.

Domestic Violence Disclosure Schemes: A National Review, by Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre (June 2023)

Writer named in controversial ‘media men’ list wins round in court (4 January 2022) Relates to USA feminist writer, Moira Donegan, who later featured in coverage of the Depp-Heard court case (example).

And now a dating app that allegedly screens out dangerous men (20 December 2021) with a further reference here.

250 South Australians use Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme to check on abusive partners (10 October 2019)

The secret Facebook groups where women shame their exes (22 August 2019) UK

Queensland ‘initiative’ referred to here as an ‘Alternative Reporting Option’ (June 2018) I would imagine that there would be plenty of scope for abuse here

UK experience of domestic violence disclosure schemes is a cautionary tale for Australia (12 October 2016)

Violent offenders registers sound good, but are a costly, unproven distraction (8 July 2015)

Police call for family violence offender register (1 July 2015)

Is Michigan’s sex offender registry actually protecting us? (26 May 2015)

Early warning scheme for domestic violence (21 May 2015)

NSW domestic violence register to expose potential abusers (20 May 2015)

Put DV abusers on national register (14 March 2015) Features some interesting readers comments. The author, Wendy Tuohy, claims that the register will include violent women but I have been unable to obtain official confirmation of this. Even Mike Baird’s original media release is quite ambiguous on this point.

NSW state election 2015: Mike Baird beefs up domestic violence and sexual assault laws (6 March 2015)

Domestic violence register could lead to increased not guilty pleas, privacy experts warn (6 March 2015)

Video item on the proposal as featured in the ‘Sunrise’ TV show which has generated a large number of viewer comments with a definite majority being supportive of the inclusion of violent women on the register

Domestic violence register won’t work: ALP (6 March 2015)

Sex offender registers often get raised in conversations about domestic violence registers – so here is an article on that topic: Sex Offender Registries (SOR’s): Time for a change (16 August 2014)

Clare’s Law: a violation of our private lives (28 November 2013)

Now people can be told of their partner’s violent past thanks to new law named after tragic murder victim (8 March 2014)

Clare’s Law: a simple solution, or more confusion? (25 November 2013)

Epidemic of Restraining / Protection Order Abuse by women against innocent men (31 July 2013) USA

Baird promises domestic violence minister (6 March 2015) Google ‘affectatious‘. How about a Minister for Road Safety? Minister for Prevention of Substance Abuse?

When even the Prime Minister’s office imposes pro-feminist censorship …

On 4 March 2015 staff of the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, uploaded this post to his Facebook page. It was all about Tony pledging his support to the pro-feminist #HeforShe campaign which I discuss here.

I then contributed my own thoughts on the matter. Oh, wait you can’t see anything. That’s because the site administrator filtered it out of the timeline. I assume this was because he/she is either pro-feminist, or anti-MRA, or both. I can’t think of any other reason, for example, there is no profanity in my post. It was not due to my post containing a hyperlink (many other visible posts include hyperlinks), and I note that there are some fairly strident pro-feminist posts left visible.

Anyway, after I logged into my account, there was my post (visible in the second screen save), just below the post by Henry Poulsen.

That, folks is what you call ideological censorship. Whereas the office of the Prime Minister should be right at the forefront of protecting our democratic right to self-expression, here they are seen to be inhabiting a very different place.

Yet another of the tremendous advances achieved by the feminist movement.

#sarcasm

Malcolm Turnbull (then Minister for Communications) uploaded a very similar post onto his Facebook page on 2 March, and I provided the same response. It’s pleasing to note that in his case my post was not removed.

Ah, but then in September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull was appointed Prime Minister, and guess who suddenly fell into lockstep with the feminist lobby?

“The PM told Today’s Lisa Wilkinson that “the issue of family violence, or domestic violence as it’s often called – which is just violence against women, which is the way I prefer to describe it – is an enormous one.” (Source)

No Malcolm, domestic violence is emphatically not “just violence against women”.

On 24 September 2015 the Prime Minister announced a huge swathe of public funding to address the issue of domestic violence. Here is the media release … you will see that public comments are enabled. That’s great, but unfortunately once the tide of comments turned against the Prime Minister’s position, the moderator stopped uploading all contributed comments (no matter how civil they were).

In the screen-save provided below (from my Disqus account) you can see a number of posts marked “pending”. Thus rather than deleting comments, the moderator simply didn’t approve/upload those critical of the Prime Minister’s approach.

George Brandis declines opportunity to address bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission

I have detailed my concerns about the level of bias reflected in the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission elsewhere in this blog. On 11 December 2014, I sent an email to the Hon George Brandis QC, Attorney-General, Minister for the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate sharing my concerns and seeking his support:

“I write to you in your capacity as Attorney-General in which you are tasked with the oversight of the operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

I am deeply concerned about what I perceive to be the application of biased and inappropriate priorities with regards to, in particular, the Commission’s role in addressing gender discrimination. I have detailed these concerns in the following blog post:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/promulgating-inequality/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

I believe that this situation may require your intervention in order to ease the Commission back onto the correct track – one that sees a heightened emphasis on striving for true gender equality and with a corresponding scaling back of the emphasis placed on pursuing the ideology of gender feminism.

I would consequently appreciate you reading the linked paper and providing me with your views in relation to the matters raised therein.”

On 2 March 2015, after a further approach from me, I received the following reply:

“Thank you for your email of 11 December 2014 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, concerning the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Attorney-General has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

I have noted your comments in relation to Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick and the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission was established under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to conciliate complaints of discrimination and provide advice to the Government on human rights issues. The Commission falls within the Attorney General’s portfolio responsibility, but it is independent from the Government.

The Australian Government supports the important role that the Commission plays in protecting and promoting human rights in Australia. That does not mean that the Government necessarily agrees with all the statements made by Commissioners, who do not speak for the Government in performing their functions. Commissioner Broderick is free to express her views, as all Australians are free to express their opinions.

If you have concerns that you wish to raise about the operations of the Australian Human Rights Commission or any of its Commissioners, you may raise these directly with the President of the Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs. Professor Triggs’ address is:

Professor Gillian Triggs President Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001

The Attorney-General cannot intervene in the Commission’s handling of individual queries or complaints.

Thank you for taking the time to write about your concerns.”

Senator Brandis’ inaction is unfortunate but perhaps understandable given the currently torturous interaction between the Government and the AHRC, as detailed in the following articles:

‘A fatal perception of bias’: George Brandis admits he asked Gillian Triggs to resign (24 February 2015)

Human Rights Commission and Gillian Triggs not above reproach (27 February 2015)

Row involving Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs puts careers on the line (28 February 2015)

Opinion: Human Rights boss should be the last to cast the stone in relation to child protection (1 March 2015)

These recent developments involving Ms. Broderick’s boss suggest an entrenched culture within the Commission whereby it has become accepted that AHRC priorities shall be determined by political and ideological bias rather than on the basis of statutory responsibility alone.

** UPDATE: VIEW AND SIGN MY PETITION HERE **

ABC Q&A program highlights gender inequality in the domestic violence debate

Click here for details of the ABC Q&A program – entitled The Family Violence Special – that went to air on 23 February 2015.

Feminists and their white knight allies raved about the Q&A program, unsurprising given that it was tailor-made for the feminist palate. I found it’s tone and content entirely predictable, and its contribution to the domestic violence debate largely unhelpful. The program’s focus – heterosexual men battering heterosexual women – was so narrow (in terms of the actual breadth of family violence – that it would have been more accurate to call it ‘The Violent Men Beating on Women Special‘.

A great deal of fuss was made about the fact there was a male compere and three men on the panel, but it did not make a lick of difference in terms of either the nature of material addressed and the manner in which it was addressed. The most significant thing about the gender balance of the panel was the revelation that ABC had pointedly turned down Dr Elizabeth Celi as a panellist. The details behind that move are addressed in Bill O’Chee’s article (linked below).

I just read the sentence below earlier today and, while it’s not specifically about domestic violence, it did remind me a lot of the Q&A program:

“The opposite of compassion is not hatred,” wrote one Florida prisoner, describing the violence he’d endured. “It’s indifference.” (Source)

ABC TV Q&A Family Violence Special – Question from Male Victim (24 February 2015) Video

Comment from Darne Blaik in the OneInThree Facebook page (24 February 2015):

“As a member of last night’s audience and I sat right behind Mr Coe I went home devastated as I realised the gender inequality within the DEBATE of DV is worse than I had originally anticipated. I left in silence and shock as I realised the when it comes to male victims of DV … they have no voice.

The rudeness displayed by the women in the audience towards Mr Coe particularly directly in front if him was disturbing, palpable and audible denigrating of this man’s experience could be heard. The notable agitation shown by Natasha was clearly evident and appalling for a person in her position.

Furthermore I don’t believe that the greater society do believe that men should be ignored. From what I am hearing, most people want NO ONE TO SUFFER DV NOT JUST WOMEN so why do male victims not even get a voice in the discussion. No one doubts that they are in the minority (but I would argue more equal statistics if you only take into account emotional and mental abuse and take the sexuality and physicality out of the statistics) HOWEVER WHEN DID START IGNORING THE MINORITIES IN THIS COUNTRY??? It is just not good enough in our sophisticated society, we need to be a shining light in the discussion of this appalling worldwide phenomenon that is DV.”

In addition to the comments contained within the Q&A Facebook page and Twitter stream, I would suggest reviewing the reader’s comments that follow the articles listed below:

We need to speak out for all victims of family violence, by Roger Smith (2 March 2015) Good concise article with many valid readers comments

Q&A slammed on Twitter for choosing more men than women to discuss family violence (20 February 2015)

Q&A tackles “Family Violence”, by Greg Canning (22 February 2015)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/jessticulate/jessica-rudd-family-violence-not-about-gender-20150222-13lmwt.html (23 February 2015)

Rose Batty heads Q&A panel discussion on family violence (23 February 2015)

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/rosie-batty-launches-frank-and-heartbreaking-conversation-about-domestic-violence/story-fni6ulvf-1227236263041?from=google_rss (24 February 2015) with 235 reader’s comments

Q&A: Rosie Batty and Natasha Stott Despoja speak passionately on domestic violence (24 February 2015)

#NotAllMen Tweets Totally Slid Into Q&A’s Domestic Violence Special (24 February 2015)

Q&A domestic violence program ignored male victims, by Bill O’Chee (25 February 2015) Feminists should read and consider the comments that follow this article, comments like:

“Your comment makes me want to throw up. Not only am I a male victim of DV, I was also falsely accused of DV so that ‘SHE’could get an ouster order that effectively made me homeless and economically destitute. Because of HER committing DV, I lost my house and home, my business and income, my friends, cash, pets, car, and was introduced to the floor below the poverty line for a 2 year stint… I’m STILL here on this floor!!

My child under 3 (at the time) copped the biggest shock when HER greed and malevolence extended to the innocent and defenseless. The child’s outright rejection of HER as a mother had me playing defender from HER physical and psychological attacks with my child literally screaming “Don’t want mummy!” HER multiple, double digit bullying and harassment complaints against HER at HER work did nothing to convince he magistrate that something was very wrong as the court system swallowed HER lies, hook, line, and sinker and SHE played on societies expected role of her, the battered woman, when in reality, SHE is a rabid, sick werewolf dressed in Little Bo Peep clothing. A dangerous Narcissist by any standard.

The ease with which SHE has been able to manipulate the system, and lie successfully to the courts with breathtaking effectiveness, and the very keen willingness of police to accept HER “story” over mine for no other reason than I am male and here was violence involved, was a repugnant and contemptuous experience that no ‘person’ should have to go through. You should get your facts straight before posting such ignorant comments. Men ARE dying too, or didn’t you read that part? I’m not dead because of my child and my desire to fight this sexist idea that men are from hell.” ‘Roger’ (26 February 2015)

The ABC allows Feminists to use Q&A as a bully pulpit (1 March 2015)

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

Feminists. The things they do <facepalm>

I found out this afternoon that I had been blocked from a Twitter account – one belonging to an Australian journalist. The journalist in question is indeed a feminist, but by no means in the ‘barking mad’ misandrist league of Clementine Ford or Caitlin Roper, for example. Which makes her action all the more disconcerting.

I’m not sure how many others have blocked me from their Twitter accounts (and/or Facebook pages, etc), but there must be a few by now. Two that spring to mind are White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch, both of which are feminist advocacy groups.

Anyway, so there I was, reading a newly-minted article about domestic violence. More accurately, an article about that component of domestic violence involving male perpetrators and female victims. I posted a reader’s comment which failed to appear (other reader’s comments were uploaded). As I had some issues with both the article and certain comments that followed it, I sallied forth looking for another outlet through which to express myself. I turned to Twitter only to be greeted with the following message:

Had I been bombarding the poor woman with dozens of tweets? Nope, just one actually. Well, it must have been particularly vicious! Judge for yourself (by the way, that tweet became the basis for this blog post)

I haven’t ever blocked anyone from Twitter, etc, but I can certainly understand others doing so in situations involving persistent unwanted messages/posts of a threatening or obscene nature. But what I am talking about here and now are situations that are far more benign. Situations where it is simply a matter of ‘I don’t like what you have to say so I am not going to share information or communicate with you in any way, shape or form. So there.’

I have never sent or posted a threatening, abusive or obscene message to anyone, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I choose not to, and I certainly don’t need to, in order to achieve what I am seeking to achieve.

My blog post about feminist censorship included the fitting observation that:

Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”.

That blog post also noted that, despite the very different perception that feminists seek to portray as reality, more men than women are subject to online abuse and bullying, and substantial number of women/girls are responsible for this type of activity. I also noted the increasingly common tactic of feminists lodging false or exaggerated complaints with the intention of having other people’s Facebook or Twitter accounts suspended.

Whether feminists are blocking people from posting to their Facebook pages, from interacting with them via Twitter, or adding a comment to their article or blog post (that is, when they allow any reader’s comments at all). I’ve got to ask … what’s the point?

I guess it all comes back to the question of what are feminists trying to achieve via publishing material online. Sharing and persuading with/to the broader community, or simply seeking a platform to propagandise to the converted and to gullible ingenues.

What do feminists hope to achieve by blocking out alternative perspectives and information at variance with their own stated claims? Do they not see any value in facilitating dialogue about gender issues? In being inclusive with regards to people who hold perspectives other than their own? Are feminists now so infantilized and imbued with victim-mentality that they see any disagreement as an attack?

I know. Call me biased. But the feminist response seems so juvenile, pointless and counter-productive.

Just … lame

Snap#1: Another feminist – @misskylie77 – just blocked me from her Twitter stream after I replied to one of her tweets (26 February 2015)

Snap#2: The organisation Domestic Violence NSW blocked me from posting to their Facebook page the very first time I posted there – and then employed another common feminist tactic by lodging a complaint against me with Facebook (12 March 2015)

Update 15 April 2015: Care to guess which feminist journalist ‘spat the dummy’ this morning and deleted ALL the readers comments (about a dozen of them) because not one of them supported her convoluted sexist perspective on violence in the community.

Footnote in relation to the following comment from the author of the article

DV-deniers? Really? Readers raised concerns about the fact you had built your case on a series of crimes in which none of the alleged perpetrators had yet been convicted. That’s not denial, simply fact. Readers raised concerns that you based your article on events within a period of just a few weeks, which could greatly misrepresent the reality over (say) twelve months. Again, not denial, just conventional wisdom in the realm of statistical analysis.

Readers also raised concerns that you had not provided any statistics in relation to the number of men killed by their female partners (or alleged to be killed by partners) during this period. And indeed, you admit that you had not researched that topic. Surely both the actual nature of the problem, and the most appropriate remedial action, might be quite different were similar numbers of men being killed?

It looks a lot like you didn’t research the issue and then form an opinion, but cobbled together a somewhat dubious statistic that supported your pre-existing conclusion.

In fact the only denials about DV that I am seeing in this and in so many other articles, involve feminists denying men’s right to raise legitimate concerns about ongoing anti-male sexism and misrepresentation. Denials in particular about both the extent of male DV victimization and the substantial and growing level of female perpetration of violence.

Blocked: Silencing the public opinion (19 February 2015)

Facing the challenge of online harassment (8 January 2015) Jacques Cuze, when discussing this article in the context of his concerns about feminist groups suppressing free speech, suggested that “Twitter (and other sites) should be transparent and specific about who is banned and why. Transparency in who is blocked or banned and why is a critical part of making sure anti-harassment strategies are not abused” (10 January 2015)

https://twitter.com/sammieaurora/status/562367980529795074

Readers might also be interested in reading this related post within my blog:

On the inability to cope with criticism in a mature manner (You disagree with me = You hate women)

Going Batty: The making of a champion of the domestic violence industry

I have absolutely nothing personal against Rosie Batty, and in fact as a parent myself I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who has lost a child under such horrific circumstances. Her tragic loss has provided her with a unique and potentially valuable insight, but it does not qualify her to direct public policy on dealing with domestic violence in the community. She is but one person affected by a scourge that has affected thousands of Australians.

This is a complex topic and we need to hear about, and be open to, the experiences and opinions of many others. We should also ensure that we consider different theoretical/ideological perspectives and not, as is done now, exclude serious consideration of all but one approach (feminism/Duluth Model).

Rosie has transformed herself and/or allowed herself to be transformed, into a veritable battering ram for the domestic violence industry. Feminist advocates and their allies in the media and political sphere have, like so many roman centurions, arranged themselves around her and are pressing her forward. Broader political events here in Australia have added further momentum as politicians look about for suitable populist issues with which to score cheap points and/or divert attention from other matters. This is patently obvious in Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s adoption of DV as one of his personal cause celebre.

This focussing of attention could have been a great thing in terms of getting decisive action on the issue of family violence and related issues like child abuse and elder abuse. But it won’t be. It won’t be because the whole episode is being choreographed by the archly-feminist domestic violence industry.

As a result all we will get is more of the same old failed and shockingly biased resourcing decisions and ‘initiatives’:

The continued turning-the-other-way when it comes to supporting male victims of DV and their children
The continued turning-the-other-way in relation the incidence of violent behaviour by women
The continued insistence that both the problem and its solution rests entirely in the hands of men
The continued emphasis on the discredited ‘Duluth model‘ of theorising domestic violence
The continued pouring of millions of dollars of public funds towards feminist consultants and advocacy groups
The creation of yet more consultative groups and the convening of more inquiries/royal commissions.

None of which have been proven to have any significant effect on reducing actual rates of perpetration and/or re-offending

And thus now we are witnessing a competition amongst state and federal politicians as to who cares the most about domestic violence, with ‘care’ manifesting itself through hideously costly inquiries and hand-outs to advocacy groups.

Here is a timeline of events:

Father who killed son, Luke Batty, at cricket ground had history of mental illness, says boy’s anguished mother (14 February 2014)

Luke Batty’s grieving mother speaks out on family violence (19 February 2014)

“The mother of Luke Batty says Australians need to have a greater understanding of family violence. Rosie Batty has also urged men to address the problem, in a long and emotional interview less than a week after her 11-year-old son was killed by his father at a Victorian cricket ground.”

Rosie Batty blasts Studio 10 host Joe Hildebrand on morning TV (2 April 2014)

Rosie Batty storms out of her murdered son’s inquest, almost in tears (23 October 2014)

It’s a disgrace some want Rosie to share the blame (23 October 2014)

Rosie Batty appointed ‘Australian of the Year’ (25 January 2015)

Rosie Batty’s speech after becoming 2015 Australian of the Year (25 January 2015)

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten seized the opportunity of Rosie’s appointment to climb higher upon the feminist bandwagon by calling for a federal Royal Commission on domestic violence. Someone should remind him that a federal inquiry is already underway and is due to report in March 2015.

Predictably the media then went to the Government to ask them whether they would support a national Royal Commission. Thank goodness that the Government stood its ground against this misguided proposal – at least thus far – although they did make other concessions.

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

Rosie Batty, Australian of the Year, will save lives of family violence victims, former police commissioner Ken Lay says (26 January 2015)

Ken Lay is one of the most well-recognised ‘white knights‘ on behalf of the Australian feminist movement, known for his frequent use of the incorrect statement that the “overwhelming majority” of domestic violence was perpetrated by men upon women.

Rosie Batty: I’d like to see a government campaign to stop domestic violence (27 January 2015)

Rosie Batty and Ken Lay appointed to new domestic violence advisory panel (28 January 2015)

I posted a quite cordial comment in response to this article but gee whiz, look what happened:

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Imagine that, a pro-feminist news source (The Guardian) censoring a (polite and non-threatening) dissenting viewpoint. Seriously now, this happens so often that I really must get into the habit of creating screen-saves each time I post a comment. (And so I did – refer below)

Any response to family violence must include funding legal services (29 Jan 2015)

Rosie Batty – The Opposite Case (28 June 2015) Video

We must support Rosie Batty as she highlights domestic violence (6 February 2015)

Rosie Batty on why passion must lead to change on family violence (7 Feb 2015) In this article Rosie again makes no mention of the existence of male victims or female perpetrators. Rosie also suggests that the courts are biased towards the interests of the men’s rights movement and the rights of fathers.

‘Stop blaming the victim’: Rosie Batty to address MPs (2 March 2015) Rosie admits that the factors driving violent behaviour are “not readily understood“, whilst in the same paragraph asserting that it’s all about “gender inequality and “men’s sense of entitlement that a woman is their possession“. Except for violence committed by women, of course.

Rosie Batty calls for funds as poll finds family violence feared above terrorism (6 July 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Rosie Batty should apologise for this insult to Tony Abbott (28 September 2015)

Dad begs people not to judge cancer-stricken mum suspected of killing son in murder-suicide (31 August 2020) What a contrast!

Batty ‘thrilled’ with government call to remove Arndt’s gong, calls for men to join push (30 January 2020)

Rosie Batty speaks out against Australia Day award winner Bettina Arndt (26 January 2020) And this item by Bettina addresses points raised by Batty and her feminist cronies

Family law inquiry given green light by Senate as Rosie Batty questions Pauline Hanson’s role (18 September 2019)

Why people are furious John Setka reportedly invoked Rosie Batty’s name, by Wendy Tuohy (12 June 2019) It seems that he was expressing concern about the Domestic Violence Industry generally, rather than specifically about Rosie Batty, but look at the reaction.

Queen’s birthday honours list recognises trailblazers Rosie Batty and Ita Buttrose (10 June 2019)

The sad truth about the Luke Batty Foundation (19 February 2018) and Wrongdoing at Luke Batty Foundation is indefensible (22 February 2018) Mark Latham’s Outsiders discusses alleged financial irregularities and the abuse & turnover of female directors and staff, culminating in the closure of the Foundation.

If only Rosie Batty Hadn’t made her trauma about power (31 July 2017)

Rosie Batty joins 7.30 to discuss the Summit on family violence (28 February 2017)

Mark Latham’s attack on Rosie Batty rejected by head of Rosie Batty Foundation (1 November 2016)

‘Women are being traumatised’: Rosie Batty call to end cross-examination by ‘abusers’ (25 October 2016) No mention, of course, of men traumatized via abuse and/or false accusations.

Rosie Batty partners with Lancome for domestic violence campaign (18 September 2016)

Anti-violence campaigner Rosie Batty shares son Luke’s struggle with male role models (13 September 2016) Conveniently ignores the fact that girls are equally likely to grow to become abusers after exposure to violence/neglect perpetrated by mum and/or dad (or mum’s male partner).

Rosie Batty and Danny Blay Speak about MRA’s (15 June 2016)

Rosie Batty Says Men Who Have Never Hit Women Can Still Be Dangerous (15 June 2016) And women? Hmm, not so much it seems

Rosie Batty to lead family violence survivors council (23 March 2016)

Rosie Batty: Face to face with a domestic violence perpetrator (15 March 2016)

“The prospect of a feminist party in Australia intrigues Ms Batty. But she is not sure if she would make the giant step from activist to politician. “I would never discount it … who knows, all I do know is that I genuinely want to make a difference and so if I was comfortable and confident that I could make a significant difference through a political career, I think I would definitely consider that. I think it would be a real privilege to be given that opportunity.””

Saying goodbye to Rosie (25 January 2016)

Mark Latham slams Rosie Batty’s ‘feminist nonsense’ in podcast spray (22 January 2016) Some very interesting comments to be found amongst those in this reddit/r/Australia discussion thread

Outstanding response to Rosie Batty article (7 January 2016)

Liberal MP Graham Watt remained seated during Rosie Batty standing ovation (27 November 2015) See readers comments

Mark Latham argues we are putting women in danger (27 June 2015)

An open letter to Rosie Batty, by Mark Dent (15 March 2015)

Sanctified bigotry (10 February 2015)

Rosie Batty launches anti-domestic violence app for young women (15 February 2015) How easy it would have been to market this App as a tool for both young men and women, and what a sad indictment of feminism (& Ms. Batty) that this did not occur.

Is Rosie Batty Using Her Child’s Death For Her Own Fame And Fortune? (25 Jan 2015) Whilst many will consider this an unduly harsh and cynical assessment of the situation, I’ll let you be the judge as to the validity of the points raised within the context of the broader Australian DV debate.

For non-Australian readers: The meaning of the phrase “going batty“

In exchanges within the reader’s comments section that follow various articles on the topic of DV, I have noted supporters of Ms Batty asserting that she is a champion for all victims of domestic violence. Her own Twitter profile makes it quite clear that is not the case.

Abuse of the aged

“Law reforms, including harsh criminal penalties, may be needed for elder abuse to be taken seriously in Australia, delegates at a national elder abuse conference have been told.

Brisbane-based elder law specialist Brian Herd joined Canadian gerontologist Dr Gloria Gutman in likening the significance of elder abuse today to that of domestic violence 30 years ago: unacknowledged, unspoken and kept behind closed doors.” (Source)

As with other forms of domestic violence, elder abuse includes both physical violence and emotional abuse.

In America, the National Center on Elder Abuse, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014, provides us with the following snapshot:

Average number of elderly abuse cases each year 2,150,000. Percent of female elder abuse victims 67.3 %. Median age of elder abuse victims 77.9. Breakdown of Reported Elder Abuse Cases: Neglect 58.5 %. Physical Abuse 15.7 %. Financial Exploitation 12.3 %. Emotional Abuse 7.3 %. Sexual Abuse 0.04 %. All other types 5.1 %. Unknown 0.06 %. (Source)

The results of a West Australian study also found that more elderly women than men were abused.

On the other hand, it has not been so easy, thus far, to identify the gender balance with regards to those perpetrating abuse. I wrote to the agency that released the report on aged care in Australia (referred to later in this blog post) seeking available data on this matter. They responded in the following manner:

What is the gender balance in the aged care workforce? How many male staff are there vs female staff, and is the gender balance fairly consistent across job roles?

“The most current available national data relating to the gender balance in the aged care workforce shows that in 2012 in both residential and community aged care, males comprised just over 10 per cent of the direct care workforce. The proportion of men working in residential aged care is slightly higher than in community aged care at 11 per cent or about 16,000 male care workers while in community aged care there are about 9,000 male care workers. In 2012 the female direct care workforce in both residential and community aged care comprised approximately 215,000 people.”

Firstly, considering all allegations or complaints of misconduct … Of the complaints made how many were made specifically in relation to the conduct of male staff? female staff?
Next, of those complaints that actually resulted in some form of counselling/punishment, how many of those complaints were made specifically in relation to the conduct of male staff? female staff?

“In relation to your request, the Department of Social Services does not collect information about staff disciplinary action taken by aged care facilities. The management of misconduct of staff is a matter for the provider of the aged care service. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) manages investigations into the professional conduct, performance or health of registered health practitioners. As you may be aware the Aged Care Complaints Scheme (the Scheme) is a national programme managed by the Department. The Scheme’s primary role is to respond to concerns raised by care recipients or clients, their representatives and others regarding the quality of care or services provided through Australian Government subsidised aged care services. The Scheme assesses the information received and determines whether the approved provider has met their obligations and responsibilities under the Aged Care Act 1997.”

Thus the lack of data is partly attributable to the very low number of abusers who are actually sanctioned or convicted. It is, however, generally recognised that most of those who abuse older people in an institutional setting are women. (Source)

Why am I not surprised that the feminist movement has been silent on this issue? Just as in the case of child neglect/abuse, women perpetrating partner violence (or any violence for that matter!), female teachers preying on students, and so on.

Elder abuse typically occurs either in the victims own home or in an aged care facility, with the perpetrators usually being caregivers. In the home the primary caregiver is typically an adult daughter. In aged care facilities the perpetrators are usually staff of the facility, most of whom are also female.

Here in Australia: “More than 2,353 allegations of physical and sexual assault were made by nursing home residents in 2013-14 – an increase of more than 100 on the previous year … The figures, revealed in the annual report on the operation of the Aged Care Act, drew calls from aged care advocates for greater transparency and accountability.” Read more at Aged Care – More allege assault (23 December 2014)

I couldn’t help but notice the clear element of ‘victim-blaming’ that features at the end of the article:

“RESPONDING to the report, Aged and Community Services Australia chief executive John G Kelly highlighted behavioural problems as a concern.

“It is a sad reality that there are now more people in aged care and a greater proportion of those have dementia, leading to behaviours the person would never have even considered before they had dementia,” he said.”

I certainly can’t imagine anyone making a similar statement about victims of domestic violence involving intimate partners, i.e. blaming the incidence of violence on annoying behaviour displayed by those who are assaulted.

Further, it’s interesting to note the number of cases where women are said to be over-represented amongst the ranks of elder-abusers because they are more often the ones who shoulder the responsibility for providing care and support to the victim.

Yet were someone to offer the same justification for a male perpetrator involved in partner violence situation, well that would certainly be met with the utmost degree of scorn, viz. ‘The poor man had all the pressure to meet the financial needs of the household, and he just couldn’t manage to hold it together’.

Perhaps yet another case of one gender being held to a certain standard, and the other being held to a quite separate one.

‘Pool and everything’: Elderly couple’s account drained (21 April 2024)

Woman jailed after £37,000 theft from grandfather (21 March 2023)

Shameless shopkeeper who told deaf 81-year-old his EuroMillions ticket was a LOSER so she could steal his £130,000 (6 March 2022)

Nurse’s ‘vile, despicable’ theft of dead man’s bank card (2 March 2022)

Video shows alleged abuse of Alzheimer’s resident at assisted-living facility (2022)

Cleaner who allegedly murdered 92yo didn’t look deranged: Court (4 February 2022)

Woman’s haunting description of brutal attack revealed in court (24 January 2022)

Mackay great-grandma sues daughter-in-law over alleged $400k financial misconduct (21 January 2022)

Man ‘had to save to buy shaving foam’ after care worker stole from him (15 November 2021) UK

Woman discovers her best friend stole £16,000 in jewellery from her blind aunt, 102, after she hired her as her carer (8 November 2021) Received suspended sentence – of course!

Logan carer Dianne Joy Kelly on trial for allegedly strangling a disabled boy (2 November 2021)

Renowned sculptor Nancy Ann Frankel dead, killed by Maryland housemate Julia Birch (nypost.com) (30 July 2021)

Twin sisters steal grandparents’ savings and don’t have to return it (31 March 2021) And they are not even forced to pay it back! Maggots

‘Unacceptable’ delay in addressing aged care assaults of 100 per week (13 September 2020) Australia. Unsurprisingly, there’s no mention of the gender of perpetrators

Another example of aged care abuse by women. This one in Michigan, USA (24 May 2020) Video

“She wanted to do that for me”: Woman with power of attorney takes thousands from 97-year-old with dementia (3 March 2020)

This woman’s treatment may be shocking, but it’s not assault (24 September 2018) Australia. But somehow I think if the media had a video with male carers then it *would* be labelled as assault.

Aged care horror: ‘It was the most atrocious act’ (25 June 2018)

Ballina nursing home deaths: Megan Haines guilty of murdering two patients with fatal insulin dose (3 November 2016)

Ontario nurse charged in deaths of 8 nursing home residents (26 October 2016)

Granddad’s heartbreak: Abused by the girl I raised (27 May 2016) Australia

Daughter Charged In Death Of Elderly Mother Over Property Dispute (23 April 2016) USA

Submission by ‘Justice Connect’ to the 2016 Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (Submission #37). This organisation asserts that approx. 60% elder abuse is perpetrated by males, but they don’t differentiate between abuse taking place in institutional settings versus other environments. They claim that most of those reporting abuse are female, but don’t address the issue of propensity of male vs female victims to report abuse. They do point out that there are more women than men in the community, in the most vulnerable age groups.

On elder abuse in America (with reddit discussion thread here)

Aged care workers cite abuse and neglect of nursing home patients (14 August 2013)