Australia – Page 13 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

‘Sunrise’ provides equal time for feminism and men’s rights

The ‘Weekend Sunrise’ show surprised and pleased by providing separate interviews with MRA Paul Elam and feminist Laci Green.

On Saturday morning there was an interview with Paul Elam

Paul discussed the fact that mens work/life choices are more limited than women, but most of the all-too-brief interview was taken up with a discussion of rape hysteria and the need to address the problem of rape in a more rigorous and fair-minded manner.

Reddit discussion thread here and here is an article about Paul’s interview

On Sunday morning it was the turn of Laci Green

The intro provided by Andrew O’Keefe – and his comments throughout the interview left absolutely no doubt where his allegiance lies … “The history of feminism is long, strong and proud …. in fact (if not for feminism) married women, you would still be the property of your husband“. Oh please.

Feminism is wonderful – just badly misrepresented, feminism is not about hating men, feminism is just about equality and stopping sexual objectification, blah blah blah. Keep moving folks, nothing new to be seen/heard here.

“The boobs are used to sell everything …” Yes indeed Andrew, and that’s nowhere clearer than watching Laci’s efforts on Youtube.

Reddit discussion thread here which features the comment:

“[Laci] is what we call one of the “Aren’t Like That” feminists that all the other feminists use to cover their bigotry. You want to know what kind of person Laci Green is? Let me tell you.

First, I have to explain a few things. In the hood, we like to have parties. We like to get rowdy, smoke some herb, get crunk. We like to play music loud and act a fool. The problem with this is, the cops show up. Now, I’m not sure you all know what its like having the cops show up, but some people at this party have illicit drugs, or arrest warrants, or just no fucking sense. So someone has to talk to the cops. You always want to have a well spoken, easygoing, friendly person at your parties so that THEY can talk to the cops and make sure none of the other people at the party get into any shit.

Thats who feminists like Laci Green are. They’re the person Feminism has answering the door when society comes knocking and wants to know what’s going on.”

More about Laci Green here and here

(Postscript 4 December 2018: Bettina Arndt, Sam Armitage and Nat Barr stirred up the feminists with this discussion of the #MeToo phenomenon. And then – of course – a follow-up article about the outrage, entitled ‘Sunrise cops criticism over one-sided #MenToo discussion’)

Dealing with mens issues – The current situation in Australia

Australian men’s issues have both a physical and online footprint that is vastly smaller than is the case for women’s issues. There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary one is the enormous disparity in government support in relation to the two. Pro-feminist media bias in combination with feminist tactics of shaming and censorship has also proved quite effective in stifling male activism and lobbying up to this point in time.

Look at the example of Fiona Girkin, a lecturer at the University of Tasmania who was teaching police the truth about domestic violence. Well at least until she was interviewed by Bettina Arndt. As a result of complaints subsequently lodged by local feminists, Fiona is no longer working at the university.

Of those Australian organisations and sites dealing with mens issues that do have some public profile, almost all have a health focus. Most of these organisations/sites appear to be rather introspective and self-effacing in nature, i.e. essentially to keep under the feminist radar and to avoid jeopardising whatever pitiable amount of funding or government support they might receive.

Those few mens programs that do attract funding, for example the men’s shed movement, only manage to do so as they are seen as somewhat twee and posing no threat to the furthering of feminist objectives.

Government agencies: I am not aware of any federal or state government agency that deals specifically with men’s and boys issues, nor even a dedicated section within a government agency. This is a huge point of difference in comparison with the situation with women’s and girls issues.

Of those government agencies that do address issues that are very much relevant to men, the most prominent are those dealing with mental & physical health and with domestic violence. With regards to the latter at least, the primary emphasis is on ‘treating’ male perpetrators of acts of violence and abuse. Whilst some claim to offer services to male victims, such services are very hard to find & utilise.

The way that domestic violence web sites are worded gives the impression of a distinct pro-female and anti-male bias (example). Given that men are already less likely to reports acts of abuse against them, one could suggest with confidence that the character of domestic violence web sites acts as a significant disincentive to come forward. In terms of individuals who admit to working in the Australian federal or state public service, and who adopt anything other than the feminist position of the moment … well I can’t think of even one.

I deal with the issue of government agencies and ‘not-for-profit’ organisations that ignore or downplay men’s welfare in this other blog post.

Men’s studies: As you can see in this thread, an attempt was recently made to establish a men’s studies course in Australia. This met with a furious feminist backlash and was shelved. One of those who spoke against the initiative was Michael Flood, a staunch feminist who misrepresents himself as a spokesperson for the Australian men’s rights movement.

Men’s health: Men’s health advocates comprise a mix of individual counselors, universities, and non-government organisations. Their stance towards men’s rights varies between one of neutrality to a ‘deer in the headlights’ stance brought about through their concern that any perceived association with MRA could threaten their political acceptability and hence access to government funding. The latter position is demonstrated by the charity discussed in this other blog post. There are, however some virulently anti-MRA outliers such as Michael Salter, Michael Flood, and more recently some character by the name of Joshua Roose (an example of his unfortunate mindset).

The level of government funding for Australian mens health issues/organisations (as with men’s issues/organisations generally) is miniscule in comparison to that allocated to women (see one useful source in this regard). See also this post about funding for The Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre having been slashed.

Here is a web site for Men’s Health Week (12-18 June 2023)

Some of the better-known men’s health organisations include:

Men’s Health Australia
Australian Men’s Health Forum (see also their ‘links‘ page)
Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies
Centre for Advancement of Men’s Health
Men4Life support group
Men’s Health Clearinghouse
The Shed Online (an initiative of Beyond Blue)
Dr Elizabeth Celi
Inspire change counselling

‘Relating to Men’ was a great site that was sadly removed after sustained online harassment of the author, Jasmin Newman

Fathers issues (incl. divorce, custody, etc):

Dads4Kids
Lone Fathers Association
Australian Brotherhood of Fathers (See related article here)
Dads in Distress support services
Fathers for Equality
‘Dads on the Air’ radio program
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)

Men’s rights activism:
The most popular online forum for sharing news and information is Reddit Mensrights
Men’s Rights Agency
Men’s Rights Sydney and Men’s Rights Melbourne (with a further group formed in Brisbane in early 2015)
Australian Men’s Rights Association

Some other recognised Australian spokespersons on men’s/boys issues include:

I believe Bettina Arndt to now be the best Australian writer on gender issues re: her consistent and substantial output of informative papers. Here’s one particular paper from Bettina (November 2023), here is her end of 2024 update, and here is a paper + video dealing with the 2025 federal election.

James L. Nuzzo has also recently produced a swathe of detailed papers on various men’s issues.

Greg Andresen also writes good quality material, incl. government submissions and fact sheets. Greg is the Senior Researcher for the ‘One in Three’ organisation which advocates for male victims of domestic violence. He is also the Australian liaison for the US-based organisation ‘National Coalition for Men‘, as well as being an active advocate for men’s health.

Dr. Greg Canning is the Australian liaison for the US-based organisation ‘A Voice for Men‘, and has previously written many articles and submissions on men’s issues. ‘A Voice for Men’ also now has its own Australian committee.

There are quite a number of others posting good quality material on social media outlets like Twitter, but their output (like my own) is sporadic, in part because they are volunteering their own time. There also seems to be a pattern of many pro-MRA writers disappearing after a few years, due to frustration and becoming the targets of doxxing and/or other forms of harassment.

Australian politics and gender issues:

In Australia, as with the USA, there currently exists a distinct and growing trend towards women being more likely to vote for left-leaning individuals/parties (Source).

An argument put forward by feminists is that men can’t possibly be discriminated against because most politicians are male. This point was addressed in a comment I came across online:

“Men in power do not act in the interest of other men. They are widely influenced by women and their lobbying efforts, and are more likely to act in the interests of them.” (Source: http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/)

This is certainly the case here in Australia, where most of our politicians, from former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to contemplate representing the interests of 50% of their constituents. You can see some of Malcolm Turnbull’s unfortunate early comments on gender matters here, here and here.

I can’t help wondering what could be achieved if only we had an Australian politician with the tenacity and courage of Philip Davies in the UK (see this example of his efforts). Philip’s pioneering efforts with gender equality are also discussed in this article.

Meanwhile other MP’s like Tim Watts (Australian Labor Party) are pathetically eager to champion feminist causes and/or push men under the bus (see related reddit discussion here).

There are just a few exceptions to the rule:

Pauline Hanson is virtually the only woman in federal parliament with anything positive to say in relation to men and boys (2023 video).

Sarah Game made history in 2022 by becoming the first One Nation member of the Parliament of South Australia, and the first female One Nation parliamentarian elected anywhere other than Pauline Hanson herself (Source). Sarah Game has appeared online on numerous occasions demonstrating initiatives in support of men & boys.

Watch out for Senator Alex Antic.

George Christensen, former Federal Member for Dawson: Of the hundreds of state and federal politicians paid for by us taxpayers, George was the only one with the guts to come out and openly support ANY fathers/men’s/boys issue. George previously chaired a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program. Here is a speech by George concerning family law, and another paper regarding the issue of child support. And this is the treatment that George got for speaking up on these issues.

Senator John Madigan (Independent) and George Christensen launched the Parliamentary Friends of Shared Parenting on 16 June 2015 … “We need to end parental alienation because every child deserves a meaningful relationship with his or her mother and father.” Feel the hurt from this feminist journalist as she bemoans the fact that these politicians dared to corrupt public policy by (shudder) listening to men.

Another federal parliamentarian, Bob Katter has also previously expressed concern regarding anti-male bias within the family court system.

Labor’s Member for Greenway in Western Sydney, Michelle Rowland, has asked a parliamentary inquiry examining the child support system, to consider whether custodial parents should be accountable for how they spend child support money (Source)

Senator Cory Bernardi dared to suggest that it might sometimes be appropriate to use a headlock on a violent woman during an incident of domestic violence, and was publicly accused of encouraging violence against women. In June 2016 Cory was also criticized for tweeting a link to an article by Roosh V concerning social justice warriors.

Victorian MP Graham Watt is another one to watch after attracting media attention for refusing to give misandrist DV lobbyist Rosie Batty a standing ovation. See this article also (including readers comments)

Senator Mitch Fifield warrants an honourable mention for his refusal to accept a sexist slur offered by Katy Gallagher.

David Leyonhjelm (formerly Liberal Democrats) has also made a name for himself in this regard in the federal sphere, before moving to the state (NSW) arena (see video), and then losing his seat.

Also in NSW, Senator Jewell Drury is, amongst other things, seeking reform with regards to the treatment of domestic violence.

‘Andrew Tate recruitment drives’: Senator Matt Canavan’s extraordinary gender pay gap spray (27 February 2024) Whilst Matt’s comments appear rather uninformed, this article shows what happens to anyone who steps out of (the pro-feminist) line.

In Queensland, Opposition Corrective Services spokesman Tim Mander accused Labor of exceeding its party’s gender quota system in relation to appointments to the Parole Board.

See also my posts in relation to the views of both the major parties and minor parties in relation to feminism and gender-related issues.

By and large the only Australia politicians with the courage to challenge the feminist orthodoxy are ex-politicians, as discussed in this other blog post.

One person to keep an eye on going forward is Augusto Zimmermann, who is Law Reform Commissioner at the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Dr Zimmermann was proposed as a replacement for Gillian Triggs at the Australian Human Rights Commission, but alas was not appointed. (Paper 1) (Paper 2) (Paper 3) (Paper 4)

The Australian media:

The MSM in Australia is a lost cause for the time being, with very few journalists willing to be seen to question feminist orthodoxy. Those that do, know full-well what they can expect. Some examples would include Andrew Bolt, Corrine Barraclough, Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi.

Where are things up to in Australia at the moment amongst the general population? Well I would liken the situation with most men to frogs being boiled in a pot. The temperature is going up slowly and steadily and guys just aren’t noticing how hot things are. The temperature in this case being the increasing anti-male bias in the media, in the law, in politics, etc.

One significant political event has been the re-election of Donald Trump as US President, one benefit of which has already been to generate discussion about real and alleged gender bias in the political process (example).

Further, and contrary to the notion of patriarchy, men’s own innate behaviour is such that they lend themselves to being taken advantage of. For example, the default setting for most men is to help and protect women rather than criticise them. Men are also very reluctant to been seen to portray themselves as victims, and would prefer to internalise problems and deal with them on their own (rather than for example join a men’s group).

Most men (and women) have little knowledge of the men’s rights movement, and consequently the views of many reflect the deeply biased picture painted in the mainstream media, i.e. MRA as being violent, as being ‘rednecks’, as being ultra-conservative, and as being ‘woman-haters’. By the same token, most men (and women) are equally ill-informed about the true nature of feminism and so accept the benign ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism as portrayed in the media.

Nevertheless, however, many men are reaching the inescapable conclusion that the pendulum has swayed far beyond the mid-way point with regards to the rights of women vis a vis the rights of men. They also recognise that there is also a widening gap between the respective rights and obligations of men and women.

Many men are increasingly unhappy and dissatisfied in their interaction with women. Many men have also either suffered considerable psychological and financial trauma as a result of divorce, or know friends who have been shattered in this manner. (And coincidentally or otherwise, women have also become increasingly unhappy.)

As a consequence whilst the majority of Aussie guys remain unwilling to take collective action, or to identify as an MRA, I am seeing many more men and women expressing their views in the online world in response to media articles that have an anti-male bias (example 1 / example 2 / example 3).

Another telling indicator is the huge number of visitors to MHRA sites like ‘A Voice for Men’ versus the relatively small number who are actually registered members. This suggests to me that there are a lot of people ‘sitting on the fence’ at the moment awaiting a tipping-point, whereupon we will see far greater and more organised expressions of assertive (yet assiduously non-violent) activism.

Further background material

The last few decades have seen men increasingly portrayed in a negative light, basically it’s now a choice between lazy, inept, evil, stupid, or creepy. Concerns raised about this trend are generally dismissed along the lines of “relax, it’s just a joke!”. Funny thing though, ‘jokes’ made about women elicit a very different reaction.

“Men have always made fun of themselves,” said New York Times best-selling author and social philosopher Michael Gurian. “The kind of things that are done with men in the media would never be done with women, and that’s just sort of a given. But men don’t mind. They live by joking and putting each other down and lifting each other up. But the negative is that they can only be OK if the rest of society has a basic understanding and respect for boys and men.” (Source)

I’m tired of Hollywood trying to sell me on the concept of “loveable idiots”, and I am disheartened by the ubiquitous content that tears men down. I love filling my life with laughter, however why are my current content choices trying to get me to laugh at a reduced version of men? Why is Hollywood trying to get me to focus on the broken-down, allegorical version of who they think my husband is? Obviously they don’t know my husband. (Source)

Now take a look at this article that appeared in that dreadful magazine ‘Cosmopolitan‘. It’s all about the ways that women are said to be better than men. Stomach-turning sexist tosh. Ah, but then treat yourself to this excellent rebuttal by Janet Bloomfield.

One wonders whether this ongoing negative portrayal of men reinforces hostility towards men, which may in turn influence the rate of partner violence towards men as addressed in this other blog post.

The various sources listed below discuss this issue in depth and/or provide specific examples of negative ways in which men are presented in the media and/or are subsequently perceived in the community-at-large:

‘The lad vote’: Surprise polling trend shows young Aussie men moving to the right (19 March 2025) This trend is by no means restricted to Australia

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan creates social media backlash by creating new new role of Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change (29 May 2024) See too this video on this topic (1 June 2024) See too this video by Bettina Arndt (2 June 2024)

Aussie men have had enough – has a great push-back begun? (May 2024) Video

‘Working for Women’ – A Strategy for Gender Equality (2024) How absurd – a gender equality strategy that barely mentions men & boys. Or to be more accurate, the word ‘men’ appears in the Strategy 84 times, ‘women’ features 491 times, ‘woman’ (5), boy (1), and ‘girl’ (29). Almost equal. Not

Of Marx and Men, by Damien Coory (14 January 2023)

Men’s Rights Agency presentation to the Parliamentary Forum
arranged by Ken Ticehurst MP held in Canberra on 12
November 2002

Misandry in Ads (a video from 2015)

Trashing men in the movies, by Bettina Arndt (28 September 2022)

Buy a real shaver – Jeremy’s razors (22 March 2022) Video satire

Ukraine’s disposable men (9 March 2022)

Why must every man on TV today be a monster? As a tidal wave of male-hating shows depicts women as victims (17 November 2021)

The dangerous pleasure of hating men (13 November 2021)

Of Bond, villains, and the average boy (15 October 2021)

Should we be concerned about the messages that men and boys are exposed to? (2 September 2021)

Sarah Everard missing: Why a curfew for men isn’t a bad idea (12 March 2021) Can you imagine a similar story saying women should be subject to a curfew? Err .. no

Oh but this US game show is so funny. Now swap genders and listen to the laughs drying up (18 May 2020) Video, and here is a link to a Twitter discussion stream.

The team working for McDonalds fast-food chain (Mumbrella) seem destined to produce a Gillette-style campaign, but targeting boys (3 February 2020) “Just a bit a fun say the advertisers, while boys get demonised for slamming doors in girls’ faces” observes Bettina Arndt.

The marketing team at Lee Jeans thinks it’s ok to disparage men on the basis that only men spread over seats on public transport (July 2019) Tedious sexism. Video

A new German commercial takes man-hating to the next level (9 May 2019) Edeka takes up where Gillette left off

ABC’s The Drum – We’re all misogynists now (14 April 2019) Another great Scott Crowe video

The Victorian Government (Australia) has issued a video highlighting the horror of women receiving unwanted attention on public transport, and – surprise surprise – calling on men to step in and deal with other men (9 April 2019). ‘Independent Man’ responds to this rather well with his own video.

Ten things not to say to/about your husband (9 February 2010) Video. How rarely is this type of message encountered? Women have corresponding obligations to their spouse? What?

What is a man? A response to Gillette (January 2019) Video

Happy International Men’s Day, by Tom Golden (19 November 2018) Video

National Trust covers up male busts (6 November 2018) UK

White men are now the Democratic Party’s punching bag, by Saritha Prabhu (29 October 2018)

Rethinking Gender, Sexuality, and Violence, by Gideon Scopes (25 October 2017)

The mysterious invisibility of men’s good deeds, by Mark Dent (14 July 2018)

The beginning of the end, by Mark Dent (25 June 2018)

Men, you want to treat women better? Here’s a list to start with (17 October 2017) See the readers comments plus a related Reddit discussion thread here.

Sexual Assault Survivors Aren’t Just Daughters. They’re Actually Humans (12 October 2017) Stuff like this does my head in. Men shamed for speaking about the female experience (men can’t possibly understand!) Men shamed for not condemning sexual harassment (enough). Mainstream media runs many articles claiming that men only begin to understand women when they have a daughter (example1). Men feel unqualified to express a view so use justification of having daughter (etc) to qualify themselves as having a right to express a view. Men shamed for being seen to need to justify their views on the basis of having a daughter. Back to start and repeat.

Amanda Platell on the misandrous makers of TV drama (7 October 2017)

Does the NRL have a culture problem? (13 September 2017) Video

The Violent Sex (9 July 2017)

Complaint regarding BBC program that presented domestic violence against men as humorous (5 May 2017)

Between 1920 and 2005, men in USA increased their unpaid housework contribution x 3. Haven’t seen that acknowledged in any one of those countless articles about how men are such slackers around the house.

We Need More Balance In The Media’s Depiction Of Men (13 April 2017)

When did men (particularly dads) become so idiotic? (3 March 2017)

Why I won’t let any male babysit my children, by Kasey Edwards (23 February 2017) Australia. My subsequent blog post concerning both this article, and various follow-up articles, can be found here.

The myth of white male supremacy (14 February 2017)

Husbands Are Deadlier Than Terrorists (11 February 2017) USA. Wives are too, but saying that won’t get the author a tummy scratch from the feminist lobby. The thing is, even if the author had titled this piece ‘Spouses are deadlier that terrorists’, it would not have detracted from the main thrust of the article one iota … ie. completely superfluous sexism. (My readers comment is here)

‘Women kicking balls, I’d like to see that’ (22 January 2017) New ad campaign promoting women’s sport. How about ‘Men grabbing pussy, I’d like to see that’. Hmm, still not funny.

Son, let me tell you all about how dadsplaining works (13 January 2017) Whether this piece was a weak & inappropriate attempt at humour, or a serious bid for a tummy-scratch from feminists, it undermines the role of men/fathers at a time when we need to be doing the very opposite.

Cab firm is forced to pull ‘derogatory and sexist’ ad campaign featuring an overweight model with the slogan ‘If I start to look sexy book a taxi’ (4 January 2017) No complaints about sleazy man poster – you can portray men any way you like.

Advertising Standards Board rules Allpest commercial ‘vilifies’ husbands (29 December 2016)

An open letter to men, who can help female runners feel safe (6 December 2016)

Sell a sticker like this that says anything other than “men” – I dare you (undated)

Misandrist advertisements (1 December 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Stock photographers have all got the same idea of what it looks like when things go wrong in bed (17 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Hating men is mainstream (23 September 2016)

Social Justice’s Punching Bags: Men, White People, Straight People (17 September 2016)

‘White men are being blamed for everything‘ by Mark Latham (30 August 2016) Australia

The all men (and only men) are potential serial killers meme: ‘What mass killers really have in common’, by Rebecca Traister (17 July 2016), and ‘One group is responsible for America’s culture of violence, and it isn’t cops, black Americans, Muslims or rednecks. It’s men‘, by Melissa Batchelor Warnke

Andrea Leadsom suggests men should not be nannies because they may be paedophiles (15 July 2016) UK. This gender bigot is a senior member of the newly-appointed British cabinet. A subsequent article regarding the reaction to Ms Leadsom’s odious comments.

Doting dad’s hilarious approach to housework (2 July 2016)

Can’t you take a joke, love? Why the ‘banter’ isn’t funny any more (20 June 2016) This article listed here as a further example of how feminist journalists are so wonderfully adept at describing problems affecting both genders as female-only issues. Meanwhile ‘jokes’ about men continue to go unchallenged.

Michelle Obama urges men at women’s summit to ‘be better’ (14 June 2016)

Top 10: Worst male-bashing ads (undated)

War On Women? OK, But What About The War On Men? (10 May 2016) USA

Scientists show how we start stereotyping the moment we see a face (2 May 2016)

“Although the participants didn’t personally endorse those stereotypes, it’s clear that they affected the participants’ unconscious thinking. Stereotypes can be like poison in the water we all swim in, and the brain, like a sponge, absorbs them, Freeman said, even when we don’t want it to.”

Hot Fuzz comes to Plymouth as women beg to be arrested by sexy new Chief Superintendent (29 April 2016) UK

Anyone seen the new TV advert for BT? I’m sure a woman slaps the man. Gender violence? (24 April 2016) UK

Chilling Australian PSA shows how boys learn domestic violence (21 April 2016)

Charlie Bloom: Advertisers cash in on the feminist thirst for male humiliation (22 March 2016) UK

What’s the value of that item? Walmart does the #ManMath (16 March 2016)

Powerful Ad Urging Husbands To Help With Chores Goes Viral (2 March 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Branded for life? Sending the wrong message to young perpetrators of family violence (24 March 2016) Typical feminism-inspired ‘education’ campaign that piles all the sins of DV at the feet of men/youth. The value of such campaigns is dubious to begin with, but it should have featured some female perpetrators. Naturally this article, in pro-feminist The Conversation, conveniently ignores that issue. Here is a video of a similar campaign now underway in the UK – again no hint of there being any female perpetration.

Heineken’s ‘Drink Responsibly’ TV ad (January 2016) Only men drink to excess. ‘Good men’ don’t drink to excess. ‘Good men’ get to go home with a hot girl. The subliminal message here being that men’s irresponsible behaviour is best addressed through a combination of shaming and dangling the carrot of sexual gratification. This not-so-flattering portrayal of men dreamt up in the (I’m guessing) feminist-sodden environment of some ad agency or another. Sure they score a point for making an effort to reduce over-consumption of a pernicious legal drug, but they lose two for lacking the courage & conviction to produce a companion ad for the ‘I’m so drunk!’ millennial female set.

Men have it tough in the social minefield, writes Jess Leo (7 February 2016) Australia

Advertisers now portray men the way they portrayed women in the 1950s: as either dumb or pretty, by Martin Daubney (27 January 2016) UK. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

When Gender Hatred Is ‘Funny’, by Mark Dent (20 January 2016) Australia

It’s comic schtick, not sexism: Why it’s OK for Julia Morris to drool over Dr Chris (18 January 2016) Australia

A poor start to the year for the Men of Australia (6 January 2016) Australia

You’re going the wrong way (2 January 2016) Australia

On Hating Men (16 December 2015) USA

Pajama Boy Redux: The Male in Modern Society (20 November 2015)

Emma Freedman: The terrible dates we can all learn from (16 October 2015) Perhaps there have also been similar articles about women who were terrible dates, but I can’t remember seeing them

How to stop mass shootings (2 October 2015)

The feminization of America accelerates as universities shame men for being men (20 September 2015)

Australians, horror fans and 80s kids will understand this. The descent of masculinity from hero to evil (14 July 2015)

The depiction of dads as schmucks by ad agencies (June 2015)

Astute Dr Elizabeth Celi UNRAVELS Truth about Men in todays Feminist world (11 June 2015) Video. Australia

Why this is the end of the dumb dad era (7 May 2015)

Society’s Contempt For Men – Barbara Kay Explains – Men’s Rights Feminists’ wrongs (5 May 2015) Video

Too many young men with negative attitudes to sex and violence, survey finds (7 May 2015) And what of the attitudes of young women? We’re not told, and increasingly surveys don’t even bother to explore that side of the equation. This article is typical of the one-sided (anti-male) hit-pieces continually being fed to the public by left-leaning progressive journalists, eagerly supplied by obliging local feminist advocacy groups. Agenda? What agenda?

Study: Men are lazy to their core (7 May 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

The denigration of men: Ridiculed, abused and exploited, by Peter Lloyd (18 April 2015)

Norwegian TV commercial (Youtube video dated 12 July 2010) and subsequent reddit mensrights discussion thread (March 2015)

Men are now objectified more than women (9 February 2015)

‘Men Are Good’: the Facebook group that says men aren’t all bad (4 March 2015)

BBC Woman’s Hour hides the fact that male voters are more supportive of women leaders (7 February 2015)

“Sorry, it’s a boy” – Superbowl advertisement (2 February 2015)

Man-slamming: another reason to slam men (10 January 2015)

Proved at last: Men really are idiots (12 December 2014) and of course Jezebel gleefully jumped in with a companion piece. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here which discusses the flipside of this issue. And here is a related article by ‘Inside Man’ magazine that’s well worth a read.

Wet wipes blocking Sydney sewers as more men flush them down the toilet (7 December 2014) Yeah sure, and the sample size of the survey that determined that men were flushing wet-wipes, was how small? This article would have been worth writing if it had suggested promoting the use of Asian-style ‘bum-guns’ in Australia, but they chose to waste bandwidth with another hit-piece on men instead.

Parents warned of dangers of Santa’s lap (5 December 2014)

Men need to stop taking up so much room on public transport by Janet Bloomfield (16 September 2014)

Most advertisers keep up with ever-changing family roles (24 August 2014)

Men still hidden as victims of violence in the home (24 November 2014)

The internet hates men, and no one’s a winner (13 November 2014)

YouTube video of men trying to take ‘drunk girl’ home with them receives nearly 3 million views (12 November 2014) All articles admitted that the video was probably staged but were content to promote it anyway, because it was “shocking” and “disturbing”, and perfectly supports the dominant ‘all men are pigs’ trope. A subsequent article confirmed that people were recruited to ‘star’ in the video.

Miranda Devine: Stop your bitching about poor Bachelor Blake Garvey (12 October 2014)

It’s Time to Retire the ‘Dumb Dad’ Joke Once and for All by Mike Cruse (7 November 2014)

Casual misandry (4 November 2014)

Misandry in the media A video series on Youtube

Why do television shows belittle the feelings of men? (2 November 2014) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

“It would have been disingenuous at best to pretend that a male subject could represent such systemic abuse” (27 April 2012) Because men are never victims so how could they ever understand?

The “real man” dogma (15 October 2014)

I hate this insidious trend for belittling men, says Melissa Kite (23 October 2014)

When it comes to depictions of men, gutter glossies and ivory tower feminists are on the same page (16 October 2014)

How to get kicked in the nuts (October 2014) Because assaulting men is soooo funny!

Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women (25 September 2014) As people have no sympathy for men

Don’t take pot shots at fathers (24 September 2014)

For Father’s Day give us men who aren’t shown as fools and clowns (5 September 2014)

When is ‘Violence against men day’? (1 September 2014)

Ad watchdog dismissed complaints against ‘Man-proof your car’ ads (4 August 2014)

Michelle Obama says women are smarter than men (6 August 2014) and here are Jessica Valenti’s bigoted views on the matter

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/mans-penis-mistakenly-amputated-during-routine-circumcision/story-fneuzlbd-1227001450218 (25 July 2014) Oh look at the funny pictures that accompany the article! Why is it that I doubt they would use the same pics if the article was about a women who had one breast removed by mistake? Oh, that’s right, because it wouldn’t be funny then.

Are advertisers finally beginning to take dads seriously? (14 August 2014)

The Early Learning Centre’s ‘funny’ Facebook post (17 August 2014) Companies contemplating similar sexist advertising might want to read some of the comments on the ELC Facebook page.

Make men better (such pigs) (September 2014)

Do men start wars? (7 August 2014)

If men acted like feminists, by Thunderf00t (28 June 2014) Video

When gender hatred is funny (10 June 2014)

Retire the bumbling husband: He isn’t helping (21 July 2014)

Ad watchdog dismisses complaints that White Ribbon anti-violence campaign is sexist (26 September 2013)

It’s Time to Stop Treating Dads Like Idiots (25 April 2013)

Double Standards? Representation of Male vs. Female Sex Offenders in the Australian Media (2009)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2b9vet/vicks_directs_flippant_disdain_toward_mens_health/

Is there anything good about men? (2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZat3oIbhU

After seeing so many commercials where men are portrayed as bumbling, clueless idiots, this ad by Dove was refreshing (Reddit discussion on 12 June 2014)

Why are men on TV always such fools? (13 March 2014) Note the 433 readers comments – clearly many people are fed up with the current situation of rampant double-standards

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/27gk4i/men_in_schoolmale_representation_in_media_in_an/

Sexism? Pah! The real reason why Channel 4 didn’t put women on Bear Gryll’s island (12 May 2014)

Why do advertisers portray men as idiots? (25 April 2014)

No more dumb old dad: Changing the bumbling father stereotype (15 June 2012)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/just-plain-crazy/feminists-stoop-to-a-new-low/

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2014/01/26/stop-picking-on-our-men-top-australian-journalist-argues/

http://cnsnews.com/blog/suzanne-venker/what-americans-need-know-about-feminist-bias

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/misandry-and-emptiness-masculine-identity-in-a-toxic-cultural-environment/

http://sozziesocks.tumblr.com/post/79167707595/ceneca-qui-antibadstuffprogoodstuff

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7gvl/firestone-good-nap

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/snickers-teams-up-with-aussie-builders-for-new-ad-try-not-to-take-it-too-seriously/story-e6frfmyi-1226865529268

https://twitter.com/Femalefedupwith/status/450910549468250112/photo/1

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?9424-Bill-Maher-mocks-men-coerced-into-sex-by-women&p=85528

Lay off men, Lessing tells feminists (14 August 2001)

And now for some good news: ‘Move Over, Mom, It’s Dad’s Turn In Ads‘ (27 January 2015)

And finally here are two representations of men, one from a country where feminists ‘call the shots’, and one from a country where they don’t. Can you guess which one is which?

Opinion: The data are clear: The boys are not all right (9 February 2022) An example of the USA situation

Politicians can’t hear what men don’t say. An interview with Ann Widdecombe (1 February 2022) An example of the UK situation

Thank you Grace Tame. Abuse is well and truly out of the shadows (25 January 2022) Oops, well the abuse of women/girls anyway.

Bettina Arndt: The rape conviction rate – a scandalous deceit of parliament and the public (19 January 2022) Recommended reading

When America Embraced Wonder Woman and forgot G.I. Joe (21 November 2021) This paper is not specifically related to Australia, but interesting and relevant nonetheless.

Sorry, Snarling Clementine, but the UN says we’re a leader in treating women well and gender equity (11 March 2020)

The trumpet blasts of the monstrous regiment (26 September 2016)

It was great to see fitness advocate Michelle Bridges bravely speak out for male victims of domestic violence on the Studio Ten TV show, despite the fact that the comperes made their own pro-feminist views abundantly clear (10 November 2015)

http://www.australianmensrights.com/Fathers_Rights-Australia/Rise_of_Australian_Fathers_Rights_Groups_Worries_Australian_Feminists.aspx

Feminism: Past its use-by date? (1 August 2014) An ABC radio interview with Australian feminists and anti-feminist activist Janet Bloomfield (plus readers comments)

A lesson from the U.K. for Australian political parties thinking of wooing feminist voters (14 November 2014)

The article below was disseminated by a senior Australian politician, Bill Shorten, on 31 August 2024. What a truly pathetic effort, and one which clearly demonstrates the sad place where we are now at with regards to gender.

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

Firstly, and by way of background, the concept of institutional misandry has been described as:

“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their status as male. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and misandric stereotyping which disadvantage males.”

It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such misandry it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease.

— After section 6.34, page 49, Cm 4262-I, Lawrence. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. February 1999. (Source)

You might also be interested in viewing these videos about institutional misandry in the UK.

I frequently encounter the online footprints of Australian organisations whose interests encompass one or more gender-related issues, and who appear to demonstrate a significant degree of anti-male bias. Many of these organisations:

provide minimal or no services or support for men, and often only reference men in the context of (for example) perpetrators of sexual assault or domestic violence
are strongly biased towards, or influenced by, feminist ideology
have weak oversight or disclosure mechanisms in place, for example annual reports, financial statements/independent auditing, and measures of performance which (if they exist) are not publicly available, and
have either no men working within them, or only very few (gender quotas anyone?)

I find this situation to be of considerable concern bearing in mind the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into just the domestic violence sector alone each year. What’s more, that amount continues to increase and in July 2014 it was announced that millions more were to be poured into agencies to protect “women and their children“ (whilst still assiduously ignoring male victims and violent women).

One should consider the current situation in the context of the relative paucity of funding to organisations that support men and boys, all whilst the government trumpets on about gender equality.

It also worries me that this list is not restricted to private lobby groups or not-for-profits that benefit from substantial government funding or contracts. Indeed, there are many government agencies and groups within the tertiary education sector that display almost as much gender bias.

I have already allocated blog posts to several such organisations:

The Australian Human Rights Commission (Annual budget = just over $33 million)

Australian Department of Social Services (Annual budget = $4.2 billion)

Australian Institute of Family Studies (Annual budget = $17.75 million)

WA Department of Child Protection and Family Support (Annual budget = just under $625 million)

Workplace Gender Equality Agency (Annual budget $5 million) $5 million a year to propagate a feminist myth and to shake a finger at companies that won’t buy into their delusion. Their contribution to the Australian community consists of burning public money on the altar of feminism. (Postscript November 2018: Budget doubled)

‘Our Watch’ (formerly known as the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children) (Receives government grants totalling between $1 million and $2 million per annum)

White Ribbon Campaign (Received government grants totalling $280,000 during 2013/14 financial year, but in 2019 it went broke & was closed down)

Domestic Violence NSW (Received more than $6 million in government funds in 2013-14)

DV Connect (Around $3 million during 2013/14 financial year, mainly from the Queensland Department of Communities)

The Australian Gender Equality Council (Budget unknown)

Safe and Equal Inc. lists annual receipt of government grants totaling $7,135,582

‘No to Violence’ (Income and expenditure of approx. $4.9 million in the 2017/18 financial year)

Diversity Council Australia (Total income in 2015 of approx. $1.5 million, mainly from membership fees. Many public agencies are listed as members, but the extent of public funding is not identified. All staff bar one are female … diversity … seriously?

Men’s Referral Service (Government funding was around $2million/annum but they are now to be the recipient of a further allocation of $13 million over four years)

The E-Safety Office (Annual government funding is currently around $100 million)

In this blog post my intention is to eventually corral and list basic details of other similar organisations, and then subsequently do further research on each.

Who’ll be the next cab off the rank? Oh, we have oh so many contenders …

Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre – Hmm, where to start here. Well firstly check out how many men they have on board with regards to Advisory Board members/key researchers/HDR researchers/visiting scholars. Think, one or none tokenism. But more to report here folks – back soon.

Women’s Safety NSW – This group came to my attention due to their lobbying against a proposed Family Law Inquiry. You can review their tweets (@womenssafetynsw) in relation to that issue distributed around mid-late September 2019. Their ACNC register entry is here – you will note that they received $253,869 in government grants in 2019/20 whilst spending $192,710 on “Employee Expenses” (with only one fulltime employee). The CEO and Board are wholly female. (Newsflash: Their Twitter account states “Women’s Safety NSW is no longer in operation” as at 27 July 2021. Their former CEO, Hayley Foster, is now CEO of another organisation called ‘Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia’).

Full Stop Foundation is registered as a charity with annual income approaching $2 million. Their patron is feminist Tara Moss, and all seven board members are women. Looking at their web site and ACNC register entry, it’s uncertain though to what extent they receive government funding. What exactly is “contract income”? (See note 4). Also, whilst they list the Australian Human Rights Commission as supporters they don’t seem to clarify what form this support takes (?)

Or another … this one is called ‘Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre’, but don’t let “family” fool you. Safe Steps “is committed to assisting all women and children in the community experiencing family violence. We are an organisation that values inclusivity, diversity and intersectionality”. All female board and staff. Income of $12 million in financial year 2017/18 according to latest annual report on their web site, but which doesn’t specify the extent of grant funding. Safe Steps is listed in the ACNC register but no information seems to be held for them. (?)

Or maybe a group known as ‘Emerge’? “Emerge supports women and children who have experienced family violence, empowering them to rebuild their lives“. There would appear to be no male directors or staff. Their entry in the ACNC register, here, provides various details concerning the organisation. The most recent financial statement lists more than $1.2 million received in the financial year ending 30 June 2018 (from the Dept. of Health and Human Services), and approx. $620k in salary expenses.

Just out of curiosity I typed “male victims” into their web site search facility, and got “Oops, we are really sorry but no results were found“.

Or how about Women’s Community Shelters Ltd who came to my attention via their daily paid placement in my Twitter feed? Their ACNC register entry mentions a total annual income of almost $3.5m, of which just over 1/3 arrives by way of government funding. This mostly comes from the NSW Dept. of FaCS, who explain here the “facts” about domestic and family violence (no need to complicate things by mentioning male victims).

Or perhaps Relationships Australia? I understand that they don’t have many male counsellors nowadays, and one less after the departure of Rob Tiller.

Or perhaps the International Women’s Development Agency? It would appear that there are no male directors or staff. Indeed in October 2018 IWDA advertised for a non-executive director, but lads don’t get your hopes up:

“International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) has an EEO exemption (H298/2018) and requests applications from women only. IWDA has a Child Rights and Protection Policy and directors are required to undertake a National Police Check and endorse IWDA’s Child Rights and Protection Code of Conduct.”

I wonder why IWDA were granted an EEO exemption and whether an application from a MRA organisation would be treated similarly? See here and here. Oh and IWDA seem to get plenty of government financial support too:

“Grant income represents 81% of our total income and grew by 43% in 2016/17. This is based on a combined Grants total of $8.59mil, of which 29.81% is sourced directly from the Australian Government’s Aid Program.” (Source, p27)

Or how about ‘The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault‘? This is the page that I came across first. It reads like a grant application for a feminist spend-fest doesn’t it? I had a very quick look at their site and found nothing along the lines of guidelines to help female perpetrators, or anything about male victims. I searched on “sexual assault of men” and did come across a page entitled ‘Engaging men in sexual assault prevention‘ though. You know the sort of advice that helps us men curb the frothing rapist lurking within each and every one of us.

The ‘About us‘ page tells us that there are no male staff at the Centre, as well as providing the following information:

The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) was established in 2003 by the Commonwealth Office for Women. It is funded by the Department of Social Services and is hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

ACSSA is a central collection point for research, information and resources about sexual assault in Australia. Our key role is to facilitate access to the growing evidence-base on sexual assault and to support organisations, agencies and others use research and evidence in shaping policy, practice and research directions in responding to, and reducing, sexual assault.

We collect, synthesise and summarise developments in:

research and evaluation;
practice knowledge and resources;
law reform and legislation; and
policy initiatives.

OK, well there is no mention there of the agency being restricted to only dealing with the sexual assault of women by men. Given, however, that it’s an offshoot of the ‘Commonwealth Office for Women’, I think it would be a safe bet that that is in fact the case. Of course if there was a corresponding ‘Office for Men’, then I guess that they would deal with male victims and female perpetrators. But there isn’t, because … men can deal with it (?)

With regards to their budget, all I’ve found at the moment is this somewhat dated page for the Government’ entire ‘Womens Safety Agenda‘, which mentions a total budget of $75.7 million over four years. The 2014/15 budget shows an allocation of $3.5 million for the Office of Women this year (refer page 31), but there may well be further allocations under the Social Services budget (and elsewhere?). On 23 June 2014 I sent an email to Treasury seeking this information:

“I am aware that a womens budget statement is regularly prepared to identify expenditure that is expressly designed to support Australian women. I would like to know if there is a similar statement identifying expenditure designed to support men.

Alternatively, and assuming there is not … is there any source that you can either provide me with – or point me towards – that enables a side-by-side comparison of expenditure for men and women? I look forward to receiving your advice on this matter. Thank you”

… but no reply since. Hmm.

Postscript: Sarah Game MLC has provided the following information regarding the Office for Women in a Twitter discussion thread (February 2024)

What’s happening overseas?

Meanwhile over in the USA Barack Obama introduced one (1) federal program to assist men and boys (as against the dozens that assist women and girls), only to have the feminist backlash begin immediately (and see related reddit discussion here). Somehow, sadly, I can’t see Malcolm Turnbull stepping into the breech with anything similar here in Australia. Ooh, please don’t call me a misogynist, please, please! (See this blog post re: lack of political support for men/boys)

See the article at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/women-are-the-biggest-budget-losers-20140523-zrl4n.html (22 May 2014) It seems quite extraordinary to me that the journalist who wrote this piece felt justified in claiming that “women are the biggest losers” without providing any information whatsoever about what men received/lost in the budget. It’s moments like these I feel like a member of the forgotten gender!

In Wales (U.K) someone did the maths and found that women’s groups/causes were handed 77 times as much funding as were men’s groups/causes (August 2016).

Further organisations slated for review

Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia Senior staff and Board members are all women. In the year ending 30 June 2015 the organisation was the recipient of $8,194,146 in government grant funding, out of a total annual income of $8,795,650. Their main expense was ‘Salaries and On-costs’ at $7,502,877 (Source)

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS). Oh, and look, 80% of Board members are women as are all of the staff listed in their web site. I guess that’s to be expected given that I read that men bash women, lack the capacity for empathy, and are thus are clearly unconcerned about women’s safety … so why oh why would they want men working there? Oh, but wait, wouldn’t that be sexist stereotyping? And what of equal employment opportunity?

The latest annual report and financial statement provided in the ANROWS web site as of July 2022 is for the financial year 2020-21. ANROWS receives substantial government funding support and in 2020/21 “grants income” was listed as being $6,628,189. In 2019/20 it amounted to $10,410,025, and the year earlier it received $4,995,793.

Now I wonder how much the federal government budgeted for researching men’s issues in recent years? Absolutely nothing? But I shouldn’t ask naughty questions like that – it’s probably why ANROWS blocked me on social media.

Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast Inc.

The Centre is listed in the ACNC register here. That’s just as well as there does not appear to be any financial details provided in their web site, and only vague information about who is running the organisation – and how. The Centre employs 12 f/t employees, 20 p/t employees, and three casuals.

The Centre is wholly supported by government funding, with no donations or bequests received in 2014/15. The consolidated income statement shows receipts of around $2.8 million per annum in goverment grants (refer page 5). The main costs for the Centre are “salaries and on costs” ($1.9 million per annum), “office and centre expenses” ($407,167), rent ($227,841), and superannuation ($174,128).

An article from May 2016 citing disparaging comments about male victims of DV made by Centre director Amy Compton-Keen can be accessed here (NB: Reader reaction to that article was illuminating).

Y-Gap/Polished man campaign (level of government support currently unknown). Y-Gap’s ACNC register entry is here. Related Reddit mensrights discussion thread here.

Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research based at CQ University, Mackay Campus. All female staff? tick Only consult with female-focussed groups with just a token male for appearance sake? tick Statistics within web site ignores male victimisation and resources for men assume they are perpetrators of violence? tick (see ‘Working with Men’).

“The Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research receives defined term funding from the Queensland Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services to undertake research and develop educational resources pertaining to domestic and family violence in Queensland. In addition, CDFVR is supported by CQUniversity and receives grants from a range of other sources to conduct research and professional development activities.”

Queensland University of Technology, Crime and Justice Research Centre Perform research and teach in subject areas including sexual assault and domestic violence. They appear to have a strong pro-feminist bias and from what I have read of their work thus far, they routinely follow and promote the men perpetrators/women victims model. (More details here)

Domestic Violence Victoria All female staff? tick

The 2013 Annual Report here tells us that DVV’s total income in 2013 was $677,211 of which $609,361 arrived in the form of grants. Some of their major expenses included wages $489,783, super contributions $42,618, media awards $35,251, provision for holiday and long service leave $32,789, consultants $10,675, board fees $4,500 and staff training/welfare/amenities $3,261 (these items totalling $618,877)

Canberra Men’s Centre Outwardly compassionate about men’s welfare but it’s been suggested that CMC are a feminist ‘Trojan horse’ that dances to the men bad/woman victim tune. Their annual report for the year ending 30 June 2013 (the most recent in their web site as of March 2015) informs us that they received around $2 million from the ACT Dept. of Disability, Housing and Community Services in both 2011/12 and 2012/13. Their main expenses were lease payments ($340,118 in 2012/13) and salaries ($277,799 in 2012/13).

Safe Steps Family Violence Resource Centre (web site and Facebook page)

This Victorian organisation first came to my attention when I heard about a function they were planning for 6 May 2015 at which they will be lighting candles for women and children. On 27 April 2015 I submitted a cordial post to their Facebook page just querying why men killed through domestic violence would not be similarly remembered. Well, that post was deleted faster than you can say ‘feminist censorship’.

One hundred per cent female directors and staff (Source, see p9)

Total income in both 2012/13 and 2013/14 exceeded $3 million – nature of source not disclosed. Salary costs and director remuneration not disclosed (p10)

Fast forward to 28 January 2020 and Safe Steps issued this tweet:

“Women, children and young people are not the only ones affected by #familyviolence. Often, women need to leave but are reluctant to leave their beloved pet behind. We assist where possible to enable women and their children to leave safely with their pets.”

That’s right, no men in the families that this group deals with. Funny thing that.

(Other groups in the queue for consideration include: Science in Australia Gender Equity, OWN NSW … )

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

On Australian men seeking foreign partners

Some time ago I bookmarked an article entitled ‘Why overseas women love Aussie men‘. I was intrigued how the writer (a guy, by the way), managed to package a subject that could easily rankle female readers into something quite palatable. The potentially prickly subject he tackled was the phenomenon of men seeking partners from outside Australia.

In fact the author not only made the topic appear benign, but even presented it in a way that might conceivably massage the egos of readers. Part of his strategy was to present the issue as being one of foreign women preferring Australian men, rather than the other way around. Although he did sneak in that cheeky little quip at the end “If only they were more appreciated at home“. “They” being Australian men.

Although the author focused on American women, in fact women from the USA barely make it into the top ten list with regards to those granted partner visas. As you can see from this source, women from various Asian countries (particularly China, the Philippines and Thailand) are far more popular choices. This data is five years old, but numbers have remained steady since then. That doesn’t mean that demand for foreign brides is static however, with further growth in numbers prevented by annual quotas on spouse visas issued by the Australian Government.

I imagine that the reason for the focus on North American women (in the article) was simply to run with the Hollywood/male movie star angle. Another reason though might have been the fact that many western women have a certain ‘thing’ about being second-bested by Asian women. This is usually kept well under wraps, denied even, only to emerge guns blazing under the right set of circumstances (as mentioned in this other blog post).

The writer coyly suggested that the observed attraction to foreign partners was simply due to the ‘grass being greener on the other side of the fence’. It’s an approach that won’t hurt any feelings, as there is no need to acknowledge or reflect upon possible shortcomings on the part of Australian women.

Ah, but can you imagine the furore if the author had taken an alternative approach and asked the question “why are so many Australian men rejecting Australian women as life partners?“. Not that pro-feminist news.com.au would have accepted such an article for publication. Oh the bitter recriminations and backlash about men only wanting ‘submissive slaves’. The shaming remarks like “men who are threatened by independent women!” and “men who couldn’t get a women in their own country!” The horror, the horror. To those reading this and nodding their head to such sentiments … well I can only assume that you have little knowledge of Asian culture or personal experience with mixed-race couples.

I wonder to what extent this trend of Australian men marrying women from non-western backgrounds is due to changes in the attitude and behaviour of Australian women brought about via the pervasive and overdone influence of feminism? Heck, this could be a good topic for a thesis – that is if you could find a university brave enough to sponsor it.

Many thoughtful men in western countries now believe that their choice is limited to a MGTOW lifestyle, celibacy, or life as a purse-pooch/walking ATM (i.e. resigning themselves to the increasingly anti-male strictures of the society in which they live). For these folks an epiphany sometimes occurs upon exposure to life and relationships within a culture where feminist ideology, as we now know it in the west, has yet to take root. I think this is fairly evident in some of the references linked to this post about cross-cultural marriages. That blog post also addresses the negative bias and stereotyping directed at men seeking foreign partners as reflected in articles such as this. As one reader aptly noted:

“This is Scott Morrison and the Coalition playing dog-whistle politics again. Let’s not focus upon the thousands upon thousands of successful cross-cultural marriages that enrich Australian society – that would be a good news story! – let’s focus on a trivially small number of cases (exactly 2 were cited by Morrison) where an ambitious sugar-daddy seeks his naive, young asian bride. This is just pandering to small-minded racists who operate on simplistic stereotypes. This only increases the stigma against intercultural couples.

I’m angry about this because I’ve experienced this first hand. As an Anglo-Australian who has married an Asian seven years younger than me, I’m aware of the stereotypes that are directed our way. Nevermind that we are happily married, never had an argument and share everything together. This is something my brother, who has a partner 11 years his junior doesn’t have to go through because she’s Anglo-Australian too (Nor did my parents who were also separated by 10 years age gap.) This is simply a double standard based on race that society, and especially Scott Morrison needs to build a bridge and get over.

I have many friends who are in happy, loving, cross-cultural relationships. Unlike other couples we have to go through the rigours of laying our personal lives bare to the Immigration Department – who I can assure you are very thorough. Then after that we have to go through this nonsense. Scott Morrison should stop playing politics with people’s relationships and Governments should butt out of marriage. It’s nothing to do with them.”

What a pity most western feminist-influenced women don’t do introspection. Introspection seems to have gone the way of empathy.

And as for listening to what men say … pfff! As high-profile feminist turned MRA, Warren Farrell, famously stated “In our society, the sound of men complaining is like nails on a chalkboard“.

See also:

For some social context surrounding the topic of this post perhaps take a look at http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/09/The-Sexodus-Part-2-Dishonest-Feminist-Panics-Leave-Male-Sexuality-In-Crisis

Sorry, Aussie blokes. American men are better suitors (10 August 2016) Entitled Australian woman thinks Australian men need to ‘lift their game’ to be more worthy. Australian men say “bon voyage, princess”

Aussie woman goes on 130 first dates but zero second dates (11 May 2015)

Why I am for the Importation of Hot Foreign Women (17 February 2015)

Are Australian women really all that bad? (15 July 2011) with 451 readers comments

Good news: Males acknowledged on morning TV (not in a bad way)

I’ve just watched a couple of segments on ‘Sunrise‘ that I feel are worth mentioning.

The first segment concerned Angelina Jolie and the ‘End Sexual Violence in Conflict global summit‘. The Australian representative at that event was Natasha Stott Despoja, who is Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls. Natasha spoke on Sunrise this morning, and I was pleased to note that she mentioned that men and boys – as well as women and girls – are also victims of sexual violence in wars.

The background to Natasha’s appointment to the role is provided here. Regrettably, but unsurprisingly, there is no corresponding Ambassador for Men and Boys.

The second segment was a panel session comprising the two Sunrise hosts Andrew O’Keefe and Edwina Bartholomew, as well as John Mangos and Gretel Killeen. The topic of discussion was comments made by Hillary Clinton concerned the alleged “outrageous sexism” suffered by former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

What was good to see about this discussion was that initially John Mangos, and then each of the other participants (excluding Andrew*), readily conceded that:

there tended to be a lot of talk about sexism towards women and very little about sexism towards men (although such sexism did occur)
there was too much talk about sexism towards women bearing in mind the progress that has already having been made in that area
most of the talk about sexism towards women focussed on women in elite roles (e.g. politicians and CEO’s/executives) and not enough about ordinary women
that some women, such as Julia Gillard, were probably too quick to play the “sexism card” in order to gain sympathy or support

It was just a shame that the segment was so short as it was clear that everyone had more that they wanted to say on the topic. Hopefully we will see more balanced discussion on the issue of sexism on Sunrise and other TV shows in the near future.

* No surprise there, given that Andrew is well-known to be a regular ‘white knight’ when it comes to gender issues, as mentioned in this earlier post.

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

The Australian Human Rights Commission (previously the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government.

The Commission falls under the portfolio of the Attorney-General of Australia. The Commission works within the legal framework of Australian law. The most relevant legislation in the context of this post is the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the most recent version of which can be accessed here (as at August 2016).

As at 30 June 2022 the gender ratio for ongoing full-time staff was 74% female and 26% male. For all staff however the ratio of men to women is 20% and 80% respectively (Annual report 2021-2022, p124).

The Commission has a number of specialist commissioners, with gender issues being primarily addressed by a ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’. The most recent Commissioner was Kate Jenkins who undertook her duties from April 2016 to April 2023. “She ends her term with the sincere thanks of the Albanese Labor Government for improving the lives of Australian women.” Kate is to be replaced by Dr Anna Cody, whose appointment will commence on 4 September 2023.

Elizabeth Broderick served as Commissioner from 2007 to September 2015. This blog post addresses that earlier period, whilst a further post deals with the subsequent period (up until September 2023).

Thus far all eight people selected to fill the role of ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’ have been female.

According to the AHRC web site:

“Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe.

They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

Respect for human rights is the cornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feel included.”

See also ‘Equal rights of men and women‘

A review of their literature, however, suggests that the AHRC is infinitely more concerned about the welfare and rights of those humans that are female, than they are about the other half of the population.

A word search on “men” within the AHRC web site turned up 912 results, which was promising. Or at least it was until I looked at the first few results. Two of the top three results were papers about domestic violence and harassment, in which men were portrayed (only) as the aggressors and women (only) as the victims:

The first paper ‘Men breaking the silence’, by Elizabeth Broderick, began as follows:

“Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having negative stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as domestic and family violence and abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. In Australia, too many women live in fear of violence every day.”

In my blog post entitled Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men? I provide many references supporting the assertion that there are as many women guilty of intimate partner violence as there are men, or close to it. But Ms Broderick’s paper gives no hint of there being substantial numbers of male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence … why?

What useful purpose, with regards to the goal of protecting human rights, is served by demonising men and giving violent women a free pass?

The second paper in the AHRC web site, ‘Sexual harassment. Know where the line is‘, begins thus:

“Sexual harassment is prevalent in Australian workplaces. One in four women have experienced harassment at work, and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise. Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

Even given the often compromised standards of feminism, that’s a fairly disingenuous opening gambit. Consider:

“One in four women have experienced harassment at work”

How many of these complaints related to the harassment of women by men? How many of these complaints were upheld?

“and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise”

That seems to imply that only men harass men, and that is simply untrue. And what about womens harassment of women, is that also on the rise? One would expect that, in the case of a professional agency like this, adequate context would be provided to evaluate statements like this.

“Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

And again, how many of these complaints concerned the harassment of women by men, and how many fell into the other categories? i.e. men harassing men, women harassing women, and women harassing men.

I then looked at other papers either written by Elizabeth Broderick, or in which she was quoted, to see the extent to which her views favoured one gender over another. What I found was of considerable concern.

In my blog post entitled Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways I mentioned an article co-authored by Ms Broderick. That article is called Know where the line is: Melissa Hoyer and Elizabeth Broderick address sexual harassment. I would recommend that you read the article and especially the readers comments that follow – most of which expressed outrage at the extent of feminist bias on display.

In another article entitled ‘Gender on Agenda‘ (Courier Mail, 4 June 2014), Ms Broderick “expressed dismay” at the small number of women on company boards and suggested the imposition of gender quotas to be an appropriate response. As I have noted here, here and here, the justification for imposing gender quotas is dubious.

Ms Broderick has on many occasions expressed concern at the treatment of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. As far as I am aware, however, she has consistently failed to address the extent to which men are also affected by harassment and discrimination at work.

Further browsing in the AHRC web site and google searching on ‘Elizabeth Broderick’ turned up many further articles and speeches in a similar vein. This recent speech entitled ‘Towards a Gender Equal Australia‘ (18 November 2014) only makes mention of men due to their potential utility in achieving further gains for women. Men apparently have no issues of their own to deal with or, alternatively, Ms Broderick considers any such needs to be inconsequential.

Would someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I could not find a single instance where Ms Broderick expressed concern for the welfare of men, for example as victims of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence. Instead men were consistently cited as perpetrators of inappropriate behaviour (or at least complicit in such behaviour) and/or as the group to be held responsible for making changes or implementing initiatives to address problems experienced by women.

As far as I am aware Ms. Broderick has offered no corresponding statements in relation to the need for women to modify their own behaviour, or concerning women’s responsibility towards addressing problems experienced by men.

Further, I have seen very little acknowledgement being given to the contributions made by men in achieving progress on issues of inequality or disadvantage affecting women. The one exception was her own Male Champions of Change project, a program fitting safely within the confines of feminist dogma. Again, if this is incorrect then I would certainly appreciate a reader directing me towards any such statements of support.

In Ms Broderick’s eyes, it would seem that the life of men is all blue skies. Yet when it comes to womens dealings with men, well, ‘all rights and no fault/responsibility’ seems to pretty much sum things up.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick concedes that the Australian Human Rights Commission has no initiatives targeting men. “We have very limited resources, so our work is necessarily directed at identifying the greatest areas of gender inequality,” Broderick says. “So, while we actively engage with men and some of the men’s groups, we have not directly worked on men’s rights issues.” (Source)

One facet of the degree of bias displayed by Ms Broderick is the inaccuracy evident in some of the statements attributed to her. For example, in this 2014 interview with Jackie Frank she stated:

“About 1.2 million women [in Australia] currently live in an intimate relationship characterised by physical violence”

In actual fact the most recent nationally representative survey found that 114,600 Australian women report having experienced violence from a current or previous partner during the preceding twelve months (Source). A tenfold exaggeration? Really?

The ‘Misinformation’ page within the website of the ‘One in Three’ organisation also attributes the following errors to Ms. Broderick:

“One in three women will live in an intimate relationship characterised by violence over her lifetime”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “the Personal Safety Survey 2005 found that 160,100 women have experienced violence from a current partner since the age of 15. This is 2.08% of Australian women. This equates to one in forty eight women.”

“Almost 90% of the victims of domestic violence are female”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “Up to two-thirds of domestic violence victims are female, and at least one third are male.”

From ‘Tackling sexual harassment’ a resource for secondary school students produced by the AHRC:

“Girls can sexually harass boys. Although this doesn’t happen as often as boys harassing girls.” (p9) Based on what data source? How/why is this even relevant to note in this document?

“Complaints received by the Commission show that 95% of people who are harassed are female.” No, what this actually says is that 95% of people who lodged complaints were female – not the same thing.

Such a degree of unashamed bias is completely unacceptable. This is the ‘Human Rights Commission’ we are talking about, not a private lobby group or women’s studies centre. Australian men, and the women who care about their welfare, deserve an advocate who is willing and able to competently and energetically champion the interests of both women/girls and men/boys. The Australian community as a whole deserves better.

Given Ms Broderick’s failure to maintain even a modicum of impartiality, one hopes that the termination of her contract in September 2015 will see the appointment of someone better qualified to fulfil the responsibilities of this important role.

‘Gender equality‘ does not imply that women and men are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment (Source). Is the approach taken by the AHRC in accord with that definition? Or alternatively, is it more consistent with this one?

Scroll through the Commissioner’s Twitter stream and look for tweets in which she champions the interests of men and boys … are there any? Even one?

This raises the issue of whether members of the public are able to lodge a complaint regarding discrimination with the Commission, against the Commission itself. If any readers can answer that then please leave a comment below. An alternative course of action might be via the federal Attorney-General’s Department.

Developments at the AHRC subsequent to the departure of Ms Broderick, and which are related to gender issues, are discussed in this blog post. For those of you wondering about the next step in Ms. Broderick’s career, read this article by Miranda Devine.

Readers might find the references listed below to be of interest … Where applicable I would suggest that it’s worthwhile to also review readers comments appended to each source

Equal Rights of Men and Women, from the AHRC website. No mention of any specific rights for men and boys (undated)

Wikipedia entry on domestic violence against men

Elizabeth Broderick nets $10k per speaking gig (4 February 2016)

Government seeks advice on new sex discrimination commissioner (11 December 2015)

Finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award announced (9 November 2015) See how many of the finalists work to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. Apparently none!? The winner, by the way, was Ludo McFerran

Who will replace Elizabeth Broderick as Sex Discrimination Commissioner? by Jenna Price (6 November 2015) “We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job”

Men are not regarded as ‘Human’ thanks to Feminist legislation in Australia (17 September 2015)

Ms. Broderick’s swansong … true to type right to the end … no support for men/boys, just criticism (2 September 2015) More of the same here and here. I predict that her next gig will be a well-remunerated slot within the Domestic Violence Industry, helping to spend Malcolm Turnbull’s recent generous hand-out.

Men and women must work as partners to defeat domestic violence, outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner says (2 September 2015)

Profile of the work of Elizabeth Broderick over the past eight years, by Anne Summers (May 2015) Word search on ‘women’ = 61 hits Word search on ‘men’ = 6 hits (two of which were negative, one neutral and four about the ‘Champions of Change’ program)

To attain gender equality, we need to focus on men (13 May 2015) But this “focus on men”, is wholly limited to their potential utility to help women. Features a reader’s comment by J.D.Troughton:

“I still see a total focus on women here. We need to also incorporate respect and protection for men, and elevating them in instances of their being discriminated against. It’s a judgement call, a subjective assessment, but women look to have it better than men, to me. A feminist will say the opposite. We can’t honour one over the other on sexist grounds (eg. gynocentrism, our culture’s inherent tendency to give more weight to female suffering of the same burdens, etc.), so we need to hear both out and help both sexes. And not just make jokes about penis size, or accuse someone of bitterness and personal issues when they say that dominant gender discussion is very skewed and prejudiced. I mean, you can do that, but you just add to my case. And look like a heartless curmudgeon. And perpetuate the pain that ends up hurting the women you hold solely so dear.”

‘Let’s talk: The shocking new tricks that men use to control wives’ (31 March 2015) Ms. Broderick is interviewed by the Australian Womens Weekly magazine

Gary Johns and Judith Sloane won’t limit Broderick’s plans (11 August 2014)

Calls to change laws to fix women’s superannuation (13 November 2014) Not content to ignore men’s welfare and overstate the culpability of men for social issues like domestic violence, the Discrimination Commissioner now seeks to grant exceptions to discrimination laws to favour women at a time when traditional gender roles (with regards to parenting for example) are disappearing:

“Rice Warner got an exemption from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to contribute an extra two per cent of salary in superannuation contributions for their female employees over and above what they contribute for their male employees.”

Elizabeth Broderick on men’s violence towards women (3 December 2014) More of the same one-eyed assessment of the nature of domestic violence. And women never smash their partners phones? And as is so typically the case, my response to this blog post was not published

Bravehearts: The women bruised and battered in the name of ‘love’ (28 December 2014) Here Ms Broderick provides debunked statistics in her quest to demonise men and misrepresent the nature of domestic violence.

On 8 December 2014 Ms Broderick tweeted about the alarming suicide rate for “young people” but no mention of the situation with men. I imagine it slipped her mind. And isn’t it interesting how gender is specified when doing so supports the feminist narrative, but not when it doesn’t?

Does the Human Rights Commission treat some groups more equally than others? (9 July 2013)

Superiority in the name of equality (29 June 2013)

Open Letter to Elizabeth Broderick Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner (10 April 2012)

Sex discrimination commissioner ignores men and boys (3 May 2012)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the AHRC provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Four years later there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. It is a disgrace for the AHRC to suggest that it is committed to “true gender equality”.

It’s hard to be a trailblazing woman (11 August 2012)

Elizabeth Broderick Sex Discrimination Commissioner, 50 (4 February 2012) Again, men as perpetrators and enablers of the victimisation of women, and otherwise only notable for their potential utility in assisting in the continued advancement of women

Discrimination is fine, says Commissioner Two-Legs-Good, by Andrew Bolt (23 June 2010)

“We need to put in place what some might call affirmative action strategies, where we treat men and women differently for the purpose of achieving better gender balance at a senior level.”

Elsewhere within this blog readers might find the following post to be of interest:

Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem – Prawn of the Patriarchy (fighting4fair.com)

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

Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support

Imagine for a moment that you are a guy living in Western Australia. You are enduring periodic violent outbursts from your partner, and one night you go online looking for help. You come across the following web page:

Now I ask you, would you be likely to contact this agency for help? Or would you think, “I’m embarrassed enough already, I don’t want to speak with people who are going to automatically assume that I am the one responsible for the violence.”

Personally I think the web page displays disgraceful anti-male bias and so on 19 May 2014 I emailed the relevant agency stating:

“I wish to draw your attention to material contained in your web site which I consider to be hugely inappropriate. The relevant page is http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/crisisandemergency/pages/domesticviolencehelplines.aspx

Please be advised – and surely I should not need to inform your department of this fact – but there are in fact such people as female perpetrators of IPV and male victims of IPV. Indeed some studies assert that there is symmetry between genders, ie. equal or almost equal numbers of male/female victims/perpetrators.

If your staff are not aware of this fact then please circulate and study the list of references provided below. As it stands now, the content of your web page is outrageously biased against men and should be re-written to be gender-neutral and not suggest to all readers all men are perpetrators of DV.

For your attention and action at the earliest opportunity please.”

I received the following reply the next day:

“Thank you for your email dated 19 May concerning the language used to describe the roles of the Men’s and Women’s Domestic Violence Helplines.

The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is funded to provide telephone based counselling, information, support and referral for men who self- identify as at risk of, or who are using violence. It is acknowledged that both women and men can be victims of family and domestic violence. Should a man experiencing such violence contact the Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline he would be provided with any necessary services and supported accordingly by the telephone counsellor. Counsellors are experienced and their training enables them to identify all scenarios and work with the caller and their presenting issues.

Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is funded to provided telephone based counselling, information, support and referral for women who are experiencing family and domestic violence.

This is the purpose of the Helplines and the description provided on the website reflects as such.

For all individuals and families who are experiencing violence, the Department for Child Protection and Family Support also provides the following support options:

24/7 Crisis Care service, this is a crisis intervention service providing an immediate response to an individual or family experiencing a crisis, examples include any person experiencing family and domestic violence.
Family helpline, 24/7 telephone counselling service providing counselling, support, information and referral to an individual or family experiencing a range of issues.

These services are also on the department’s website.

I hope this response has been useful in advising you of the department’s services to those who are experiencing family and domestic violence from all perspectives. Thank you again for your email.”

And on the 21 May I wrote back to the department saying:

“Thank you for your prompt response to my concerns regarding the content of the web page provided in relation to your helplines. I take it from your response that you do not consider that the wording of the page displays undue bias against men, and consequently you do not propose to amend the content of the page.

We do however agree on the key point that there are both male and female aggressors and male and female victims of aggression, and that all should have access to support and assistance from your organisation.

It is my position, as I think it would be that of any reasonable person reading your web page, that the second sentence of each respective paragraph implies that your service is provided for the use of males who are aggressors and females who are victims, viz.:

“This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence”, and “This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive.”

I see no reason why the wording used in relation to the two helplines should not be identical, and I would suggest that such an amendment would be entirely appropriate. Consider for example the following suggested re-wording:

WOMEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE

The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women who are either experiencing family or domestic violence OR who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive. Our service offers phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required.

Telephone (08) 9223 1188 Free call 1800 007 339

MEN’S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HELPLINE

The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for men who are either experiencing family or domestic violence OR who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive. Our service offers phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer men to safe accommodation if required.

Telephone (08) 9223 1199 Free call 1800 000 599

Darren, I do hope you will give these suggestions due consideration and that you will see merit in removing the gender bias evident in the current page content, via making the proposed amendments. I firmly believe that the current bias is not just discriminatory and inappropriate in a general sense, but would surely also alienate men who might otherwise seek sympathetic assistance from your organization. I look forward to receiving your further response in due course.”

I never received a response to my email, but while I was waiting I scanned the various publications available in the Department’s web site. Unsurprisingly, they also display a high degree of gender bias against men. Some examples:

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/Perpetrator%20Accountability%20in%20Child%20Protection%20Practice.pdf (Sub-titled “A resource for child protection workers about responding to and engaging with men who perpetuate family and domestic violence“. And no, there is no ‘sister’ publication provided for dealing with female abusers.

See page 7 under definition of ‘perpetrator’ where it helpfully points out that “some women also offend against their children“, but that it’s not their fault as “sometimes this reflects an attempt to prevent greater harm from the primary perpetrator of violence …” And yes, that would be a man.

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/FDV/Documents/Freedom%20From%20Fear/Fact%20sheet-Has%20your%20partner%20hurt%20you.pdf (Written on the basis that the perpetrator of violence is male)

If you too feel that the Department should adopt a more professional and gender-neutral approach then I suggest you make your views known to the relevant Minister, the Honourable Helen Morton MLC (email to Minister.Morton@dpc.wa.gov.au). Alternatively, or in addition to a Ministerial letter, it might be appropriate to lodge a complaint in relation to sex discrimination.

As a footnote, I found this item entitled ‘Commission welcomes initiatives to address gender bias‘. Let’s see how they react when the perpetrator of gender bias is another state government agency.

Still in Western Australia, I noted a phrase in this March 2015 article about a new form of restraining order that is very telling in terms of its inherent anti-male bias:

“Family violence starts usually with the partner controlling every aspect of a woman’s life, the banking, who they speak to, where they go,” [Police Minister Liza Harvey] said.

I guess Liza didn’t say “every aspect of their partners life” as she is of the mistaken belief that all family violence is initiated by men. Shame on you Ms Harvey! But look at the Facebook posts concerning this article – clearly not everyone is buying the feminist perspective.

Note that there is a follow-up post to this one, entitled *That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

There are also various other posts within this blog concerning domestic violence, perhaps you might like to start with the one entitled domestic violence is not a gendered issue – So why the sexist bias against men?

Reddit mensrights discussion thread on this topic dated March 2015, that features some very interesting comments from concerned individuals. See in particular, comments from ‘dragonsandgoblins‘, also ‘fetafett’, ‘border-box’, ‘Il128’, ‘deadfallpro’, ‘Raditz10’, ‘pookabot’ and ‘regeya’.

WA domestic violence laws pose an insidious threat, by Augusto Zimmermann (24 September 2016)

‘Sunrise’ TV show offers sop to feminists

Yet another case of two steps forward and one step back. In two earlier posts in this blog I described how members of the ‘Sunrise’ TV show purposefully stood their ground against strident feminist criticism. I had hoped that they would keep the positive momentum going with some segments about the excesses and mistruths of the contemporary feminist movement. Unfortunately that was not to be the case. Well, at least not yet. (Postscript: Pleased to see ‘Sunrise’ step up with this interview with MRA Paul Elam on 5 July 2014 … kudos to ‘Sunrise’)

I just watched a segment on ‘Sunrise‘ – an interview involving Michael Kaufman of the ‘White Ribbon Campaign‘ and Sunrise’s resident ‘White Knight‘, Andrew O’Keefe . The segment came across as something of an attempt by ‘Sunrise’ to win back some street-cred with pro-feminist viewers. It’s sad that they feel the need to curry favour with a movement represented by this, this and this.

The ‘White Ribbon Campaign‘ is a pro-feminist organisation whose goal is to stop violence by men towards women. They ignore violence by women, and for the most part they ignore violence by men towards other men. They do acknowledge problems that disproportionately affect men like suicide and homelessness, but claim that these are a reflection of the pressures of gender stereotypes imposed on boys and men (i.e. be a man!). The solution, they say, is for men to be comfortable showing what are seen as feminine attributes – and then they would not have to hurt women. The ‘White Ribbon’ crowd thus conveniently choose to ignore more potent forces such as the increasingly toxic environment in schools and universities for male students, the pervasive anti-male bias in the media, etc etc.

By all means please do address the problem of violence – violence by people of all genders. And by all means address the imposition of negative gender stereotypes – again, by people of all genders. But by focussing entirely on violence by men towards women, the White Ribbon Campaign reinforces the prevailing stereotype of men as brutes and women as victims. That being the case, they are as much part of the problem as they are part of the solution.

One of the outcomes of this telescopic view of ‘domestic violence = mens violence towards women’ is the trivialising of the other dimensions of intimate partner violence (i.e. womens violence towards men, male on male violence, and female on female violence). This bias is a pervasive influence across society, and is discussed and demonstrated in another blog post which includes links to videos showing public reaction to male and female actors playing out different scenarios of partner violence.

The concerns of others regarding the White Ribbon Campaign can be ascertained by googling on the words ‘White Ribbon Campaign criticism’ (some examples here, here, here, here, here and here).

‘Sunrise’ TV crew stir up the feminists again

‘Sunrise‘ is a popular Australian morning TV show. In an earlier post I discussed how team members of that show incensed feminists by standing up for themselves after a scathing article appeared in a pro-feminist web site.

Well a female member of the ‘Sunrise’ team, Natalie Barr, has now poked the feminist hornets nest again by writing an article in the Daily Telegraph newspaper highlighting the trend of women to blame men for problems they encountered in their lives – particularly at work. A related segment appeared on the ‘Sunrise’ show on the day the article was published (20 March 2014).

It is pleasing to note how many of the comments submitted by readers (both male and female alike) were supportive of what Nat had to say. Despite this it was still evident that further supportive comments never saw the light of day due to overly-enthusiastic vetting. I myself attempted to contribute about half a dozen comments to the online discussion, and I think the final score was two posted and four disappeared.

Of those opposed to what Natalie said, the typical responses were:

“well, that’s just your opinion” OR “so what if you have never experienced discrimination, you’re just one person”

“feminism isn’t about hating men” OR “standing up to discrimination isn’t the same as men-hating”

“how can you possibly say that there is no discrimination?” (Nat didn’t) OR “you can’t speak for all women” (she never said she did)

Those that sought to provide ‘proof’ that gender discrimination was commonplace (with of course women as victims) invariably relied upon that hoary old feminist chestnut, the male/female wage gap.

In another web site ‘Carli‘ described her disgust at those expressing support for Natalie Barr’s perspective in the following manner:

“… too many important issues being trivialised and too many bottom feeders feeling empowered … “

And here is a sampling of the other, predictably haughty & incensed, feminist response that followed:

Natalie Barr brought the ‘bitchy’ feminism backlash on herself (5 May 2014)

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/editor-s-agenda/hey-natalie-barr-it-s-not-about-blaming-men/201403203762

http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/natalie-barr-feminism/

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/natalie-barr-doesnt-speak-for-all-women-20140320-354w6.html (and then read this rebbutal by ‘A Voice for Men’)

http://thehoopla.com.au/hating-men-ms-barr/ (This includes a video showing a panel of feminists – including the obligatory mangina – to simulate the appearance of a balanced perspective – attacking Natalie’s position)

http://www.woman.com.au/natalie-barr-got-feminism-gender-equality-wrong/

Several hundred comments were also added to the ‘Sunrise’ Facebook page (scroll to 19 March 2014), as well as many tweets to Nat Barr’s Twitter account.

Again the message is oh so clear, “don’t you dare say anything that runs contrary to feminist dogma, or else we’ll get you!” Indeed the article in ‘The Hoopla’ includes the statement:

“… all that is wrong with Barr’s pretty unhelpful contribution to the feminist debate”

Poor choice of words, I reckon they probably meant to say ‘monologue’ rather than “debate”, because in a debate people are expected to put forward alternate views and engage in open discussion – with no points awarded for shaming. Kind of like hell for feminists.

Reading the comments that attacked Nat’s position on discrimination, it is clear that many of the contributors are either woefully ignorant or in a state of serious denial about the misandric aspects of contemporary feminism. They simply can’t, don’t or won’t recognise the gap between the warm fuzzy inclusive variety of feminism that exists only within their own well-coiffed heads, and the reality of what connected feminists are actually saying and doing.

Men’s studies = bad/negative but Women’s studies = good/positive

Regarding men’s studies

Firstly, let’s begin with details regarding all the men’s studies centres in Australia: <sound of crickets>

Now, picture this if you will … the University of South Australia considers establishing a number of new courses related to men’s health and well-being. Feminist writer gets wind of this and writes an article dumping on the idea (see articles listed below, and be sure to look at the readers comments). The University gets scared and back-pedals at 100 mph. Bye, bye, men’s studies course – which would have been an Australian first.

Conclusion? Clearly every university should have women’s studies courses because they are a wonderful and necessary initiative. Mens studies courses should, however, be opposed on the basis that they are redundant and wicked and can only serve to foment misogyny and advance the cause of the patriarchy. (Oh, and the same goes for student clubs/associations that focus on men’s issues.)

The solution? For feminists? Obstruct the creation of men’s studies courses, whilst (to avoid accusations of one-upmanship) rename women’s studies centres as gender studies centres. But there was no sudden move to jointly address male issues. No, they simply carried on exactly as before with an overwhelming gynocentric focus interspersed with the occasional message from some male feminist ally such as Michael Flood. Note the example here as to how well this new approach works out.

But back to what happened at the University of South Australia, a story which is told in the articles linked below and in accompanying readers comments:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/lecturers-in-worldfirst-male-studies-course-at-university-of-south-australia-under-scrutiny/story-fni6uo1m-1226800150348

http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/university-of-south-australia-pulls-plug-on-male-studies-program/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/paul-elam-vs-michael-flood-on-male-studies/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/concern-over-stifled-debate-on-male-studies/story-e6frgcjx-1226807161232#

http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/mens-rights-course-controversy-in-australian-university/

http://judgybitch.com/2014/01/14/male-studies-we-dont-need-male-studies-because-reasons/

University of Sydney Board blocks formation of men’s group (26 September 2014) Also addressed here, here and here, and with an even more patronising article about the proposal here

University: Lads, blokes and jocks not welcome (7 October 2014)

Resurrected from the void: video of feminist opposition to the Simon Fraser University Men’s Center (12 October 2014)

And as for overseas examples of Men’s Studies Centres? Well these tend to feature the examination of men and masculinity through the feminist lens. This article talks about one such place, the Stony Brook University ‘Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities’.

Regarding women’s studies

Let’s now have a look at a listing of women’s studies centres in Australia that were in existence when I first uploaded this post*:

Australian National University – Gender Studies M.Phil and Ph.D in Gender, Sexuality and Culture Australian National University – Gender Relations Project Centre for Research for Women (4 Australian universities)Edith Cowan University – Women’s Studies Major Flinders University of South Australia – Women’s Studies Programme Graduate Diploma in Gender and Development and an M.A. in Women’s Studies Macquarie University – Women’s Studies, Gender and Sexuality Program MPhil and PhD in Women’s Studies, Gender and Sexuality Monash University – Centre for Women’s Studies and Gender Research M.A. and Ph.D in Women’s Studies; Masters Qualifying Program University of Adelaide – Gender Studies M.A. and Ph.D. in Gender Studies University of Melbourne – Gender Studies M.A. and Ph.D in Gender Studies University of New England – Women’s and Gender Studies M.A. and Ph.D. in Women’s and Gender Studies University of New South Wales – Women’s and Gender Studies Program M.A. (By Research) and Ph.D. in Women’s and Gender Studies University of South Australia – Research Centre for Gender Studies University of Sydney – Department of Gender Studies MPhil and Ph.D in Gender Studies University of Western Australia – Women’s Studies M.A. and Ph.D. with concentration in Women’s Studies University of Wollongong – Master of Arts in Women’s Studies M.A. in Women’s Studies Victoria University – Gender Studies

(*It is likely that this list will be out-of-date by the time you read this, i.e. there will be even more of these courses out there)

Women’s studies were never about study, by Tom Golden (23 October 2025)

Women’s Studies and Diversity: Where Are the Men? (23 December 2016)

University students doing courses on topics such as rape and misogyny are ‘to be given deadline extensions to help them recover from the upset of lectures’ (28 November 2016) UK

Undoing insularity: A small study of Gender Sociology’s big problem, by Charlotta Stern (Econ Journal Watch, Vol 13, No. 3, September 2016)

Oh, Academia: The best and worst of gender studies papers (28 June 2016)

Apparently my school needs a Women and Gender Studies program “Because two thirds of our student population are female” (6 February 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

What Women’s Studies Teaches (15 January 2016)

How Gender Feminism became the new Creationism (18 December 2014)

Gender bias and science (16 December 2014) Ireland

Shut Up, because Rape (2 October 2014)

Womens and gender studies in Ireland and beyond (16 August 2014)

University shuts down women’s studies centre after ‘How to be a Lesbian’ controversy (19 May 2014) Don’t miss the humorous readers comments

Nordic countries defund gender ideology (12 March 2013)

Why do so few men take gender studies courses? (20 November 2012)

You can’t deny it: Gender studies is full of male-blaming bias (14 September 2011)
10. Myth: Women’s Studies Departments empowered women and gave them a voice in the academy
Fact: Women’s Studies empowered a small group of like-minded careerists. They have created an old-girl network that is far more elitist, narrow and closed than any of the old-boy networks they rail against. Vast numbers of moderate or dissident women scholars have been marginalized, excluded and silenced.

(Essential reading: everything by Camille Paglia; Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge–Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies; and Christina Hoff Sommers–Who Stole Feminism? How Women have Betrayed Women)

The Girl Hunt: Urban Nightlife and the Performance of Masculinity as Collective Activity (2007) An example of the great stuff produced by those working in the field of gender studies.

And some news from North American, Canada and the U.K

Masculinity Experts “Map the Manosphere” and Find Nothing Good, by Janice Fiamengo (22 March 2026) Recommended reading

Professing feminism : cautionary tales from the strange world of women’s studies (1994) USA

Wyoming Senate Votes To Defund Gender Studies Program At University Of Wyoming (1 March 2022)

Only University Men’s Officer in U.K. Forced to Step Down After SJW Harassment (26 October 2018)

Hungary bans gender studies from universities (10 August 2018)

Camille Paglia Says that Women’s and Gender Studies Departments Should be Defunded (18 October 2017)

College Gender Gap: Women Earn More Degrees AND Get Special Treatment (31 May 2017)

Public university gave $296,498 to gender equity, LGBTQ centers — $0 to Students for Life: suit (18 May 2017)

University students union blocks move to set up Men’s Rights group (16 May 2017) UK

All-Female Social Groups May Keep ‘Gender Focus’ for at Least Three Years (29 March 2017) USA