Australia – Page 11 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Yet another Australian inquiry into domestic violence (Victoria)

A newly-installed government in Victoria has announced not just an inquiry, but a Royal Commission, into domestic violence. A Royal Commission is a hugely expensive exercise which shall directly and indirectly pump lots more money into the coffers of the Australian domestic violence industry. It has been suggested that the Royal Commission will take one year and AUD$50 million to complete (Source).

Bearing in mind the findings of earlier inquiries including Queensland (only released late February 2015), plus the ongoing federal inquiry, I am highly sceptical as to the cost-effectiveness of the Victorian exercise. Even the staunchly pro-feminist advocacy group, White Ribbon Australia, have expressed similar sentiments.

The Victorian Royal Commission will be chaired by Justice Marcia Neave, with support from Deputy Commissioners Tony Nicholson and Patricia Faulkner, and will be tasked with finding the most effective ways to:

Prevent family violence
Improve early intervention to identify and protect those at risk
Support victims
Make perpetrators accountable
Improve the way the Government and society work together

An article that appeared in the Herald-Sun began with:

“WOMEN will be given the chance to tell their harrowing stories with Australia’s first Royal Commission into Family Violence expected to begin in February.”

The author, Alex White, is thus either ignorant of the existence of male victims of DV or perhaps believes that they are simply not worth hearing from. Alex concludes with the erroneous statement, “It will be the first government backed family violence inquiry in Australia’s history.”

One only hopes, most probably in vain – that this inquiry might generate unbiased discussion leading to sensible fair and effective measures to reduce violence.

A copy of the original media release entitled ‘Nothing Off Limits in Family Violence Royal Commission‘ is here. It sounded promising, appearing as it did to be written in a gender-neutral manner.

The terms of reference are here, and unfortunately the bias emerges with old feminist clangers like:

“While both men and women can be perpetrators or victims of family violence, overwhelmingly the majority of perpetrators are men and victims are women and children.” (This statement was addressed in another blog post)

“The causes of family violence are complex and include gender inequality and community attitudes towards women” (except for the fact the couples with the greatest propensity to partner violence are lesbian couples)

“For women and children, family violence has extensive and often long term physical, psychological and emotional consequences” (for men it’s just one long holiday)

The web site for the Royal Commission is at http://www.rcfv.com.au

Update 1 June 2015: The closing date for submissions was Friday, 29 May 2015. A copy of my submission can be found here.

See also:

One woman a week dies at the hands of her partner or ex-partner. New ways of tackling domestic homicide (29 March 2015) Feminist perspective that ignores female perpetration, and which almost certainly sets the scene for the deliberations of the Royal Commission

Explainer: Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence (27 February 2015)

Royal Commission into family violence terms of reference released (20 January 2015) Includes 90+ readers comments

Premier Daniel Andrews vows tough new laws to stop family violence (24 February 2015)

Australian Government cuts funding to advocacy groups, except feminist ones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

Community sector funding cuts begin (23 December 2014)

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

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

ABC interview with Scott Morrison (24 December 2014)

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

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

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

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

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

The often contrasting reaction when mums and dads kill their children

An outpouring of grief with considerable introspection versus an outpouring of anger and condemnation. A sober discussion of contributing factors versus angry dismissal in response to any mention of “excuses”. This is the stark difference in the nature of media coverage that filicide attracts depending on whether the murderer was their mother or their father, respectively. In the past week in Australia we have unfortunately witnessed examples of both.

On the 18th December Charles Mihayo was jailed for life with non-parole of 31 years for killing his two young daughters. He had experienced a bitter divorce and enjoyed only limited (and disputed) visitation rights in relation to his children.

On the following day eight children were found stabbed to death in a house in the Cairns suburb of Manoora. The victims were aged between 18 months and 15 years. A trial has yet to take place, but it is believed that they were killed by Mersane Warria, the mother of seven of the victims.

Media coverage of the Mihayo case

“A man who cold-bloodedly murdered his two young daughters in a “hideous crime” will spend more than 30 years in jail.

Supreme Court Justice Lex Lasry described Charles Mihayo’s crimes as “hideous” and said that he was at a loss to understand why the children had had to pay with their lives so Mihayo could cause suffering to his former wife.

Justice Lasry said the 36-year-old’s actions were devoid of any justification or explanation.”

Much mileage was made from the suggestion that Charles’ crime was primarily motivated by a desire to “get back at” his wife, the accuracy of which remains uncertain. Yet, even if that were true, there are many examples of women committing similar crimes as revenge for real or imagined transgressions by their partners. The following are examples of media coverage of this man’s trial:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/two-sisters-murdered-Melbourne/

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/charles-mihayo-faces-court/

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/12/18/melb-man-jailed-for-life-for-killing-daughters.html

Media coverage of the Cairns massacre

Even before a suspect was announced, the calm and sympathetic language of the investigating police and civic leaders suggested that the killer was a woman and someone who was known to the victims …

“As it stands at the moment, there’s no need for the public to be concerned about this other than that it’s a tragic, tragic event. The situation is well controlled at the moment,” he told reporters.

“There shouldn’t be any concerns for anyone else out of this environment and as we progress further we’ll be sharing the results of our investigation …

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said he was “saddened and shocked” by the tragedy, and that his thoughts were with the family and friends of the victims …

“Indeed, the whole Cairns community and the people of Queensland will feel the effects of this tragedy, particularly at a time of year when families come together.” (Source)

Mother accused in Cairns massacre had dark, troubled past (22 December 2014) In contrast no-one appeared to express much interest about Charles’ past. This article has since been removed from the msn.com web site.

‘She knows what’s happened, but it hasn’t sunk in yet’: Mother charged with killing seven of her children and a niece will undergo mental health checks before trial (22 December 2014)

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/carins-stabbing/

Cairns deaths: Tree planting memorial service honours eight children killed in Manoora (20 December 2015)

Addendum January 2017: Despite being the worst single incident of domestic violence in Australia, I understand that the perpetrator, Mersane Warria, has yet to be convicted of any crime. Naturally, nothing but silence from the feminist lobby. Here is a further article from May 2017.

Discussion

The examples mentioned in this post represent such a small sample that many will argue that this is no basis upon which to draw any meaningful conclusions. Yet many other writers have made the same observations as have I, after looking at the reporting of other similar earlier incidents.

Australian statistics tell us that mothers are the most common perpetrators of child homicide, with women accounting for 52% of child homicide offenders between 2002 and 2012. This of course excludes the incidence of abortion.

And yet despite this it would seem that the media, and probably the community generally, just cannot or will not grasp the idea of women as killers or abusers. If a man behaves in this manner, well that’s almost to be expected. If a women kills or abuses then that is an aberration, and there must have been extenuating circumstances (quite possibly involving some degree of pressure or influence by a man/men).

Notably absent from media coverage of the Cairns tragedy (and most other incidents involving filicide or abuse by mothers) were:

public generalisations about violent behaviour by women generally,
suggestions that women in general shared a collective responsibility for ensuring that other women did not also kill or abuse
judgemental commentary by feminist spokespersons/feminist lobby
recognition being given to the fact that more mothers kill their children than do fathers

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/mothers-who-murder/vi-BBh3gZe?ocid=TSHDHP (Today show interview with Xanthe Mallet)

http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/mothers-who-murder/about

With regards to the second last dot point, one example of the feminist drum being struck involved comments made by a staff member of ANROWS who sought to imply a nexus between the dreadful actions of Ms. Warria and the issue of male violence towards women. This suggestion was subsequently the object of scorn in a reddit discussion thread.

With this post I am certainly not suggesting that the gender of the parent that kills makes the tragedy any more or less grave, or more comprehensible to the average person. What I would say however is that both types of incidents should be reported in a similar and gender-neutral manner, for example:

if a presumption of innocence until proven guilty is applied to female accused then so to should it applied to male accused
if anonymity is maintained for a female accused then so too should it be maintained for a male accused
if the personal background of a female perpetrator is recognised as being worthy of discussion (and an ameliorating factor) for female perpetrators, then that should also be the case for male perpetrators
if the behaviour of males generally is relevant in considering the degree of guilt (and degree of punishment imposed) in the case of men, then so too should the behaviour of females generally be relevant for women

To do anything other than the above is to fail to recognise and act upon the merits of gender equality, and to deny natural justice.

I’ll finish this post with a well-stated reader’s comment in response to an article about violence towards women that singled out male sporting stars for special attention:

“I read your article, It’s Time the footy world took a stand, with weary resignation for it is an article I have read countless times before. They weren’t penned by you, but the hypocrisy and double standards presented in your piece were the same.

You speak of this “attitude to women” as though it is some collective dogma that a large percentage of the AFL community adhere to rather than a problem for a handful of individuals who happen to be footballers. This phenomenon only ever applies to the male population whenever an individual male commits a crime or any offense. We are all immediately asked to stand up, speak out , swear an oath, wear a ribbon or condemn our gender. It is an outrageous but now very common reaction to any incident involving a man. If the same articles were appearing when women behaved badly I would not be quite so outraged, but this has never been the case.

A mother butchered eight children late last year, another grandmother in Northern Queensland murdered two of her grandchildren and attempted to burn alive another two, a mother bashed her daughter to death and horrifically permanently maimed her other daughter, a woman shoved her new born baby down a drain-all in a period of four months… I saw no articles asking mothers of Australia to take a stand. I heard no-one on radio ask if there was a problem with mothers and their attitude to children. No, these incidents are very quickly hushed up and we move on remarkably quickly from even referring to them.

Ask yourself, Rita, when was the last article or reference in the media to the mother her sliced up eight children? It is as thought she has disappeared from the face of the earth. Yet when Arthur Freeman killed his daughter by throwing her off the West Gate Bridge, this “monster’s” name has remained in the headlines and on people’s lips for five years. There is another major article about him in today’s Herald Sun. You’d think there are enough male monsters floating about without having to dredge up Freeman yet again. Did you know that a woman by the name of Gabrielle Garcia killed her little boy on the same bridge only a couple of months earlier? Probably not.

You condemned the fact that friends of Nick Stevens said he was a “top bloke” or “good bloke” inferring that these men were cold monsters who thought there was nothing wrong with beating up your partner. Yet every time a mother murders her children you can be assured that countless female friends were label her a wonderful , caring mother and a good friend. Gabrielle Garcia is a perfect example of this reaction.

Garcia’s family was devastated by her suicide. Her sister Monica set up a shrine near the lonely spot where Garcia was found under the bridge, writing a letter saying “we will never forget you both. We will always love you. We understand your pain and hope you have found peace and happiness now.”

Such compassion for a woman who murdered her boy.

Gabriella Garcia adored her 22-month-old son Oliver. According to Pedro Soto, her close friend and the last person to see her alive, all the Melbourne mother wanted to do was to protect him.

Here’s another comment on a woman who hired a hitman to kill her husband

“If she did do what the police say she did, I don’t believe it was premeditated. I believe it was a spur-of-the moment act, something done on impulse in the heat of anger that resulted in something shocking.

“We’re not talking about some kind of evil diva here. We always thought of her as a fairly good person And I think, you know, that she’s probably very devastated right now.” No reference at all the poor dead husband. Are they brutes with no sensitivity or is it because they were asked what they thought of the accused and answered the question .

There have been countless occasions where such words have been spoken by people who know a different side of an alleged killer but I don’t recall articles of condemnation suggesting these people were insensitive or in some twisted fashion supporting or defending their violent behaviour.

But the real zinger in your article is this line:

In the warped moral code of professional football, cheating on your wife with hundreds of eager groupies is ok but betraying a teammate is a dog act. Wow.

You openly acknowledge that there are hundreds of females willing to sleep with a man they know is married but this is no cause for concern or moral outrage or a demand that our schools start educating our young women to change their disgraceful belief that because a man is a sports celebrity he is a target, a notch on your belt so to speak. These girls will do anything to bed these young men just so they can boast about it to their friends. Talk about sexual objectification! Where is the article pleading for the education of women so they understand that men are not their property simply because they are famous. Yet you attack the young male individual who has these girls throwing themselves at him or infer that the young men alone are responsible for the sex that takes place. It is simply sickening to see the finger of condemnation only ever pointed in one direction.

Are you suggesting that these girls (groupies) would not have more of a problem with a girlfriend who slept with their husband/partner whilst happily turning a blind eye to their shenanigans with other married footballers?

It’s called human behaviour but you, like all female journalists only ever choose to focus on one gender.”

Postscript: The January 2016 Port Lincoln tragedy

Reddit discussion thread on this topic (9 January 2016) Read the thread and feel the anger – far in excess of any similar thread concerning a mother murdering her child. My post was down-voted into oblivion within an hour of being posted. Typical. People were still down-voting it hours after it was removed (?) Last time I checked there were 12 down votes with 3 comments. I have cut and pasted the most substantive of the comments below (‘Karismatic’), and to which I will reply shortly.

Hatred wrong after Port Lincoln tragedy, says Adelaide’s Julia Trinne who lost son when father killed him (9 January 2016)

OPINION: Why are we sympathetic to men who kill their kids? by Caroline Overington (8 January 2016) Australia. Only a feminist could reach this conclusion, and guess what?

PS: I see now that in the Women’s Weekly web site the article has a different title, “Why are we sympathetic to parents who kill their kids?“, although it still written in a way that implies that most child-killers are male, for e.g. “This trend is most evident when the murderer takes his own life, as well as that of his children“

‘On what grounds do you conclude what he did was not a barbarous act of murder?’ (7 January 2016) Australia

Damien Little murdered his two boys. So why are we calling him a “top bloke?” (6 January 2016) The feminist perspective, delivered without a hint of irony

See also:

Media coverage of the murder of Luke Batty was addressed in this blog post

‘Good bloke’ defence scrapped for all NSW criminals in major move (1 February 2026) But no mention of the ‘good-mum’ defence

‘So cruel’: Heartbreaking tributes after mum, son and friend killed in horror house fire (16 October 2025) “Neighbours have remembered Ms Johnson as a “lovely lady” and a “good mother” Likely, I suspect, that his sad story will disappear quickly and quietly

‘Very shocked’: Inside the life of mum found dead with 8yo at Kenmore Hills Airbnb (2 October 2025) “described as an adventure-loving and hardworking woman who often mentored the next generation”

Four dead in quadruple murder suicide, but toddler found alive (21 August 2025)

Woman charged with two counts of murder over two young boys’ deaths in NSW (10 May 2025)

Mum under investigation for allegedly dousing her children in petrol and setting them alight in Toowoomba house fire (9 May 2025)

Brothers aged 6 and 7 smothered to death, grandmother arrested (6 May 2025)

Three children stabbed at home in Baulkham Hills, Sydney (31 March 2025)

US mum shoots 4 daughters, killing 3 in horrifying murder-suicide (14 February 2025)

Depressed mother who ‘stabbed her three children to death before killing herself may have wanted revenge after her partner moved out’, locals claim (14 November 2024)

Mum and two kids dead after ‘intentional’ jump at Niagara Falls (31 October 2024) Not an ounce of anger directed at the mother. Now read ‘Sad posts before mum, two kids died in Niagara Falls tragedy‘ (1 November 2024) and ‘Mother ‘pushed children, threw self’ over Niagara Falls’ (3 November 2024) Extraordinarily sympathetic coverage.

Key question about Blue Mountains mum after two boys found dead (11 September 2024)

Police reveal horrendous details after dad found 10yo dead (14 August 2024) Australia. Nil mention of the term ‘domestic violence’. Color me surprised

Ky. Mother Faces Possible Death Penalty After Toddler’s Death. Her Defense Lawyers Blame Social Media (26 May 2024)

Mum reveals grief after 10-year-old daughter is found dead (15 August 2023) UK

Lauren Dickason: Final moments before three girls were smothered to death by their mother in New Zealand are revealed (10 August 2023)

Prominent cancer doctor ‘shot her baby’ in suspected murder-suicide (7 August 2023) USA

‘Doomsday mum’ Lori Vallow sentenced for murdering her children (1 August 2023) USA

Dylan Scanlon: Mum who poisoned and beat son, 5, guilty of murder (13 July 2023)

Inquest into crash that killed Charmaine McLeod and her four children begins and Child killed in stabbing in Riverwood in Sydney’s west (1 June 2023) Two further tragic cases of filicide committed by a mother and father, respectively

Further article re: the McLeod family suspected murder/suicide (31 May 2023)

Lori Vallow Daybell Killed Her Kids for ‘Money, Power and Sex,’ Prosecutors Say at Her Trial (10 April 2023)

Baby in hospital bin: Woman who can’t remember son’s birth, death is convicted (3 April 2023)

Unapologetic and profane impact statement from a Woman jailed for life for killing her son, 6, with shotgun as he sat in back of car after his dad filed for custody (February 2023)

Mum dawdled on phone, slept while daughters died locked in sweltering car (14 February 2023)

Lindsay Clancy’s husband issues plea after wife charged with strangling 3 kids (30 January 2023) “Patrick Clancy described his wife Lindsay as “loving” and “caring”” – try swapping genders and see what feminist have to say about expressing sentiments like that.

Lindsay Clancy accused of murdering her two children and injuring third (26 January 2023)

Mom sentenced to 40 years for killing 8-year-old son (18 January 2023)

Nichole Bradshaw murder: Mum’s chilling texts before allegedly killing daughter (20 October 2022)

Mom Stabs Young Children, Killing Daughter, in Custody Battle: Police (8 August 2022) USA

Connecticut mother Sonia Loja left twisted note before killing three children (30 July 2022)

Mother of three charged with murder after three kids die in house fire (26 July 2022)

Mom accused of killing 3 kids was new to L.A., looking to make friends, according to Facebook post: report (13 May 2022)

Government in Greece begs for calm amid outcry over the deaths of three young sisters (2 April 2022)

Woman Murders Her Baby, Feminists Blame Men, by Janice Fiamengo (1 April 2022)

Boy, 7, found dead in garden without his asthma inhalers as addict mum ‘prioritised drugs and ignored doctors advice’ (28 March 2022)

Police discover three bodies, a woman and two girls, in burnt out car in Melbourne (25 March 2022) with further coverage of this tragedy here.

Mum and two children found dead in Perth car fire (15 March 2022) This tragic incident is described in more detail at ‘Kids killed in horror car fire in Perth fire named‘ (17 March 2022) Note, again, the subdued tone of the article.

Mum admits killing two-year-old son found ‘submerged in bath’ by gran (26 February 2022)

Mom decapitates 6-year-old son and dog, claims the devil was speaking to her, police say (17 February 2022) USA

Woman arrested after baby’s body found in freezer in Corowa, NSW (20 January 2022)

Why a judge ruled a mother who killed her two young daughters is not guilty of double murder (22 December 2021)

‘Are you going to do something to me?’: Two young sisters killed by their mother (14 December 2021)

UK stepmum accused of murder took picture of lifeless 6yo boy, court told (15 October 2021)

Timaru, New Zealand: Three children dead, woman in hospital as police begin murder probe | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site (17 September 2021)

Bereaved father joins child safety campaigners to urge Government to retain parental alienation within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (linkedin.com) (11 September 2021)

Kaylee-Jayde Priest sentenced: Mum allegedly posted TikTok video after killing daughter (news.com.au) (7 August 2021)

London: Mother who killed her daughter in Mitcham sentenced | Metro News (24 June 2021)

Mum accused of killing five of her six children by drugging their breakfast and drowning them (news.com.au) (15 June 2021)

Beck family tragedy in Pascoe Vale: Mother shot 3yo before killing herself (news.com.au) (5 May 2021) Judge asserts that mother killing the daughter was being “altruistic” (had dad killed her then I’m seeing alternative descriptors here)

Nahla Miller: Ohio child allegedly killed by mother Tianna Robinson (news.com.au) (26 April 2021)

Kelly Wilkinson, Kobi Shepherdson: Parental alienation is no excuse for violence Stop blaming women and the courts for why men kill their kids (23 April 2021) Did somebody say ‘double-standards’? Men can’t defend themselves (or other men) and women can’t be blamed. Ever. So what should men do? Stay in their bedrooms and remain silent … the authorities will be along in just a moment.

Mother arrested for killing her three children in Los Angeles (12 April 2021)

Tragic scene that awaited Perinovic father after murder-suicide revealed (17 February 2021) Australia

Young mother charged with manslaughter over her baby girl’s sudden death (11 February 2021)

Mum murdered toddler by scalding her then leaving her screaming to cover her tracks (8 December 2020) UK

Mum who admitted to killing four-year-old son Tyrrel Cobb walks free after sentence is reduced and immediately suspended (4 December 2020) Australia

US therapist kills her twin daughters in their sleep in murder-suicide (27 October 2020) USA

Mum allegedly killed five of her kids as her son watched (4 September 2020) Germany

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

Nevada mom kills husband, kids in murder-suicide: Cops (8 March 2020)

Horrified dad called 999 after nurse wife allegedly ‘stabbed kid to death and left baby fighting for life in bloodbath’ (3 March 2020)

The uncomfortable truth about filicide, by Jasmin Newman (28 March 2020)

Why do men kill their families? Here’s what the research says (25 February 2020) On page one we get stats for women killed by partners, but not men (again). The author then informs us that “research shows they (familicides) are almost exclusively committed by men in heterosexual family relationships.”

What happened in Brisbane on Wednesday has to be a turning point, by Georgie Dent (20 February 2020)

Queensland Police spark anger with ‘open mind’ comment on murder of Hannah Clarke and children (20 February 2020) We are all reminded that there can be no ‘excuses’ for male killers.

Mother asks little girls to search for kitten under bed, shoots them both & stabs the youngest 35 times (6 February 2020) USA

Woman who allegedly admitted to killing her son cries for him (30 January 2020) I dare say that some of the dad’s who killed their children, also cried for them. But we wouldn’t read about it in the mainstream media.

Mother, 22, who confessed to killing her three-year-old son, two-year-old daughter and seven-month-old baby girl in their family home in Phoenix (23 January 2020)

Mom Lisa Snyder charged with murder of kids found hanging in basement (2 December 2019) Unusually neutral, albeit brief, coverage of this horrible incident.

Woman charged with murder after two children found dead in car south of Brisbane (24 November 2019)

Ohio mom is sentenced to 37 years for killing her three infant sons (20 November 2019)

Texas mom Ashley Auzenne kills her 3 kids in murder-suicide a week after her divorce (1 November 2019)

Mum found clutching dead daughter, 8, in car boot after killing her to spite ex (20 October 2019) UK

WA teen mum jailed for murdering baby (11 September 2019) Australia

Georgia mom posted ‘I could not ask for better children’ before allegedly killing them, then herself: police (23 August 2019) USA

Child domestic violence deaths (14 August 2019) Australia. Link to related graphic here.

NSW mum under police guard following three-year-old daughter’s death (3 August 2019)

The clues that homicide detectives will trace in possible murder-suicide crash that killed Charmaine McLeod and four kids (1 June 2019)

Chilling detail behind mum and child’s cliff plunge (23 May 2019)

“it’s important that people realise (Ms Ludwig) was not a monster”. Despite the circumstances and whatever led to this, she was a lovely person and that’s what she should be remembered for, not what social media is saying about her”. Yeah, it’s not like she was a guy

Mother, aunt of missing 6-year-old arrested for his murder (27 April 2019) USA

Jennifer and Sarah Hart drugged their kids before driving off California cliff (5 April 2019)

Former science teacher, 36, who drowned her daughter, 3, in bath after wrongly accusing husband of having affair (16 March 2019)

Selfie-obsessed mum, 24, dismembered toddler (13 February 2019)

Mothers murdering their children on the rise, while fathers declining (8 February 2019) Australia. See also this related article by Terry Goldsworthy from ‘The Conversation’

Mother who beat her newborn baby to death and stuffed it inside a teddy bear is jailed for just a YEAR in Switzerland (1 February 2019)

Why are more mothers killing their children? (25 July 2019)

Drug user mother, 20, says her baby son’s death after being pulled from a bath was just a ‘tragic accident’ and ‘not her fault as she wasn’t the one washing him at the time’ (8 December 2018)

Mother weeps as vision of her stabbing son to death is shown in court (3 December 2018)

Houston horror: Father discovers son’s headless body in rubbish bin (3 December 2018) USA

Football Player, 18, and His Little Sister Allegedly Shot in Their Bedrooms by Mom: ‘Pure Evil’ (6 November 2018)

Why a ‘good bloke’ shot his tiny sons and drove them off a pier (29 June 2018) Next: Why journos place apostrophe on the term ‘good bloke’ but not good mum

Joanne Finch appears at Melbourne court accused of murdering eight-year-old son (29 June 2018)

Mom who strangled newborn, threw body in trash sentenced (26 June 2018) USA

When we make excuses for male violence, we encourage it, by Van Badham (17 May 2018) But it appears that making “excuses” for female violence, which is quite commonplace, is perfectly OK

Sarah Nicole Henderson told husband Jacob that she had shot daughters Kenlie and KayLee Danielle (5 November 2017)

Melbourne mum admits infantcide (24 October 2017)

Mum Lamora Williams killed sons Ke’Younte Penn, two, and Ja’Karter Williams, by cooking them in her oven (18 October 2017) USA

Cruel mum who fed drugs to four-year-old daughter who died complains her 13 year sentence is ‘too long’ (27 September 2017) UK

Baby girl who tragically drowned in the bath just days after child services raised concerns about her mother (27 September 2017) Australia. “Close friends of the 19-year-old mother said she was devoted to her baby”. Jane Caro, might we anticipate your strong objection to this?

Mum, 32, who allegedly stabbed newborn son says God told her to do it (12 September 2017) USA

Orono mom found dead with 5-year-old son left suicide note lamenting custody rift (6 September 2017) USA

A teen reunited with her birth mother, who then killed her and burned her body, police claim (23 August 2017)

Mother abuses baby before his death: ‘I wanted to kill him’ (17 August 2017) Australia

Mum left bitter suicide notes before killing kids, husband’s girlfriend (12 August 2017) USA. More on this crime here including this excerpt:

“(in) an Inquistr.com article summarizing this story, a university feminist wrote a comment. Her remark, the highest ranked comment on the article appears below

The feminist would not hold Jessica accountable for her crimes. Instead, she took the tact of implying husbands have no attachment to their children and relationships with men should be devalued.”

Alberta mother who killed son, sentenced to 26 months in Indigenous healing lodge (7 July 2017)

Woman ‘stabs husband and four kids to death’ in Loganville, Atlanta (6 July 2017)

‘Sorry, thought you deserved one last memory of her’: Mother ‘sent partner a final picture of two-year-old daughter before smothering her to death after he ended their relationship’ (6 July 2017)

Reservoir woman charged with stabbing murder of 13-month-old daughter (5 June 2017)

Police investigating after mother and young son found dead at Glenelg North (26 May 2017)

Infanticide law in Victoria: How is this not murder? (21 March 2017) Australia. This – making gender-specific laws – is definitely the wrong path to take.

Little angel Seth Docherty died alongside his mother Stacey in their Hillsdale apartment (14 March 2017)

“she was a really great mum” and “she was a loving mother and a very good and caring person”

Mother drugged 9-year-old daughter and burnt her to death amid bitter custody battle (11 March 2017)

Mum accused of drowning sons in bath ‘first tried to run them over while they were tied up with twine’ (10 March 2017)

Mother to be charged with murder, attempted murder of sons in Moama (3 March 2017) Australia. No anger for the killer, but media lashes out at absentee dad (see related reddit discussion thread here and a rebuttal here)

Michelle Leask pleads guilty to manslaughter over death of seven-week-old baby Lili (9 February 2017) Australia

Akon Guode pleads guilty to murdering three children she drove into lake (16 January 2017) Further report regarding trial testimony here and here

“He said no Victorian mother had ever been imprisoned for infanticide, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

“Often people who kill their children are cases that are meted out with life sentences. This is not a case of that kind,” he said.”

New Mexico girl Victoria Martens, 10, ‘had STD before murder’ reportedly at the hands of mum Michelle Martens, Fabian Gonzales and Jessica Kelly (11 January 2017)

Cairns woman, 43, charged over 1996 mutilation death of baby boy (9 January 2017)

Mum Egypt Moneek Robinson is accused of killing son Aries Juan Acevedo cause she thought he was Hitler (8 January 2017)

Mother kills 12-month-old son, then dies in apparent suicide: Police (27 December 2016)

Ruislip murder: Mother killed son before taking own life in murder suicide, detectives say (17 December 2016) UK

Mother admits to killing her baby before dumping it in a cooler bag (7 December 2016)

Court docs: Mom killed her 2 young children so that husband couldn’t have custody in divorce (18 November 2016) USA

Family of four found dead inside Sydney northern beaches home (18 October 2016) Australia

Maggie Watson’s mum not guilty by reason of insanity (13 October 2016) NZ

Mum Michelle Martens ‘had sex with daughter Victoria’s killer Fabian Gonzales 20 minutes after girl’s death’ (12 October 2016)

330 child homicides (2 October 2016) UK. Recommended reading. This paper also illustrates the depth of bias employed by feminist groups such as Women’s Aid.

Mum jailed over ‘violent’ death of abused baby who had meth in system (3 October 2016) Australia

Amber Pasztor accused of abducting and killing her own children is ‘evil’, says her mother (28 September 2016)

Girl, 2, found dead in Miller, in Sydney’s south west (14 September 2016)

Third suspect in court in ‘brutal’ murder of 10-year-old Albuquerque girl (28 August 2016)

Kylie Anne Hie has admitted causing the crash that killed her daughter Charlotte (18 August 2016)

How fiction helps us understand the reality of a mother abandoning her newborn baby (29 July 2016) Let’s retreat into a discussion of fantasy in order to mitigate the culpability of women who kill defenceless children. But no such softly-softly approach in response to men who offend in a similar manner. More an ’empthy chasm’ than ’empathy gap’. See similar article in The Conversation here and here.

Port Denison murder-suicide inquest: Coroner says court stress weighed on homicidal mother (29 July 2016) And yet the authors of this other article assert that women rarely perpetrate muder/suicide. They add:

“Murder-suicide is most often perpetrated by men – but this is hardly surprising. Men are generally the perpetrators of murder, and men make up the majority of suicides in Australia, too.” Heartless much? That many men kill themselves is held up as proof that men are violent.

Woman charged in Boscobel infant’s death first blamed father (28 July 2016)

4 Children Stabbed to Death in Memphis, Mother in Custody (2 July 2016)

Akon Guode may not have to face court after triple-0 call caused her to collapse (30 June 2016)

Mom fatally shot daughters to punish her husband (28 June 2016) USA

Texas mum who killed two daughters before being shot by police was a gun advocate (26 June 2016) She stated that she did it to hurt her husband

Major differences between women and men who commit deadly violence (14 June 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked paper

French woman accused of murdering daughter on beach blames witchcraft (20 June 2016)

The degree of delusion demonstrated by feminists can be astounding. In this article the author asserts the reverse position to that proposed in this blog post. In other words, that male perpetrators are let off the hook (with regards to media coverage) compared to the critical scrutiny faced by violent women.

Mom suspected of killing 2 children in murder-suicide was seeking sole custody of kids (8 June 2016)

Phoenix Mother Murdered Her Three Boys, Dismembering Two of Them (5 June 2016)

Liam Fee: Mother and partner guilty of murdering two-year-old boy (31 May 2016) UK. The partner was another woman btw

Mum jailed for 24 years after horrific murders of her two young daughters (18 May 2016) UK. Jane Caro, please note the “she was a wonderful mother” comment – I’m sure you’ll rail against that, right? Oh, and Jane, this child rapist is said to be “a very engaging and charming young lady” – I’m sure you’ll savage all those involved, right?

Saskatchewan mother gets 5 1/2 years in prison for slitting six-year-old son’s throat during custody fight (19 April 2016) Canada, with more here

Mother of Sanaya Sahib confesses to toddler’s murder (12 April 2016) Australia. See screensave – can you imagine this message being posted in the case of a male offender? Dream on

Dead toddler grew up in ‘dysfunctional environment’ (12 April 2016) Oh, and look, now the media is busily trying to link this toddlers to death to a man/men (any man/men), and now it appears the authorities are doing likewise.

Police investigating deaths of a woman and a young boy at Sydney’s Maroubra Beach (25 March 2016)

Pianist’s estranged wife charged with killing 2 daughters (21 March 2016) USA

Boy, five, is shot dead by his mother in murder-suicide despite his father’s attempt to get a restraining order against his ‘mentally ill’ ex-wife (15 March 2016)

The Melbourne suburbs where a parent is most likely to murder their child (12 March 2016) Australia

Melbourne woman Anitha Mathew burnt sons alive in revenge plot, coroner finds (8 March 2016) Australia. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

1 child killed every 2 weeks by family member: time to free children’s lives from violence (28 February 2016) Australia. Note again how in situations where there are as many or more female perpetrators, the topic of gender is not mentioned. Yet when there are more male perpetrators – or it can be falsely claimed that there are – then perpetrator gender is absolutely central to the discussion. Just another example of the entrenched hypocrisy of feminists and feminism.

NSW mum charged with son’s murder (23 January 2016) Australia

Croton mom pleads guilty, to serve probation in daughter’s death (19 January 2016) USA with related reddit discussion thread here

NEW study shows fathers more likely to kill their children than mothers — or does it? (14 December 2015)

Mother suspect in death of girl, 11, at Auchenflower (9 December 2015)

Madera County woman charged with murdering daughter also accused of abusing four other children (8 December 2015) USA

Mother pleads guilty to murdering two children in Santa Ana hotel after losing custody battle (4 December 2015)

Mom Fatally Attacks 2-Year-Old Daughter Who Won’t Eat Noodles: Prosecutors (2 December 2015) USA

German police arrest woman after discovery of eight dead babies (14 November 2015)

Just Say Goodbye – ‘Devoted’ Mothers Kill? (11 November 2015)

Mom accused of tossing newborn girl had baby son die in 2008 (1 October 2015)

Teenage mother avoids jail after killing daughter and dumping body under tree (24 September 2015) Australia

Campsie ‘murder suicide’: First photo of Nguyen family (22 September 2015)

Girl, 7, was shot dead by dad for ‘revenge’ (5 September 2015)

Women who kill (28 August 2015)

Prosecutor: Mom says she killed young sons to help daughter (18 August 2015) USA and related reddit discussion thread

Mother charged with murder after baby’s death (24 July 2015) Australia

Former teacher Erin Agren ‘killed husband, toddler, then shot self’ (22 July 2015)

Granted this July 2015 case involves an aunt rather than a mother, but as with the Cairns massacre, note the ‘kid gloves’ treatment by the police/media:

“He said the aunt wasn’t under police guard and was assisting police but had not been formally interviewed”

Mother gets 18 years for killing 8-year-old son in NYC hotel (29 May 2015)

Mother deemed not responsible in son’s death due to mental illness (27 April 2015)

Megan Huntsman gets up to life in prison for the deaths of six of her newborn children (21 April 2015)

Lacey Spears jailed for 20 years for murdering son Garnett with salt overdose to attract blog hits (9 April 2015)

Melbourne lake crash: Police to question woman driving car that crashed in Wyndham Vale lake, leaving three children dead (9 April 2015)

Mom charged with kid’s death at Midtown restaurant is schizophrenic, received positive psychiatric review 6 months ago (1 April 2015)

Australia’s most horrific case of child abuse: Boy, 7, died after being starved, fed his own waste and beaten by his siblings as God fearing step-father filmed them… but mother said he fell off a pogo stick (31 March 2015)

Records: Mom forced daughter to put dead sister in freezer (27 March 2015)

Deasia Watkins charged with aggravated murder after beheading baby daughter Jayniah (18 March 2015) and here also

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

Reddit mensrights discussion thread in relation to the Cairns murders

Woman kills her children – some search engine results

Female annihilation (female perpetrated) (17 February 2015)

Mother charged with ‘house of horror’ murders of eight children may never face trial if psychiatrists deem her mentally ill (23 December 2014)

A mum guilty of infanticide after killing her baby girl and injuring the child’s twin has avoided jail (28 March 2014)

Fiona Anderson: Pregnant suicide mum was begging for help but no-one heard (21 April 2013)

Children most often killed by their mothers (25 September 2012) NZ

Seeking to understand the inexplicable (Mothers are just as likely to kill their children as are fathers) (Sydney Morning Herald, 24 February 2012)

‘Mentally ill’ mother who killed child found guilty (8 June 2011)

The truth about women who commit domestic violence and child murders (7 April 2011)

Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention (October 2007)

Women: The forgotten child murderers (3 February 2001)

#SydneySiege reporting showcases further examples of feminist hypocrisy

Many readers would be aware of the tragedy that unfolded in central Sydney in mid-December 2014 whereby a lone gunman took hostages in a coffee shop, ultimately killing two and wounding several others.

Hypocrisy #1. Don’t blame this large diverse group, blame this other one instead

It was only a matter of time until one or more feminist journalists would link this sociopath’s actions to men, masculinity, hyper-masculinity, domestic violence or the mens rights movement (or all of the preceding). But even I wouldn’t have foreseen the glaring irony contained within ‘Sydney Siege: Confronting our anti-Islam backlash‘, penned by Ruby Hamad (818 readers comments and still going).

“While it is true that this gunman put Islam front and centre by utilising that flag, let’s put the emphasis where it belongs. He may have made it about religion, but the operative word here is “he”, and not “religion.” … But such is the marginalisation of Muslims that they are not given the benefit of being individuals … What this should tell us is that our global society has a problem with violence. More specifically, we have a problem with widespread male violence and an unwillingness to even recognise, let alone confront it.”

So the author admonishes us to not blame one large diverse social grouping for this crime (Muslims) because that is unfair and unreasonable, but instead to assign the blame to another large diverse group (men) because …

Hypocrisy #2. Reporting the heroism of Lindt Cafe Manager Mr. Tori Johnson

What follows is my best recollection of a post I submitted to the Facebook page of pro-feminist news outlet news.com.au, but which (cue look of feigned surprise) disappeared from their timeline almost immediately.

“You have reported the heroic actions of Tori Johnson, and rightly so, as he was clearly a very brave individual and by all accounts also a great guy. Yet only two days ago you saw fit to publish an article in which you labelled men as “idiots” on account of their propensity for risk-taking. Perhaps the next time the feminist journalists on your team feel the urge to mock or demonise men, they might pause to consider the individuals behind the genitalia. They might also reflect on the advances made as a result of men taking risks, including the very freedoms that they enjoy today.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My subsequent response to Jonathan read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch’ seeks shield from public scrutiny

~~The President~~ The Chairperson: These ~~drug cartels~~ Men’s Rights Advocates represent a clear and present danger to the ~~national~~ financial security of the ~~United States~~ Domestic Violence Industry. (With apologies to the late, great Tom Clancy)

On 9 December 2014 I sent an email to the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission:

“I have made several attempts over as many days to access info about the charity called ‘Our Watch Limited‘. Each time I find that most fields on their page show as “Information Withheld”. I have not seen this message on the pages of other charities. Can you please advise why such is information has been withheld? I am also awaiting the lodgement of the first annual return for this organisation – I understand that this should occur sometime this month. I look forward to receiving your advise on this matter – thank you” On 11 December 2014

I received the following reply: “Firstly, I can confirm that the Our Watch Limited is a registered charity. This can be confirmed on the ABR here. In relation to the withheld information, charities do have the right to apply to have charity information withheld from the Register if they have valid reasons for the ACNC not to publish some of the charity’s detail. Not all information can be withheld, only information that fits within certain criteria (such as information that the information is commercially sensitive and there is a risk that publishing it will cause harm).

When charities submit a withholding application it places a temporary blanket over the charity record on the ACNC Register so the public cannot access any details until their application is processed. Therefore, you would not be able to access any details on the Register. Please see click here for further information on withholding.

Furthermore, the 2014 Annual Information Statement (AIS) is the second reporting requirement for all registered charities. The due date for the Annual Information statement is within six months of the end of your reporting period. However, the Commissioner advised yesterday that the due date has been extended for charities that use a 1 July – 30 June reporting period to 31 January 2015.”

Well now isn’t that curious, because none of their information was shielded until about two weeks ago. So it seems the shutters went up sometime after I uploaded my post on ‘Our Watch‘, in which I indicated interest in undertaking due diligence on their financials. And around the same time that another ~~feminist~~ domestic violence advocacy group, White Ribbon Australia, attracted harsh criticism in relation to their spending priorities and unusual financial practices. Oops, that share trading can be risky business. Surely just coincidence.

OK well, under what circumstances might a charity seek approval to shield their details?

The ACNC web site includes the following information:

“You must apply to have charity information withheld. Other than for private ancillary funds, there are only some circumstances when we may withhold your charity’s information from the Register. The ACNC Commissioner has discretion to withhold or remove information from the Register if the information:

is commercially sensitive and it could cause harm
is inaccurate, confusing or misleading
is offensive
~~could~~ endanger public safety, or
is covered by ACNC regulations.

The ACNC may also decide not to publish details of any warnings we have issued to a charity if:

the information could cause harm
the charity was not behaving in bad faith, and
withholding the information does not conflict with our objects under the ACNC Act.”

I wrote back to ACNC seeking further clarification, and to their credit they promptly responded in the following manner: “Unfortunately we are unable to advise what the basis of the request however I can explain the process. There is no service standard for these applications, as we do have a number these requests that are waiting to be processed. If a charity would like to have information withheld from the ACNC Register the process is as follows:

The charity makes an application to have the information withheld. They do this on the Portal, in writing, or on an ACNC form.
The request is received and we apply a blanket withhold rule on that charity’s record. This is to ensure we don’t publish any sensitive data (such as the address of a women’s shelter) while the decision is being made. Please note this is often an automatic step undertaken via the charity Portal.
The request is reviewed by a Registration Analyst, who decides whether the request meets the requirements set out in the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Regulation 2013.
Once the decision has been made we remove the blanket withhold, and only details that were approved for withholding are withheld from the Register. For example, the charity would appear in a search along with their financial details, but the street address may not.

The ACNC Act sets out the rules around withholding information at Subdivision 40–10, which can be found here. The policy on withholding is also available here. If you have concerns in relation this charity, you can raise a concern about any registered charity to us for further investigation if it is something that is within our jurisdiction. There is further information that can be found here about the issues that ACNC may be able to look at.”

Thus at this point in time, one can only speculate on why ‘Our Watch‘ sought to have their details suppressed and/or what reasons they might have advanced to support their application. Perhaps this will become clear in the fullness of time.

Running my eyes over the possible criteria earlier provided by ACNC however, my eyes kept returning to the word “harm”. Could it be that ‘Our Watch‘ engaged in that peculiar feminist practice known as damseling, breathlessly asserting the potential danger/s posed by ~~unknown people~~ ~~unknown men~~ crude disaffected men of vile character and who are intent on mischief*?

I would like to be able to state that, sooner or later, all pertinent details of ‘Our Watch‘ will be subject to scrutiny and any anomalies exposed. ‘Our Watch‘, as with any other similar group receiving substantial amounts of public funding, should operate transparently and be properly accountable to the Australian community. Unfortunately I cannot do so, however, as moves are well underway to abolish the ACNC by way of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Repeal) (No. 1) Bill 2014 (and related debate).

The three key dates to watch now are the revised deadline for ‘Our Watch’ to submit its annual report (31 January 2015), the lifting of the shield on Our Watch‘s details in the ACNC website, and the ceasing of operations by ACNC.

(*the feminist view of mens rights activists)

Update 10 January 2015: According to the ACNC website, on 8 January 2015 ‘Our Watch’ lodged their annual return and financial details to the end of June 2014.

These sources show a total annual revenue of $4,845,880 mainly comprising government grants totalling a whopping $4,675,550, with only a paltry $6k sourced from donations. Almost all of their expenditure was attributed to staff-related costs ($807,579), “transactions with key management personnel” ($354,021), and professional fees ($960,196).

Under “Transactions with key management personnel” it states “Key management personnel of the entity and the Board of Directors and senior management. Key Management Personnel remuneration comprises the following expenses ($354,021).”

The annual return lists only nine full time employees and two part time employees. Given that compensation for “senior management” is wholly or partly excluded from “staff-related costs”, suggests that average annual salaries for other staff are well in excess of $80,000 per person per annum.

The only information still being withheld is the office address and details of ‘Responsible Persons’.

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

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

Introduction

Thank you for according me the opportunity to contribute my ideas in relation to this pressing social concern. My submission touches on all six elements of the Task Force’s Terms of Reference, but with perhaps a slightly stronger emphasis on:

Educating and engaging Queenslanders to create a community that supports respectful relationships, practices positive attitudes and behaviours and promotes a culture of nonviolence
Defining the scope of violence, assault and abuse to be addressed in a domestic and family violence strategy and whether it would be appropriate for such a strategy to focus on particular or defined sections of the community in order to have the most impact.

The true nature of domestic violence

Domestic violence (DV) comprises man-on-man, woman-on-woman, man-on-women, and woman-on-man violence. There is also a very substantial incidence of bi-directional violence, whereby both partners perpetrate violent and/or abusive acts against one another.

The US organization ‘Stop Abusive and Violent Environments’ (SAVE) examined DV research results from around the world and noted that “These studies show that rates of female perpetration are very similar to male perpetration rates.

The authors concluded that the results of this review suggest that partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone involved.

These conclusions mirror findings in the United States, where research shows men and women initiate most forms of abuse at equal rates, for similar reasons, and rarely in self-defense.” [1]

I applaud the fact that the Task Force’s Terms of Reference do not demonstrate the gender bias that is otherwise widespread within the debate regarding domestic violence, and amongst many of the staff of relevant agencies and advocacy groups. Such bias promotes a view of ‘domestic violence’ that is overly simplistic and which misrepresents DV as ‘men’s violence towards women’.

This focus on violent men and their female victims is more indicative of the pervasive influence of feminist ideology within the DV sector, rather than being an accurate reflection of patterns of DV perpetration.[2] Further, this systemic gender bias against men constitutes a significant barrier to effectively addressing domestic violence and better supporting the welfare of all victims of DV.

It is my firm belief that a solution to the problem of domestic violence will continue to elude us as long as agencies continue to only acknowledge and address one piece of the puzzle.

Others who have advanced a similar perspective have been accused of seeking to ameliorate the behavior of male perpetrators and/or to downplay the suffering experienced by female victims. I wish to assure members of the task Force that this is most certainly not my intention.

How has the misleading view of domestic violence as being synonymous with male violence towards women become so worryingly widespread?

DV advocacy groups, social commentators, and even senior members of the public service, have repeatedly stated that “the overwhelming majority of domestic violence in Australia is perpetrated by men against women”.[3] This is quite simply untrue. Numerous respected and non-ideologically biased researchers have found that between one and two-thirds of the victims of domestic violence are male.[4] The variation in findings was dependent upon variables that included the country surveyed, sampling techniques and the definition of ‘domestic violence’ employed. Other research has also highlighted the fact that large numbers of men commit suicide as a result of either being subjected to domestic violence, or after having been falsely accused of perpetrating domestic violence.[5]

Indeed I can assure members of the Task Force that much of the data about patterns of domestic violence that appears in the media, and in the web sites of DV agencies, is woefully misleading. This is unfortunate as suitable data, albeit sometimes imperfect or incomplete in some regards, is available for those who genuinely seek it. From this one might conclude that misleading statistics are at times being deliberately advanced in order to support a particular ideological perspective that, as previously noted, is held by many working in the field of DV. And in fact there is clear evidence that this occurs relatively frequently and with complete impunity.[6]

One red flag for astute observers is the absence of comparative statistics for male victimisation within much of the literature about domestic violence. In some cases this is because men were not surveyed, or failed to ask the appropriate questions regarding female perpetration and male victims. In other cases the relevant comparisons were available but were not reported, presumably as doing so might undermine a predetermined narrative and/or preferred conclusion.

The view that is put forward by most within the DV sector is that their preoccupation with male violence is justified because the number of female perpetrators is minimal – that female abusers are virtually an insignificant aberration.

When provided with irrefutable statistics showing near gender symmetry in rates of perpetration, the fall-back position is typically that a focus on male offenders remains valid because females only perpetrate violence in self-defence, that the physical violence they perpetrate is less severe, and/or that the impact of DV is greater for women than men.

The first statement is demonstrably false[7] and the subsequent statements demand careful qualification to be of any value in framing an appropriate policy response.

Focusing wholly on male perpetration of violence masks the extent of female perpetration of domestic violence, as well as a trend of increasing violence by women and girls generally

The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) prepared a submission to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. RAINN is the USA’s largest anti-sexual violence organization. In that submission they wrote:

“… an inclination to focus on particular segments of the student population (e.g.,athletes), particular aspects of campus culture (e.g., the Greek system), or traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., “masculinity”), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape. This trend has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”[8]

Now if we change ‘sexual violence’ to ‘domestic violence’ you might see where I am heading with this. As stated earlier, many within the DV sector are loudly asserting that ‘domestic violence is men’s violence towards women’, and devoting their resources to educating/shaming men as a collective group. But by doing so they are inadvertently sending a message to violent women that ‘whatever you are doing must be something other than domestic violence’, and ‘given the violent nature of men your actions might well be justified’.

It also follows that violent women would be less concerned about being prosecuted in the knowledge that they will probably be believed more readily than their male partner should the authorities become involved.

The claim that women are rarely responsible for domestic violence becomes all the more implausible when one considers recent trends showing substantial increases in violent crime by women and girls.[9] Such increases also exceed the trend in similar crimes by males.

What other problems are created by failing to acknowledge violent women and male victims of DV?

The ‘DV=Mens violence towards women’ focus is reflected in language and in statements that paint a picture of all men as abusers or potential abusers. Web site content, even to promote help-lines, is written in such a way as to pre-judge visitors based on their gender. I will provide a link to one such site in a footnote, but the agency in question is by no means unusual in this regard.[10] The material posted online in most Australian federal, state, and NGO web sites dealing with DV is assiduously judgmental and anti-male in its nature.

Take for example the document the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ which sets the scene for addressing domestic violence at both federal and state level. That document, as do many others like it, waves away the welfare of battered men within the first few paragraphs. The Plan states “While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence.”

As a consequence of both the message being communicated by DV agencies, and broader social forces at work (i.e. anti-male bias and sex-role stereotyping), many male victims are discouraged from coming forward to report crimes and/or seek assistance. By the same token it is also entirely likely that the overt profiling undertaken by DV agencies results in fewer women coming forward to seek help for their own aggressive tendencies.

Under-reporting by male victims then has a flow-on effect of reinforcing the misconception that there are few female aggressors, that facilities for male victims are unnecessary, that survey question on male victims/female aggressors are redundant, etc.

There are many reports of male victims who do come forward being treated with suspicion, if not downright hostility. They claim to not have been believed, and that they were considered as abusers who were denial. Even when they are treated sympathetically, the next problem they encounter is that there are either nil or minimal services (e.g. beds in shelters) or assistance available to men, and particularly men accompanied by children.

When this mantra of ‘DV=men’s violence towards women’ is disseminated through the community via the media it encourages the view that men are inherently violent, and that should you see a man involved in a violent incident with a woman then the man is immediately assumed to be the instigator and perpetrator of violence.

This is clearly demonstrated in the videos available at http://www.fighting4fair.com/promulgating-inequality/differing-public-response-to-partner-violence-depending-on-gender-of-victim/

Be assured that men suffer deeply from the affects of domestic violence. Another largely unreported outcome of the current situation is a very high rate of male suicide linked to involvement in domestic violence – which is often exacerbated by subsequent isolation from children.[11]

A man’s separation from children can and does occur regardless of whether the father is the perpetrator, the alleged perpetrator, and/or the victim of domestic violence (as for e.g. in the case where no emergency accommodation is available for fathers with children).

Queenslanders deserve good governance, transparency and accountability with regards to public funds directed towards the fight against domestic violence

It is a sad fact that when society places a particular group of people on a pedestal then the result is often a scandal, as normal common-sense oversight is relaxed, criticism quashed, people abused or taken advantage of, and public funds misspent or otherwise wasted. Unfortunately I believe that we are now beginning to see this happening within organizations driven by feminist ideology, and particularly in the field of domestic violence.

Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and donations are already being poured into the fight against domestic violence, and this is rapidly increasing. A large proportion of this money is subsequently finding its way to feminist advocacy groups like ‘Our Watch’ and ‘White Ribbon Australia’.

We want to think that throwing money at a problem will make it go away, and that high-profile and politically-savvy advocacy groups should be well-positioned to use funds to good effect. There is a time to make decisions with the head and not the heart (or with an eye on short-term PR value), and the fight against domestic violence is such an example. The Government should consider whether more might be achieved by greater funding of government agencies providing direct assistance to those in need, rather than for example directing funds to a non-government organization who may direct funds towards salaries, rent, conferences and securing the services of marketing/PR firms.[12]

This topic was recently addressed by well-known Canadian activist Karen Straughan:

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

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

If you point out that a very lucrative industry has formed around these issues, and that like any organic entity, this industry will work to sustain and grow itself rather than the other way around, you get called a conspiracy theorist. Even though none of these claims require a conspiracy to be valid–all they require is human nature.” [13]

An appropriate focus for education and for remedial action

I believe that there is a role for educational messages but that these should be gender-neutral. The community should be truthfully informed that there are both male and female perpetrators, that there are male and female victims, and that in many cases both partners engage in violence and abuse. The community should be told that any/all violence or abuse in the home is inappropriate and harmful for everyone involved, and particularly for those children who witness that abuse.

I believe that there is no legitimate objective basis for addressing in isolation, let alone focusing resources on, any one particular group of victims or abusers. In particular I object to the current gender-based approaches to addressing domestic violence. I say deal with the whole problem. Fix the whole problem.

I believe that agencies or organizations active in the DV field should provide services, counseling and support to both male and female perpetrators and male and female victims. I believe that government funds should be allocated where they will be most effective, and that this may mean that most funds are directed towards government agencies who provide practical assistance, rather than to advocacy groups paying PR/marketing firms to develop and implement costly ‘shame and blame’ campaigns of dubious value.

My recommendations to the Task Force

First and foremost, I would implore members of the Task Force to consider this submission, and the linked references it provides, with an open mind and in an objective manner.

Please be open to the possibility that the limited success achieved to date in addressing DV may be due in part to shortcomings in both the philosophical approach that is driving current efforts, and the fixed attitudes and preconceived notions of many of those tasked with addressing the issue.

Indeed I am very much aware of the ‘elephant in the room’ that is feminist doctrine, and of the combative ‘us and them’ approach often adopted by adherents to that movement. But as is usually the case, we can and must find a middle path that will lead us to a fair and workable solution to the scourge of domestic violence.

2. Please evaluate and modify all documents and web content produced by relevant agencies in order to identify and remove any bias that might be present in relation to gender or sexual orientation. None of this material should pre-judge who is or might be the perpetrator or the victim in the relationship, or their motivation for coming forward to seek help.

3. Ensure that possible bias in relation to gender or sexual orientation is removed from survey instruments and that research methodology is carefully vetted in order to ensure accurate, unbiased and truly representative findings.

4. Evaluate and adjust the composition of relevant sections within agencies, committees, and panels dealing with DV issues so that, as far as practicable, they are representative of the broader community, particularly in relation to gender and sexual orientation.

At the moment it is my impression that many such groups are currently overwhelmingly comprised of people in a very narrow demographic , typically tertiary-educated women aged 25-45 who identify as feminists. It is highly probable that this is introducing a degree of bias which could limit the scope of approaches being considered or undertaken to address the problem of DV.

5. Do everything possible to ensure good governance and the cost-effective use of public monies. Grants should stipulate the need for key performance indicators, gender neutrality and natural justice, together with requirements for performance reviews and auditing. It is also important that any budget committee, steering committees or similar should contain representatives who are completely independent, in a financial sense, from any of the matters being considered. It would be naïve to assume, given the huge amounts of money directed towards domestic violence at the state and federal level, that there was no potential for financial considerations or self-interest to influence decisions regarding expenditure priorities.

6. Evaluate and adjust the allocation of funding and resources so that it is in accordance with the reality of the domestic violence problem in its entirety. In the first instance this would almost certainly necessitate additional resources being directed towards male victims of domestic violence and counseling for female perpetrators of violence.

7. Although it may be beyond the scope of the Committee’s consideration the manner in which the welfare of men has been largely ignored in the case of DV is indicative of the lack of any real advocacy for the interests of men and boys within the spheres of both federal and state government.

This contrasts strongly with the situation for women where there are generously-funded agencies, or at least sections within agencies, to address and advance the interests of women and girls. This may not be the time or place to consider this issue, but if we as a community sincerely aspire to gender equality, then this it is a disparity which should not continue to go unquestioned.

[1] http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/policy-briefings/partner-abuse-worldwide/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–Pk25vBeHg (Donald Dutton video)

[3] http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/this-is-what-a-lie-looks-like-domestic-violence/

[4] http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

[5] http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.5042/jacpr.2010.0141

[6] http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/fudging-the-figures-to-support-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

[7] See for example http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf, See p687

[8] https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

[9] http://www.fighting4fair.com/women-behaving-badly/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

[10] http://www.fighting4fair.com/misrepresenting-reality/addressing-anti-male-bias-by-an-australian-state-government-department/

[11] http://mediaradar.org/docs/Davis-DomesticViolenceRelatedDeaths.pdf See Conclusion

[12] White Ribbon Australia is simply provided here as an example of a NGO active in the DV field, and for which financial records are publicly available http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/publications/previous-annual-reports and http://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=D19DFBA4-B116-4C8A-B1CF-9509317B0877&noleft=1

[13] http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/false-allegations-are-rare.html

Postscript:

The report of the Taskforce was released on 28 February 2015, and I have prepared a response to it that can be read here.

Initial media coverage included:

QLD domestic violence report unveiled (28 February 2015)

Call for specialist courts to deal with ‘scourge’ of domestic violence (28 February 2015)

Domestic violence rising in Queensland according to new report (1 March 2015)

In August 2015 the Queensland Government announced that it would implement all 140 recommendations of the Bryce report

In September 2015 the Queensland Government announced that Quentin Bryce would head a Task Force in relation to domestic violence

Domestic and Family Violence Implementation Council

White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!

I wanted to draw your attention to a disturbing development involving the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign (‘WRC’). Before proceeding, I should clarify that this particular organisation is separate and fundamentally different from the White Ribbon Campaign led by Ms. Erin Pizzey. The distinction between the two groups is discussed in this other post.

In summary, Erin’s organisation recognises and advocates for victims of both genders. It believes that the root cause of domestic violence lies in generational family violence, and that the patriarchy is an ideological concept devoid of value or meaning within the context of the debate regarding domestic violence.

As is the practice with many feminist organisations, WRC suppresses useful and potentially constructive debate and actively censors dissenting views. A very clear example of this occurred in February 2015 involving one of WRC’s ‘ambassadors’, a fellow by the name of Tanveer Ahmed.

The role of ambassadors within the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign is described as follows:

“White Ribbon Ambassadors are men who recognise the importance of men taking responsibility and playing a leadership role in preventing men’s violence against women.

White Ribbon Ambassadors are formal representatives of White Ribbon Australia who have the knowledge, skills, attributes and determination to influence Australian men to critically evaluate their attitudes and behaviours toward women.” (Source)

Tanveer did just that. He showed leadership by writing an article about domestic violence that presented a perspective that included an acknowledgment of female perpetrators of violence, as well as a discussion of certain factors underpinning violent behaviour by both men and women.

For feminists this was like a red rag to a bull. They incorrectly interpreted “factors underpinning perpetration” as meaning “excuses for men to commit violence against women”. And as for his claims that significant numbers of women are also committing violence, well, every feminist knows that’s not true.

I should also point out that the sorts of ideas Tanveer shared in his article have been proposed by others and are hardly new or revolutionary. This fact sheet from SAVE, for example, also identifies various factors as being potential precursors of partner violence (refer Fact #5).

Here are some of the key items that have appeared in the media thus far:

‘Men forgotten in violence debate‘ by Tanveer Ahmed (9 February 2015)

Feminism in crisis as male supporter expresses view of his own (9 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed’s dangerous message on domestic violence by Clementine Ford (10 February 2015)

White Ribbon Ambassador Tanveer Ahmed recommitting rather than resigning (11 February 2015)

Look at how the feminists turned on Tanveer by perusing his Twitter stream around 9/10/11 February 2015. See the brickbats hurled at him by high-profile feminists like Jane Caro and Elizabeth Broderick, as well as countless faceless SJW, their mouths frothing with spittle. It’s ironic how online bullying morphs from patriarchal scourge to sacred duty when someone dares to question the holy grail of feminism.

In a lengthy statement issued by WRC on 10 February 2015 it was noted that “Dr. Ahmed has agreed to participate in the Ambassador recommitment process”. (Source) Shades of totalitarianism … quite chilling really.

Yet despite the issuing of this statement an angry feminist horde continued to bay for Tanveer’s blood across the social media. See, for example, the WRC Facebook page (extract below) and Twitter stream. Perhaps somewhat surprising, most of the comments in the Facebook page were posted by women. Surprising only in that WRC is ostensibly an organisation for men. I guess the male supporters were well and truly cowed, just how their feminist masters wish them to be.

Australian ‘White Knight’ politician Tim Watts, now teetering on the cusp of becoming a fully-fledged ‘Mangina’, stood up in federal parliament to demand that Dr Ahmed stand down from his role with WRC. A video of Tim’s speech is provided in his Facebook page (see 11 February), with further righteous fury evident in Tim’s Tweets.

The feminist’s message is crystal clear: “Men, we want you nice and visible up the front but don’t you dare say anything that isn’t 100% in accord with the feminist narrative or we will turn on you in a flash.”

The WRC is not an organisation that is interested in accurately describing the nature of domestic violence, in objectively teasing it apart into its component pieces, and in considering the widest possible range of solutions. This is an organisation that places a higher priority on maintaining the ‘integrity’ of the feminist narrative, and in pursuing both individual and collective self-interest.

Thus WRC portrays a picture of DV that conforms to their biased viewpoint, and that only acknowledges those causes and those solutions that fit neatly into the framework that they themselves have fashioned.

The thing is, we have already thrown many years and many million of dollars at that approach, only to have the self-same feminists come back to the public-funding trough claiming that the problem is getting worse and that we are now facing an “epidemic” of domestic violence. “Oh, but if only we had more funding we could keep the women and children safe“.

The ideologues at WRC and elsewhere in the femosphere now chanting ‘cast him out’ are nothing less than blinkered gender fascists. How any right-thinking adult could continue to support this group simply beggars belief.

The sacking of Tanveer from his role at The Australian newspaper and his removal from the role of ambassador with WRC demonstrate further escalation in the process of feminist retribution. The only question is whether the ad hominem attacks will continue in order to drive home the message to not only Tanveer, but others, to avoid criticism of all things feminist.

Rightly or wrongly I see some parallels with the case of recently-released Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste. I think I can state with confidence though, that any irony will be lost on SJW who pledged support for one, only to subsequently attack the other.

Tanveer’s next best step would be to accept a role as an ambassador for Erin Pizzey’s group, securing a far more inclusive outlet for his passion, as well as according him the opportunity to offer a one-fingered wave to his misguided former colleagues-in-arms.

Postscript 27 April 2015: Dr Ahmed to speak at USA DV symposium 5-7 June 2015

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

Lynched by the feminist mob-ette (14 March 2015)

White Ribbon Australia’s ethical dilemma (19 February 2015)

‘Disempowered’ men still lead on economic power (13 February 2015)

White Ribbon Australia ambassador challenges the sisterhood – is slated for re-education camp (15 February 2015)

Columnist Tanveer Ahmed sacked by the Australian over new plagiarism allegation (16 February 2015)

White Ribbon’s got some explaining to do (17 February 2015) As does the author of this article … so many obvious misrepresentations

Men’s rights activism, White Ribbon Campaign and Liberal Feminism (9 February 2015)

Elsewhere in this blog see:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

‘Our Watch’: DV advocacy or shrill mouthpiece for gender feminism?

I hold significant reservations in relation to the operation of the staunchly feminist group ‘Our Watch‘, formerly known at the ‘Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children‘. The feeling appears to be mutual as, despite being a law-abiding Australian taxpayer, I have been blocked from both their Facebook page and Twitter stream since late 2014.

My concerns include, but are not limited to:

The cost-effectiveness of allocating public monies to ‘Our Watch‘ with regards to achieving a measurable reduction in the incidence of domestic violence and/or providing tangible assistance to all victims of domestic violence
The extent to which the activities of ‘Our Watch‘ are driven by a desire to maximise the acceptance and influence of feminist ideology rather than a desire to maximise the two outcomes listed above
The effect of ongoing misrepresentations made by ‘Our Watch‘ in relation to the allocation of resources towards research into female perpetration of violence, the level of support provided to male victims of domestic violence, and the availability of counselling/treatment options for violent women and couples

On the first point, I believe that it is appropriate that the government both participate, and support the participation of others, in combating domestic violence and in assisting its victims. But this should be done in a manner that is both impartial and cost-effective. There should also be complete transparency and accountability on the part of both those allocating and those receiving public monies.

In 2013/14 ‘Our Watch‘ received a whopping $4,675,550 in government funding whilst raising a paltry $6,083 in donations. These funds were sourced from the federal government ($1 million/year) and the governments of Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. A financial report for ‘Our Watch’ can be sourced from the web site of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (see the relevant ACNC registry entry here and a related blog post here).

As with the White Ribbon Campaign (another Australian feminist DV advocacy group), ‘Our Watch‘ do not directly assist victims of domestic violence. Instead they rent office space, employ many ~~feminists~~ staff, and run various PR/’education’ campaigns. These campaigns are divisive and involve the dissemination of misinformation that demonises men whilst failing to deal with female perpetration of violence. I am dubious about the extent to which their campaigns reduce the incidence of domestic violence, and indeed this has yet to be demonstrated.

I note that former MP turned journalist Gary Johns was subjected to harsh criticism after querying the effectiveness of government funds being provided to advocacy groups like ‘Our Watch‘ in lieu of directly funding service provision by government agencies.

‘Our Watch‘ advocates for female victims of domestic violence, which in and of itself is a laudable goal. A problem arises however when ‘Our Watch’ justifies their focus by claiming that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men upon women, and then seeking to validate this assertion through the ongoing misrepresentation of information concerning patterns of DV perpetration (example).

I don’t think there is any doubt that statements by politically astute groups such as ‘Our Watch’ do have a significant influence on decisions by government in relation to policies, priorities and funding allocation related to the sphere of domestic violence. This has resulted in a situation whereby government agencies treat all men as potential (if not, actual) violent abusers, where there are almost no resources available to battered men (and their children), and violent women are essentially waved away until such time as they commit a serious felony.

Those who visit Our Watch‘s Facebook page and Twitter stream will note that surprisingly little of the communication emanating from that organisation is directly related to their purported area of primary concern – domestic violence. What you will see instead is considerable self-promotion, and a preponderance of material that could only be described as feminist propaganda.

On a visit to their Facebook page on 26 October 2014 for example I noted the following:

Reader Kath Kerr: It is not fair and it is not right that privileged men who murder are consistently granted lenient sentences.

Our Watch: Too many young people in Australia have witnessed acts of physical domestic violence against a parent. (No mention that equal number of kids have seen their mum abuse their dad, as have seen their dad abuse their mum – Source)

Our Watch: It’s time to stop asking what about men (in relation to this article)

Our Watch: Congratulations to Liz Broderick, Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Our Watch Ambassador, for winning the 2014 Women of Influence award. (Celebrating the work of a highly-paid femocrat who has demonstrated absolutely zero interest in the welfare of men & boys)

And finally …

Our Watch: Strong language Warning: Oh my! Language, ladies. *clutches pearls*
This is F*cking brilliant and quite possibly the best thing on the internet. Ask yourself, What is more offensive? A little girl saying ‘f*ck’ or the f*cking unequal and sexist way society treats girls and women?” http://vimeo.com/109573972

Avril Mesh, Ben Lakos, Domestic Violence Resource Service Mackay and 63 others like this.

If any readers of my blog have yet to witness this video, and wish to see just how far feminism has fallen, then click on the above link (Strong language warning)

Ok, enough! And so I proceeded to raise my concerns with the ministers of those agencies that see fit to hand millions of our tax dollars over to ‘Our Watch‘ … namely the federal Government, the Northern Territory Government, and the Governments of Victoria and South Australia.

“Dear Minister

I write to you today to voice my strong objection to material posted in the facebook page of the group known as ‘Our Watch’ (refer attached ‘screensave’). I do so as I am aware that they receive a substantial amount of ongoing gov’t funding, and thus should be at least somewhat accountable to broader public standards.

The disgusting video that they have promoted and ‘liked’ on their facebook page (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw&noredirect=1) is discussed in these articles: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-has-nothing-to-say-but-it-still-wont-shut-up/ and http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/barbara-kay-feminist-video-turns-to-child-abuse-to-send-distorted-message/

I believe that their support for such an ‘initiative’ is reprehensible and they should be required to remove both this and other radical feminist material from their web site, twitter account and facebook page. I don’t know if you look at the material that they promote in their facebook page, but it is almost entirely either pure self promotion for key personnel or strongly pro-feminist ideological material that has only cursory relevance to the subject that is meant to be their focus – domestic violence.

Please would you act on this matter as it is clear that ‘Our Watch’ require much greater oversight if they are to continue to receive large amounts of taxpayer-funded support. Thank you for your anticipated prompt intervention concerning this matter.”

I subsequently received a response to my complaint from John Elferink, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, with the Northern Territory Government:

“I write to you in response to your email dated 28 October 2014 in regards to a Facebook post ‘Potty-Mouthed Kids Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com’ shared by the group ‘Our Watch’.

As you are aware the role of Our Watch is to drive long term cultural and attitudinal change from the ground up through community engagement and advocacy and working in close partnership with the Second Action Plan to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.

The Northern Territory Government is committed to reducing domestic violence. The financial contribution to Our Watch is just one of the ways that this Government is supporting initiatives which seek to drive attitudinal and cultural change.

Whilst the initiative that was placed on their Facebook page was divisive, this should not detract from the important work that Our Watch does in the primary prevention of violence sphere. I thank you for your vigilance in monitoring the material placed on the Our Watch social media pages and bringing it to my attention. I believe the offending post has since been removed and I have instructed the Domestic Violence Directorate to monitor the site content regularly.”

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Federal Member for Menzies and Minister for Social Services sent the following reply dated 3 December 2014:

“I appreciate you raising your concerns regarding the link to a video Our Watch posted on 21 October 2014. Our Watch was established as an independent company by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in June 2013, as an initiative under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.

Our Watch will work to provide national leadership to prevent all forms of violence against women and their children. This will be done by changing attitudes, behaviours, social norms, and practices that create violence against women and children, including the promotion of gender equality. There is a growing body of evidence showing that people with a poor understanding of gender equality may also have attitudes and behaviours that support violence.

The long term outcome of Our Watch is to encourage public conversations in Australia to support gender equality and understand the links between gender inequality and violence against women. Content on the Our Watch Facebook page is chosen to engage people in the debate by raising awareness about the importance of gender equality, challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of women in our society.”

So there we have it … promoting a video of pre-teen girls swearing their heads off = providing “national leadership“, a further aspect of which involves Our Watch encouraging “public conversations” by removing dissenting Facebook posts and banning their authors from contributing further. Would the Minister be equally comfortable with a men’s rights group promoting a similar video “challenging stereotypes and preconceived myths regarding the role of (men) in our society.” Probably I guess, unless, of course that would involve facilitating just a little too much real gender equality.

The Hon Jay Weatherill MP, Premier of South Australia sent a very basic acknowledgement only, and the Hon Heidi Victoria, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women’s Affairs, Minister for Consumer Affairs, has yet to provide me with a response. I will update this post should such a response be received.

See also:

Not content with offering ‘guidelines‘ instructing the media how to cover domestic violence in line with feminist dogma, Our Watch is now offering tangible incentives for those who comply (May 2022) … And here’s more feminist guidelines telling people the correct manner in which to write about violence against women (December 2022)

Another grubby video (using child actors) from the leftist/feminist/SJW crew (October 2019) USA

Oh, but look what happens when videos are made using allegedly right-wing kids who employ bad language, e.g. Joe Bernstein’s coverage of ‘Soph’. Clearly not seen as cool & empowering in that situation, huh? And yet another feminist double-standard (May 2019)

Our Watch charity invited to assess its own schools gender equity program (4 February 2017) Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?

Statement in relation to *some* of the funding that Our Watch receives from the federal government each year

A further example of the inappropriate use of children to help bang the feminist drum

Natasha Stott Despoja launches anti-violence campaign (10 November 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Other posts in this blog that are most relevant to this topic:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?
Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative
Just how heartless (or deeply in denial) can people be?
A busy few weeks for gender matters (Aug/Sept 2014)
Feminist advocacy group ‘Our Watch’ seeks shield from public scrutiny

One charity’s perplexing response to a potential source of donations

My father died from prostate cancer. I had an idea that I might put some donation buttons in this web site so I approached the major Australian prostate cancer charity, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, with a proposal:

“hi there, I maintain a mens rights blog at www.fighting4fair.com. I thought I would put in a “donate now” button to help fund-raise for your organisation. I came to your web site today looking for a ‘button” that I could cut and paste into one or more locations within my site, with the image hyperlinked to your everydayhero donation page. do you have such a button I could use, preferably with html code pointing to the page of your choice? Cheers”

I got a reply back the very same day which left me a little perplexed:

“Thank you so much for your email and reaching out to support PCFA. We are very grateful for your offer of having a donate now button on your website but as PCFA isn’t just about men but also about their families and the wider community, as they too have to deal with the side effects to prostate cancer, therefore, we like to work with bogs/website that are all inclusive of these audiences. Once again thank you so much for your offer and support and good luck with the continued success of your blog.”

Oh, the irony of being excluded due to a policy favouring inclusiveness. A curious state of affairs, made more so as I don’t know:

What test of ‘inclusiveness’ was applied, or the nature of the blogs/web sites deemed to meet that criteria
If the staff member who wrote to me deigned to peruse my site before determining whether or not it was sufficiently inclusive, and
Whether that decision was sanctioned by way of an established policy or whether it simply reflected personal bias on the part of the individual involved.

On that last point I looked through the Foundation’s web site but couldn’t find any applicable policy, even for example in relation to the suitability of sponsors.

Perhaps the Foundation’s decision reflects the ‘deer in the headlights’ reaction demonstrated by some organisations when they imagine their name appearing in the same sentence as the words ‘men’ and ‘rights’? That would be odd given that the Foundation is in fact in the business of securing mens rights. The right to remain free of disease due to world-class scientific research. The right to have access to the best possible methods of treatment. The right to be treated with empathy and dignity. These are rights, or at least should be rights, rather than privileges bestowed by a capricious matriarchy.

I happen to think my blog is pretty darn welcoming, and presumably so do most of the 500-600 people that it attracts each day (and growing steadily). The only visitors who might be feel a tad marginalised – though I still welcome their readership – would be gender feminists. And as dad used to say to me, ‘you can’t please everyone’.

I’m disappointed that this has happened. Not being a political ingenue I can appreciate the merit of not alienating those with influence over government funding priorities – where the real money comes from. But when did worrying about what people might think become more important than actually helping?

I have invited both the CEO of the Foundation, and the staff member who wrote to me, to add their comments to this blog. I will update this post should any further information come to hand.

Ending the ‘inclusive’ myth (11 November 2014) By sheer coincidence this thread popped up today

Prostate Foundation is looking for staff (this also popped up on 11 Nov … by coincidence)