Tag: Australia

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

In an earlier blog post I briefly examined a number of pro-feminist organisations in Australia, noting (in part) the extent of public funding received by each. My post on the Domestic Violence Industry also identified another substantial sump for both government funding and private donations.

Despite the fact that I only scratched the surface in relation to identifying such organisations, the extent of state and federal funding involved already amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone could tally up all the public funds that are directed towards the welfare of women/girls? And then go through a similar exercise in relation to funding for men/boys. To what extent do you think the two amounts would be comparable?

Well, until 2013 the Australian federal government did something a little similar. It was called the Women’s Budget Statement. I’m not sure why it was terminated, but perhaps it was found that the data it provided was unreliable and/or otherwise unhelpful in comparison to the annual cost of compiling the Statement. Another possibility was that it identified so much expenditure directed towards women that it’s value as a sop to the feminist lobby was eclipsed by the potential it posed for an angry voter backlash.

(Newsflash: It’s back … Women’s Budget Statement 2021-22), Budget Statement 2022-23 and 2023-24)

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.

By way of background here are some links to historical information concerning the previous version/s of the Women’s Budget Statement:

http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/grb_sharpbroomhill_australia_updf_final_copy_copy.pdf

http://www.gender-budgets.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=112

http://apo.org.au/research/budget-2014-15-gender-lens

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2013/dfh035_13_budget_tagged.pdf (Women’s Budget Highlights as mentioned in this article)

What prompted me to write this post today was the publication of ‘Gender neutral policies are a myth: why we need a women’s budget‘, by academic Miranda Stewart. I would recommend taking a moment now to read that article and the readers comments that follow it (or at least those that were not removed by the moderator).

Miranda thinks that the community would benefit from the re-instatement of the Women’s Budget Statement. The author justifies this gynocentric bias, at least in part, on the existence of the much-discredited gender pay gap. I believe it would be far more equitable and effective (as a policy development tool) if there was one combined document that considered the impact of federal expenditure on both men and women.

Another point of difference between what Miranda has in mind, and what I envisage, relates to the nature of the information provided. Miranda wants to see an assessment of the economic impact, on women, of a wide range of government policies. I am not convinced how accurately such impacts could be assessed, nor to the extent it could be kept free of the gender bias and ideological tweaking that is now rampant across the Australia public service.

I would be satisfied with something simpler, merely a listing of specific programs or allocations that were directed towards (or could be determined to benefit) alternately either boys/men or girls/women. This in itself would be a difficult task, as many such allocations are hidden, for example, deep within departmental budgets.

In other cases, allocations which would appear to be gender-neutral could be determined on closer analysis to strongly favor one gender in relation to the other. An example of this would be funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission.

This suggestion is noted in another article (refer point 5), although I think Claire Moore, Shadow Minister for Women, probably has different priorities in mind.

So where would one make a start on creating such a spreadsheet? Well I’ve already mentioned the various organisations listed in my blog post about misandric agencies. We could expand that initial list by considering each of the members of the Equality Rights Alliance, Australia’s largest network of organisations with an interest in advancing women’s equality. From then on it would be a matter of relentless burrowing through budget papers seeking relevant allocations.

The intention would be to combine the total funding received by each organisation and compare that figure with total annual funding for boys/men’s groups and issues. Although larger in magnitude I imagine that the women’s budget would be somewhat easier to compile given that there are specific ministries and sections with agencies that deal with women’s issues.

I would wager that there is absolutely no chance that the expenditure ratio would match the ratio of males/females in the Australian population, with an overwhelming bias towards the welfare of girls/women.

As an aside bear in mind that men, both individually and through the corporate entities they own, contribute far more than 50% of the government’s income. Click across to this blog post and scroll down to ‘taxation’ to see some relevant sources. Would it not be more equitable if the default setting was that half of government expenditure was subsequently utilised to support the interests/welfare of men and boys?

I believe that such a process of financial analysis would not only identify a massive and inequitable gendered imbalance in government funding, but it would also identify enormous waste and duplication. I wonder just how many indulgences like this are out there waiting to be uncovered?

If I am correct and there is a substantial favouring of females over males, how can this be justified? Barring the absence of incontrovertible evidence of overwhelmingly greater need, across the board, this would be indicative of neither gender equality nor prudent governance.

Certainly priority should be given to the area/s of greatest genuine need. And of course there will be areas where women’s needs are greater than mens (and vice versa). Thus note that I am not suggesting for a moment that one would seek to religiously apply a 50% split to every government program in Australia.

But humor me and suppose that a detailed and objective analysis did find that vastly more support was accorded to women/girls across all of government? And that meanwhile funding was urgently required to meet the demonstrated needs of men/boys?

Let’s find out. Otherwise, sorry, not good enough. Not by a long shot.

See also:

Australia’s Federal Budget Forgets Men, by James L. Nuzzo (3 April 2025)

The launch of ‘Gender Budget Watch‘ (30 April 2024) within the website of ‘Gender Lens Australia’ 

‘Gender responsive budgeting‘. Latest material from the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (November 2023)

The Australian Government’s Women’s Budget Statement 2023-24 intentionally erased the one third of victims of intimate partner violence who are male (May 2023) Tweet issued by the One in Three group.

$2.1 Billion Budget Package for Women and Girls (30 March 2022)

Federal budget: Katy Gallagher announces abolition of ‘pretty punitive’ ParentsNext program (5 May 2023) “What Katy Gallagher has declared as the best federal budget for women in more than 40 years“. And for men/boys? The sound of crickets.

Is it time Australia had a Men’s Budget? (28 October 2022)

The women’s budget is headed in the right direction. But the policies still need work and The women’s budget statement signals a massive shift in how federal budgets are formulated and framed (26 October 2022)

Budget details released on 25 October 2022, with a plethora of programs for women. The word ‘men’ does not appear once in this statement, but #GenderEquality! … blow whistle and wave streamers, blah blah.

Women’s Budget Statement 2022/23 (29 March 2022) and Creating opportunities for women to fulfill their potential

Grants and Funding – Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – An example of one of almost countless sources of public funding for feminists and other women (November 2021)

2021-labor-womens-budget-statement.pdf (alp.org.au)

Dear Josh, here’s what women really want from the budget (3 May 2021) “Last year’s budget was widely criticised for leaving women behind“. Really? Not by anyone I know, that’s for darn sure.

Now even the budget is a tool of the Coalition’s evil oppression of women. Apparently … (23 April 2021)

‘Gender ignorant’ treasurers leave Australia lagging behind in women’s equality, equity advocate says | Gender | The Guardian (29 January 2021) Read about the feminist version of reality

Backing Aussie startups owned and led by women (7 December 2020) 

ICMI20: Eccentrik Hat – “Why Men Need Help And Why Feminism Won’t Help Them” – YouTube (18 November 2020) Hello!

Payne defends budget measures as gender neutral (19 October 2020)

Some information posted on Twitter about provision for women in the 2020 budget

Treasurer, a tiny $240 million for ‘women’s economic security’ is insulting (6 October 2020) Another typical feminist article that makes no effort to provide context for the claims made based on a comparative analysis of benefits solely for men & boys.

Each budget used to have a gender impact statement. We need it back, especially now (30 September 2020)

Who’ll most benefit from tax cuts? Rich men. We need gender-responsive budgeting, now (16 September 2020) And once again, ‘applying the gender lens’ means exclusively focusing on real & imagined budgetary impacts on women

Women, older Australians were most likely to receive the Morrison government’s $750 stimulus payments (16 September 2020)

Calls for female-focused budget as women face financial ‘gender disaster’ (16 August 2020)

How the Australian Budget process is failing women (2 April 2019). Apparently we need “Gender responsive budgeting” and “women’s economic needs demand more frequent and intense intervention”. Yes, and for men/boys … well, oh, let’s not go there, right?

Women’s Economic Security Statement (19 November 2018)

“A priority for the Australian Government is to create the right economic settings for women to help them participate in work, increase their economic security and give them meaningful choices about their lives.”
 

The Queensland government produced a Women’s Budget Statement (6 July 2017)

Women’s group call for gender aware budget (22 May 2017) Australia. They are not calling for a “gender aware budget”, they are calling for a female-aware budget … no mention whatsoever is made of looking at the impact of the budget on men. More of the same here and here.

Gender Lens on the Budget 2017/18 (undated) Australia. We need something like this to look at the impact of the budget on men (shame this one didn’t address both genders)

Interview with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop (24 January 2017) The financial analysis I spoke of earlier would need to encompass foreign aid, which is increasingly gender-focused towards women/girls.

Only men pay taxes (8 October 2016) Video. On the issue of the gendered impact of the current taxation regime see also this blog post

Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax (8 September 2016) Wouldn’t it be interesting to run a rigorous financial analysis here in Australia to see if the same pattern was evident?

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016), by Eva Cox

Women left behind by a budget that does little to redress inequality, by Eva Cox (5 May 2016) Well if women were left behind in the Budget Eva, what say you about men and their issues?

The Distribution of Income and Fiscal Incidence by Age and Gender: Some Evidence from New Zealand (2013)

womensagenda.com.au/…/each-budget-used-to-have-a-gender-impact-statement-we-need-it-back-especially-now

We’ve set a target of having 10% of our senior management team female by 2017

Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.

Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their smashed avocado at this point, and reaching towards their IPhones ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.

That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.

The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.

We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.

I could divert at this point to talk about how the gender wage gap, in the context it’s presented to us by feminists, is complete hokum that has been de-bunked more times than I’ve had hot breakfasts. Here’s a recent effort courtesy of Forbes. But never mind, at least the ‘pay gap’ gives gender studies students and feminist journos something to write about other than their own angst-ridden lives.

There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)

I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …

Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?

Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.

Feminism. Hypocrisy. Got it

Closing gender pay gap about privilege, not equality (30 November 2021)

(Postscript January 2017: Philip Davies MP recounts his experience dealing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK)

(Postscript November 2018: An extra $8 million to encourage employers to report on gender equity)

A response (to Robert Brockway) from the WGEA (3 March 2019)

David Leyonhjelm, former Senator for the Liberal Democrats, asks WGEA staff about the workplace hours gap  (20 February 2019) Video

Submissions to a review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (December 2021) (See this separate post)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

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

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

Image

OMG. Another domestic violence inquiry. And they sure have loaded the dice with this one

The inquiry that I am introducing in this post follows hard on the heels of another federal Senate inquiry into domestic violence. My submission to that earlier inquiry can be accessed in this blog post. There have also been several recent inquiries conducted by state governments.

The current federal inquiry is known as the Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality. It is being considered by a Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration known as the ‘References Committee’, the membership of which is listed here.

The proposed terms of reference of the inquiry are to examine:

Domestic violence and gender inequality, with particular reference to:

  1. The role of gender inequality in all spheres of life in contributing to the prevalence of domestic violence;
  2. The role of gender stereotypes in contributing to cultural conditions which support domestic violence, including, but not limited to, messages conveyed to children and young people in:
    1. the marketing of toys and other products,
    2. education, and
    3. entertainment;
  3. The role of government initiatives at every level in addressing the underlying causes of domestic violence, including the commitments under, or related to, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; and
  4. Any other related matters.

As can be seen, these terms of reference were tailored for a feminist audience, and perfectly embrace the feminist narrative on DV. That is, in summary, that DV = men beating on women because patriarchy.

In fact each of these earlier inquiries demonstrated a pronounced pro-feminist bias, and this has greatly curtailed the breadth of issues and potential solutions discussed. Thus whilst some useful ideas were generated, these all fell well within the comfortable confines of what feminists consider to be appropriate policy responses.

As can be seen from its title, this inquiry hones in on one particular issue in the domestic violence debate that is absolutely central to the feminist perspective. The theoretical cornerstone of this is the ‘Duluth Model’ discussed in this email exchange, this academic paper, and in various other posts in my blog.

It is my belief, and one which is shared by many others, that applying this position to most (let alone all) incidents of DV is simply wrong. Focussing on gender inequality is diverting the domestic violence debate around 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Thus all things considered, this inquiry will likely be an utter waste of time and money. So why then bother preparing a submission?

My answer? If people who hold alternative views don’t continue to publicly reject the feminist narrative, then the only voices on the public record will be those of the feminist fright-bats that populate organisations such as these. Not on my watch.

Not if we want effective solutions addressing the whole problem, rather than just more of the same costly inequitable and divisive policy failures.

The closing date for public submissions was 31 March 2016. The reporting date was nominated as being 24 August 2016, but don’t hold your breath for the last federal inquiry ran about a year overtime.

Here is a link to the list of submissions received by the Inquiry. My submission is #48, a copy of which is also available here.

Here is a link to the submission prepared by the ‘One in Three’ organisation

Thank you Bev, whoever you are

Within the limits of the little free time available to me I try to keep abreast of media and social media discussions concerning gender-related issues. I also post readers comments from time to time.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that readers comments are often far more informative and entertaining than many of the articles I read. And it’s doubly true when the author is a feminist.

In reading comments I sometimes recognise the names (real or assumed) of those posting their thoughts. Some of these names are familiar to me from their posting on reddit, on mens rights blogs, and from stumbling upon their own blogs or Facebook pages. But one is a bit of a mystery.

That reader, who signs off as ‘Bev’, pops up all over the place, by virtue of the large number of comments posted each week. Not just any old comments, but generally cordial, thoughtful and articulate comments. (Example here)

Anyway thanks for your contribution to raising awareness of the male perspective Bev. Your efforts are much appreciated. And to everyone else, maybe keep an eye out for Bev’s handiwork.

And thanks to all the other women who speak up in support of the welfare of men and boys. It’s really great to see not just the numbers of women who are prepared to expose themselves to the wrath of the feminist horde, but also the calibre of their input.

 

 

Sadly, Australian politicians only find the courage to criticise the feminist lobby after they retire

If any further proof were needed about the extent of power wielded by the feminist lobby in Australia then consider the fact that gender issues are rarely mentioned by politicians unless their views are in lockstep with the feminist position on the relevant matter. As for direct criticism of feminists or feminism … well that’s as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.

One of the few exceptions to the above rule that I am aware of is Victorian MP Graham Watt. Whilst his criticism was mute, it was certainly unambiguous. Another is former Senator Mitch Fifield who refused to roll over when subjected to a sexist slur in parliament. Queensland MP Tim Mander highlighted the hypocrisy of leftists/feminists who call for diversity and gender parity but look away when the gender balance favors women (media response).

ACT politician Mark Parton ruffled feathers when he claimed that middle-aged white men were being ignored in the rush to diversity.

That this is the case speaks far more about the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and infiltration of the media and public service, than about the actual number of adherents to feminist ideology out in the broader community.

In early 2015 only 18% of Americans considered themselves to be feminists, this figure representing a substantial drop in feminist numbers since 2013. Consider too that most of those identifying as feminists likely only possess a superficial knowledge of feminist theory and its tawdry history. In Britain now the figure is even lower, sitting at just 7%. Nevertheless, the feminist hierarchy has no qualms about claiming to be the font of wisdom with regards to what all women want, and how they should live their lives.

Yet despite this our elected representatives, from Prime Minister on downwards … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to take a stand. Thus they would rather please a screeching minority group than represent the best interests of the majority of their constituents.

This sad trend is addressed in this February 2017 article by respected British MP Philip Davies wherein he states:

“The recurring theme is the number of MPs in different parties who tell me, privately and in a whisper, “Of course you are absolutely right about this, it is all ridiculous” but – with very few but notable exceptions – will not dare to say so publicly.

This highlights two things. Firstly, most MPs lack courage – even to say things which are just plain common sense.

Secondly, it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.”

The sitting politicians’ concerns are, unfortunately, understandable when one considers the harsh criticism meted out to those rare individuals who do dare to speak out (related article) and another entitled ‘Goodbye Spectator’.

One of those attacked for questioning the feminist-constructed status quo is former MP Gary Johns (example). All Gary had to do was question the merit of providing substantial funding to feminist advocacy groups (in lieu of direct funding of relevant government agencies), and secondly to query why male victims of domestic violence were being ignored.

Another former MP, Bill O’Chee, has written articles highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence (such as this and this).

Mark Latham has attracted wave after wave of abuse after writing about feminism and motherhood, the current political approach to the issue of domestic violence, and celebrity ‘victim’ Rosie Batty. Listed below are a few examples of articles that have heaped scorn upon Mark for daring to offer an opinion contrary to the feminist narrative:

Em Rusciano: Good riddance Mark Latham (17 August 2015)
Men are second-class citizens? Give us a break, by Wendy Tuohy (2 May 2016)

Mark Latham and others in a Sunrise (TV program) panel discussion regarding feminism (1 May 2016) Video

Left bleaters ignore truth about wife beaters (29 February 2016)

In January 2016 Mark again found himself the target of furious feminist and ‘white knight‘ scorn after he commented upon the rampant gender bias and misrepresentation within the domestic violence debate:

Mark Latham attacks Rosie Batty in first podcast for Triple M on new segment called ‘Lathamland’ (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham under fire for Triple M podcast describing domestic violence as ‘coping mechanism’ (22 January 2016) with related reddit discussion threads here and here

Mark Latham’s spray makes him an apologist for perpetrators of violence against women, by Wendy Tuohy (22 January 2016)

Why we can’t and shouldn’t look away from the damage Mark Latham is doing (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham’s spray may be his last on Triple M after backlash over domestic violence comments (22 January 2016)

‘You do believe that Rosie Batty causes more harm than good?’ Mark Latham challenged on Sunrise about controversial domestic violence comments on Triple M… as radio station is slammed for hiring him (23 January 2016)

Rosie Batty responds to Mark Latham’s comments about domestic violence (25 January 2016)

Alan Jones and Mark Latham talk about domestic violence (31 October 2016) Audio. See media follow-up here and in The Australia (behind paywall). Jenna ‘Destroy the Joint‘ Price then had to weigh in with some righteous fury.

Mark Latham is not actually retired – he jumped across to the NSW parliament. And since then he’s still addressing feminism and gender issues, which is great. Here’s Mark asking questions about domestic violence and the BOSCAR report findings (October 2019)

‘Latham’s law | The Demonisation of Men‘, another good article from Mark Latham (10 April 2021)

In this interview with Bettina Arndt, former politicians Peter Beattie and Peter Reith discuss the non-feminist perspective on domestic violence (10 October 2016). On that note, see also this further video from Bettina entitled ‘Enough Talk, More Action’ (17 October 2019)

See too ‘Abbott slams “anti-men” policy, but why are other MPs silent?‘ by Corrine Barraclough (3 May 2017). Bravo Tony!

David Leyonhjelm also kicked some good solid goals. David moved from the federal government to the (NSW) state arena (see video), until exiting the political arena in 2019.

And last, but by no means least, Pauline Hanson – the only woman in federal parliament who has anything to say in support of men/boys (2023 video).

Beyond these few courageous individuals the picture is bleak indeed. So much for living in a parliamentary democracy. So much for freedom of speech. So much for teasing apart a problematic issue and discussing new and/or alternative solutions to achieve positive change.

Now shut-up and prostrate yourselves before the wonder and wisdom of 4th wave feminism.

Meanwhile in the USA Image

Other blog posts related to this topic include:

Dealing with men’s issues – The current situation in Australia
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Going Batty: The making of a champion of the Domestic Violence Industry
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)
On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The people speak: Feminist journalist hears but won’t listen

You might be interested in taking a look at this article entitled ‘A gender-equality wish list for 2016’, and the readers comments that follow.

The article was written by feminist journalist Wendy Tuohy. I think I first introduced Wendy in this blog post. I would probably place her in the second tier of Australian feminist journalists, were they ranked according to stridency and degree of bigotry. In other words she is a self-professed feminist with narrow and stereotypical views on gender matters, but by no means barking mad. Like many feminists she enjoys cats and blocking dissenting voices.

tuohy2

 

The issues that Wendy flagged in her latest article included domestic violence, the gender pay gap, the proportion of women in management positions, the number of women on current affairs show panels, female economic empowerment, and women playing football. No surprises there.

Ah, but then Wendy got a surprise. For with but two exceptions, her readers tore her article to shreds. Quite coherently, and with facts.

Some brief extracts from Wendy’s readers:

“We have a media dominated by women’s voices focusing (as most of you do) exclusively on women’s issues. It’s simply mind blowing to hear you say women have no voice. The only time men can speak with any confidence they won’t be crucified by the media is when they speak in total support of anything concerning the welfare of women”

“Sure, you have two journos dedicated to women’s issues and none dedicated to men’s. Maybe get a third female journo talking about female issues as a step closer to equality? Maybe four or five and we are there?”

“Yes we need to do more about DV mostly adopting an honest approach, recognizing that it is not a gendered crime and producing all the stats not just part of them.

The figure of 78 women has been front and centre but broken down 28 were not DV related and 10 were killed by women so men killed 40 women and 4 children (DV related). Women killed 19 men and 10 women plus after removing clear cases of mental problems they killed 11 children.”

The final numbers, men (in a DV situation) killed 44 and women killed 40. So let us be honest next year and tackle the problem in an unbiased manner.”

True to feminist form Wendy did not respond to her critics here, let alone attempt a rebuttal of the points they raised. But elsewhere, in her Twitter account, she implored a supporter to avoid reading the comments in the Herald-Sun, of which she was haughtily dismissive …

tuohy2

Yes, whatever you do fellow feminists, don’t expose yourselves to the nasty views of the unbelievers.

Hold true to your feelz, and to our precious narrative, special snowflakes!

Don’t learn, don’t understand, don’t engage or collaborate, and don’t empathise. We’ll show them.

 

But then the fear and loathing with which feminists and SJW view the dark threat that constitutes the reader’s comments section is now well-recognised. (PS: And in fact Wendy has since closed her blog because of her disdain for comments contributed by her readers)

Australian MRA Mark Dent also posted a copy of his reader’s comment on Wendy’s Facebook page. The subsequent exchange between Mark and Wendy is quite interesting, and I’ve reproduced it below in the event that it disappears from Facebook.

“Hi Mark, my brief is to focus on issues impacting women, kids and families — all of which are affected by the issues I touched on in my article titled ‘A few small changes could make a big difference’ in The Herald Sun last Sunday, and just up on my blog. Of course I care about issues impacting men: I’ve written lots about male adolescent mental health and better supporting boys in education and not ‘writing off’ teen boys (of which I have two lovely examples). But I stick to my primary brief in most of my work: issues primarily impacting women. Here is one pay gap link, reporting ABS statistics. Thanks for reading, Wendy”

(Mark replies) “Thanks for responding (as you always do) but you have proved my point. The media are not stupid. They know women devour stories about their victimhood or heroism. This is why our papers and TVs are saturated with females talking about issues which affect women.

Please point out one male journalist whose brief is to write exclusively about issues which are confronting men and placing them at a disadvantage. It seems there are many women who do just what you do so how do you then complain about a lack of female voices in the media?

Just because your brief is to focus on women’s issues does not make your statements about gender inequality any more true or acceptable.

I have presented a range of issues which impact upon men in a far more devastating way than a mythical wage gap based on gender or a purported lack of a voice (when the opposite is true). Men’s issues are about death, injury, the right to see their own children, huge disparity in sentencing for the same crime when compared to women and their total invisibility when it comes to being victims of family violence. There are weighty issues which lead to homelessness and suicide yet when was the last time any paper devoted a segment to the horrendous obstacles and injustices confronting men?”

(Wendy replies) “Mark, my former editor, Simon Pristel called me in and commissioned me to write a blog/do a round focused on women. I don’t know what his thinking was or why he chose me to do it (I was a general features writer before that for a couple of decades) but it has been going now for about 5 years so I guess it must be considered to be serving a market that perhaps we weren’t offering as much for previously.”

Mark: “Wendy-I am not attacking you for writing about women’s issues. I am questioning why this should almost always lead to anguished diatribes on all of the inequities women supposedly face and creating the very false narrative which says men are somehow privileged over women in our society.

As I have said repeatedly (and supported with facts) it is men who suffer the biggest obstacles and disadvantages as a result of their gender.

I challenged you to point out one male journalist who devotes his whole job to writing about issues concerning men and you didn’t respond. The very fact that male editors ignore men’s issues backs up my comments about politicians (male and female) devoting all of their time, energy and funding to women’s issues.

Men simply don’t matter in our world.”

Wendy: “Men matter Mark. Perhaps the ones who need attention the most don’t get it, I can only say as the daughter of a non ‘Alpha’ male and wife of same and mother of same X 2 that maybe it’s harder for the non typically macho men. That is a guess. Shoot me down if you want to.”

Mark: I don’t want to shoot you down. You seem to be a lovely person. It is just so upsetting to be fed this line of female suffering and inequality day after day in our media. You seem to accept my arguments with regard to male disadvantage but unlike female issues-there is literally no focus on these issues.

As I said-women have a voice-men have no voice in our mainstream media. You say men matter but whenever you write about family violence you focus exclusively on female victims, just as Rosie Batty does. How can this be justified?

I am passionate about the very real gender empathy gap in our society and will continue to voice my concerns whenever the opportunity arises. Here’s something I wrote about the gender empathy gap.

Thanks again for engaging in such a civilized manner.”

Wendy: “Mark, thank you for treating me civilly, unlike some men on Twitter, one of whom reacted to my column like this:”

abuse

Mark: “That kind of language is totally unacceptable, Wendy. This type of abuse is often a result of deep frustration over the issues I have tried to outline in our discussion. Some men respond to the sense of injustice and helplessness (men have no voice in the public forum) with angry attacks.

I am not justifying or excusing it, but I have been abused in a most vile manner by feminists for simply presenting the arguments I have written to you. One group of feminists actually set up a website and posted pics of me and wrote lies about me being a hater of women and girls and someone who excuses DV. They said they wanted me sacked from my job as a teacher. They literally made stuff up. All because I asked why we don’t give the same attention and compassion to the suffering of males.

I know Andrew Bolt gets death threats and abuse every day. My point? Many female journalists hold up online abuse as some kind of male problem carried out by neanderthals who hate women. Men receive vile, abuse from women too. Clem Ford is a mainstream journalist who uses far worse language than that directed at you and as I said-there are no repercussions. Yet she gets a man sacked from his job for abusing her.

Perhaps if men had an opportunity to be heard in the media rather than be mocked or branded a woman hater for expressing concern for males there would be less anger and frustration in the community. You have never had to endure an almost daily assault on your gender for nigh on forty years, Wendy.

Anyway, I thank you again for engaging and allowing me an opportunity to express my views.”

A civil exchange without a trace of rancour, but you would have observed that neither here nor in her tweet does the journalist actually address the *facts* raised by readers.

Whilst Wendy Tuohy may well be a “lovely person”, both her work to date and her comments on this occasion, lend further support to the existence of a feminist mind-set characterised by:

  • a belief that the views of those speaking up for the rights of men and boys are unworthy of even the most superficial consideration
  • a belief that anyone who challenges feminist beliefs and/or champions the rights of men/boys is not only anti-feminist but also a misogynist
  • a lack of awareness of the male perspective on many, if not most, gender-related matters

How shall we ever move beyond this impasse and engage in an informed and constructive manner whilst feminists remain blissfully unaware of the male perspective, and react with visceral disgust and censorship upon encountering the views of non-feminists?

Is anyone else starting to get the feeling that in just a few year’s time western society will look back on 3rd wave feminism in a similar manner to that which we now look back on the hippie era? As something akin to a Dagwood Dog … a sliver of substance embalmed in a voluminous barf-inducing batter of self-indulgence and narcissism.

dagwood dog

Happy New Year.

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015. A further post addresses developments following the commencement of Kate Jenkins replacement, Anna Cody, in September 2023.

There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner by the time Kate Jenkins commenced her role. In the interim several articles on the topic emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).

Sex discrimination commissioner job still vacant as government continues to stall (6 January 2016) This article again implies that the role is purely to advocate for women, and assumes that a women will be selected for the role.

Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.

This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.

This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:

“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”

Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:

“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)

Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:

Children’s Rights Commissioner urges national focus on children affected by domestic violence (7 December 2015)

“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. 

Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.

Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.

“Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.

This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.

This page, from within the AHRC’s web site, is aptly entitled ‘About Sex Discrimination’. And it sure is.

jenkins

The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damseling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.

This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.

#ICYMI Watch: Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner @Kate_Jenkins_ outline her plan for the role #auspol https://t.co/480sShMTuc

— ABC News 24 (@ABCNews24) February 14, 2016

In ‘What should the new sex discrimination commissioner do? Make ‘women’s issues’ everyone’s issues’ the author suggests a #HeForShe approach, because “like it or not, men are making the lion’s share of the decisions in this country“.  Not terribly original given Ms. Broderick’s much-trumpeted ‘Champions of Change’ project.

Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.

Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.

Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:

‘I didn’t imagine we would still need a sex discrimination commissioner in 2016′

I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.

On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).

In ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men‘ (15 September 2016) we learnt that Gillian Triggs has allowed the ABS to hire only female interviewers as “men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women.” Meanwhile they ignore the flip-side that male victims would be more likely to tell their stories to male interviewers – thus perpetuating the statistical erasure of male victimisation.

Please also read the related media release from the ‘One in Three’ organisation, as well as this article from Jasmin Newman.

On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?

kate

kateandclem

The Hunting Ground & the campus rape study

Now in the light of all the preceding evidence, one would hope that the AHRC would consider the most appropriate course of action to be a gradual pulling-back from their position of anti-male bias. But no, they doubled-down instead through their involvement with a project that sought to justify, and to continue, their focus on women’s rights through the feminist lens.

The images above show Kate proudly promoting book sales for misandrist radfem Clementine Ford, and then applauding the screening of much-debunked feminist anti-male hit-piece ‘The Hunting Ground‘ (article/article). What a shame she couldn’t wield her influence to have the ABC screen The Red Pill. The cash injection provided by the team behind ‘The Hunting Ground’ gave rise to an unfortunate perception of bias and conflicted interest.

It was no accident that the promotion of ‘The Hunting Ground’ coincided with the conducting of the campus sexual assault survey, and the subsequent release of the results in July 2017 as discussed in the following articles:

Universities Australia defends $1m donation to ‘independent’ campus rape survey (2 November 2016)

Hardly on the hunt for facts (18 June 2017)

Manufacturing Australia’s next epidemic (26 July 2017) Video. First promote the (debunked) film ‘The Hunting Ground’ then a survey (with self-selected respondents) and now for the hysteria and demands for punitive action. Against … drumroll … men.

Mattress girl saga a warning to unis on sexual assault cases, by Bettina Arndt (29 July 2017)

Advocacy journalism (31 July 2017) Video

No rape crisis on our campuses: Official (2 August 2017)

No rape culture at Australian universities: No Rape Culture at Australian Uni’s: Even Seinfeld Knows AHRC Report is a Joke (4 August 2017) Video featuring Mark Latham

Flawed sexual harassment report undermines the change it seeks (12 August 2017) When even other feminists come out and say this study stinks, you know it’s bad

Restructuring the Australian Defence Forces

Army refuses men, WTF? (12 August 2017) Video

Army studying ‘how women shop’ for recruitment (12 August 2017)

The Royal Australian Human Rights Commission Air Force (2 August 2017)

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer review assessment of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States every five years. Australia’s next review will take place in January 2021. The Commission contributes to Australia’s UPR alongside civil society organisations. Take a look at the ‘fact-sheets’ that the Commission has prepared in relation to various key issues. Let’s start with ‘Gender Equality‘ shall we? Would it surprise you to know that there are no issues related to the welfare of men & boys?

See also:

Kate Jenkins’ plan for her successor as sex discrimination commissioner (10 April 2023) Not one word said regarding things to be done for men/boys. Nothing

Who will be the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner? We should hear any day now. And please not another radfem (2 April 2023)

Taxpayer-funded video for primary school kids that talks about pansexuality is slammed as ‘woke gender ideology’ (28 December 2022)

Alcohol a major problem for women in the workplace: Jenkins (7 September 2022) Whilst Jenkins’ Canberra report confirmed a significant level of harassment *of* men, this article ignores actual and/or potential male victimhood. Why? 

A Human Rights Based Approach to Men’s Rights (28 June 2022) Video presentation

Australia embarrassed on world stage over downgrade threat (7 April 2022) If slack in one area of function, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re slack in another.

Bettina Arndt: “The great purge rolls on” (3 December 2021)

Open letter to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission – Gender Balancing (wordpress.com) (20 May 2021) Detailed submission to the NZ equivalent of the AHRC, and the extent of pro-fem gender bias present in that agency.

Reappointment of Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Age Discrimination Commissioner (1 April 2021)

Note this page in the Commission’s web site in the Education section, and how ‘Women’s Rights’ is a designated ‘Hot Topic’ whilst men’s/boys rights is excluded. Whilst ‘Homelessness’ is also listed as a hot topic, the gender differences in those afflicted is simply ignored.

Beijing +25 and the future of women’s rights (4 December 2020) Try word-searching  this document and see how many times the words ‘men’ and ‘boys’ appears (= zero).

Bettina Arndt reports on a new survey on sexual harassment in the retail sector undertaken by the AHRC. Nearly a third (29 %) of men report harassment, compared to 46% of women but this sizeable male group is rarely even mentioned. And no men interviewed about their experiences (30 October 2019)

At a session entitled ‘Smashing the Patriarchy!’ at the 2019 National Community Legal Centres Conference, Kate Jenkins served on “a diverse panel of powerful women as they reflect on their own experiences and work. The discussion will include possibilities for collective action, ways to challenge existing systems of power and patriarchy and the rights and experiences of women across Australia. This plenary will provide an opportunity to discuss key issues such as sexual harassment; the fight to de-criminalise abortion; systemic racism and discrimination experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and Muslim women …“

Online abuse against women on Human Rights Council agenda (22 June 2018) No mention regarding harassment of men/boys … that facet of this problem appears to be seen as a non-issue. For some actual stats see my post here.

Face the Facts: Gender Equality 2018 –  This web page and linked sources appear to have been written on the assumption that gender equality and women’s rights are synonymous. The rights or issues of men & boys are simply not mentioned.

Unleashing the power of gender equality (November 2017) by Kate Jenkins. Men and boys are essentially missing in action in this document. Word search on the term ‘men’ then scroll through each of the 89 mentions to quickly confirm where the author’s interest (bias) lies.

‘Perverse outcomes’: How Australia is failing sexual harassment victims (18 October 2017) Ms Jenkins is interviewed on the issue of workplace harassment, but appears to avoid any mention of male victimisation/female perpetration. The author, Gay Alcorn, did thankfully at least note some comparative statistics.

It’s not just Hollywood problem: 1 in 4 Australian women have been sexually harassed at work (16 October 2017) Here Kate jumps on the Harvey Weinstein bandwagon. Oh, and wherefore art thou female harassers? For they are mentioned nowhere in this one-sided male hit piece. Hmm, when someone only ever identifies perpetrators of one particular gender, that’s discrimination right?

Financial rewards provided only to women are “smart”, even when part-time and/or low income male workers also retire with low Superannuation balances. Little wonder feminists hate the term “Apex Fallacy”.

This doesn’t happen (6 October 2017)

‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner should get real‘, by Andrew Bolt (1 May 2017) Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacts to Kate Jenkins gender quota proposal here, with a related article by Miranda Devine here.

Australian report finds disturbing evidence of gender inequality | Women | The Guardian (8 March 2017) The three letters of ‘men’ appears 67 times in this article by Kate – count how many times it related to actual men (twice). And one of these times merely refuting the claim that there is no International Men’s Day. Oh please! Lame shot! It’s not recognised by the UN, and is ignored by the AHRC and most (if not all) Australian state & federal agencies.

““Some people are adamantly opposed to proactive initiatives to improve gender equality,” Jenkins said. “Other people truly don’t understand this is still problem for Australia.” Clearly many people don’t recognise the widespread bias shown towards men/boys as constituting gender inequality.

Application to conduct a female-only gym (November 2016) This application linked here primarily as it contains links to other earlier determinations regarding the issue of gender segregation.

A positive development at the New Zealand Human Rights Commission (24 March 2016) Seeing this I thought perhaps in that organisation that men’s rights were seen as important too. But after seeing this item, maybe they are little different from the AHRC in this regard.

Here’s a project that Kate Jenkins could tackle. It concerns the lack of ‘Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Men’ (6 March 2016)

See also: 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)

Now try searching using ‘women’s rights’ instead. This is #GenderEqualityWhenItSuits (25 December 2021)
Nil response has been received by me as of July 2023

A separate post that addresses the issue of me being blocked from accessing Ms Jenkins Twitter stream can be found here)

Another government inquiry to tell us that domestic violence = men beating women because patriarchy

Yes, just when you thought we had seen (and paid for) the last federal or state government inquiry into domestic violence, at least for a couple of years, apparently we need another one. Well more specifically, the lawyers and feminist DV lobbyists need another one.

But of course we already know what the likely findings and recommendations will be. If I just told them then why couldn’t they save the time and just give me a million dollars now. Either way there would still be a lot of fat left for feminist groups by way of paying them to ‘help’ implement the ‘solution’.

This newer, brighter, better inquiry is being undertaken by the New South Wales Government in Australia. This exercise is called the ‘Blueprint for the domestic and family violence response in NSW’. Here is a web page that provides some details and has links to further information. From that page we learn:

“As part of the It Stops Here: the Domestic and Family Violence Framework for Reform, the NSW Government is developing a Blueprint to improve responses to victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence (DFV) in NSW (‘the DFV Blueprint’).”

More information at:

Baird government’s $60m package targets domestic violence (14 October 2015)

New $60 million Domestic and Family Violence Package

Domestic and Family Violence Package Fact Sheet (October 2015)

The deadline for submissions is 5 February 2016. Please prepare a submission if you are able. My submission now follows:

Submission in relation to the ‘Blueprint for the Domestic and family violence response in NSW’

Thank you for according me the opportunity to contribute my thoughts about the development of public policy in relation to domestic violence, as this is a topic I feel quite passionate about.

The current situation is one where we have had one particular approach adopted to tackle domestic violence for many years now. It is strongly influenced by feminist ideology and its theoretical underpinning is the ‘Duluth Model’. Countless millions of dollars have been directed towards pursuing this approach yet all would agree that the outcome has been disappointing.

Not only has the incidence of DV not been reduced, but there has been a system-wide failure to acknowledge (let alone seriously address) the incidence of both bi-lateral and female-perpetrated violence, as well as the extent of male victimisation.

In any other field of public policy there would be demands for a greater accountability in both the allocation and expenditure of funds. There would be demands for the uniform introduction of measures such as performance reviews and auditing. People would be encouraged to contribute new and different ideas, and there might well be demands to trial alternative approaches.

Instead, the response to this situation from those in the DV advocacy sphere has been simply to ask for more public funding. Further, those who question the validity or effectiveness of existing failed approaches and/or who propose alternative approaches – are widely attacked and labelled as being anti-women and as misogynists.

To my mind feminist ideology is not precious, but human life is. I would propose that we start a fresh chapter where we acknowledge DV in its entirety and address it in an objective and disciplined manner, unencumbered by myths, dogma, preconceptions or gender bias.

These myths I mention are encapsulated in statements such as:

·         The overwhelming majority of victims of DV are women

·         Women only commit acts of domestic violence in self-defence, and

·         Women are more seriously affected by DV than men

I’ll turn my attention now to the contents of your consultation paper, and to those specific questions posed within it:

Page 5 ‘Preventing DFV by addressing its underlying causes’

People should be made aware that the true nature of the “underlying causes” of DV is subject to considerable debate. Feminists have one view, but there are other valid alternatives. You might also mention that the effectiveness of some of the strategies you list here (for e.g. awareness campaigns) is also hotly-debated, in part because of the lack of rigorous performance review and audit procedures.

It is critically important that, whilst formulating your policy, decision-makers retain an open mind about such issues and be open to hearing about, and discussing, alternative approaches free from any ideologically-motivated censorship.

The current feminist/Duluth Model approach has failed to reduce DV. The only success it can claim is that more women are reporting abuse, which may or may not mean the incidence of DV is increasing. Men are still far less likely to report abuse than women, the effect of which is to further mask the incidence of female abusers.

In any other (less politically polarised) field of public policy the current approach would have been discarded as ineffective many years ago. There must be a better way forward – even if feminists might initially be very much opposed to it.

The paragraph beginning with ‘Early intervention support services …’ already seems to suggest ideological blinkers are in place by implying that the victims of DV are female. Why for example is there no mention of ‘fathers groups’ or ‘support services for at-risk people/groups’?

More specifically, you seem to adopt a gender-neutral approach in relation to perpetrators, but not victims. Again I would urge you to adopt gender-neutral terminology throughout your paper, and in the policies that subsequently emerge from it.

Page 6. I believe that it would be desirable to clearly state here that both victims and perpetrators can be (and are) male, female and transgender, as well as being both heterosexual and homosexual.

You should also address the fact that to date, services for perpetrators such as intensive counselling are rarely if ever made available to female perpetrators.

This is in part due to the failure to acknowledge the incidence and seriousness of female-perpetrated violence, and the widely-held view that violence against women is inherently far more serious an issue than violence against men. This occurs despite that fact that men, overall, are far more likely to be the victims of violence.

Related issues are addressed at:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/differing-public-response-to-partner-violence-depending-on-gender-of-victim/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/female-violence-now-increasingly-seen-as-appropriate-empowering/

Page 7 Q1. I believe that the current shotgun approach to awareness campaigns (i.e. aiming the message at everyone in the community) is of a very dubious value, having been compromised by the lack of independent review and valuation as well as ideological bias.

I have discussed this in my post at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/two-awareness-campaigns-only-one-can-be-criticised-cowed-by-feminism/

I believe that respectful relationship programs in schools are likewise of dubious value in their current gender-biased format, and in fact may even prove to be counter-productive.

I have addressed this issue at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/no-place-for-feminist-propaganda-in-our-schools/ and http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-government-announces-intention-to-reprogram-boys-to-reduce-domestic-violence/

To be believed and to be acted upon the message must be honest in acknowledging that DV is NOT a gendered issue, and that there are substantial numbers of both male and female perpetrators, and male and female victims.

Many people are now aware for example that domestic violence is most common in lesbian couples, then in heterosexual couples, and then male gay couples. To send out a message that says or implies otherwise is to lose ones credibility at the outset.

See http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

Q2. Early intervention. There is a need to provide help lines and counselling services that are gender neutral and do not presuppose guilt, or the nature of the situation, based on the gender of the person seeking advice. That this now occurs on a widespread basis is a disgrace. It needlessly demonises men (of which 98%+ are never violent), and greatly discourages people from seeking assistance. See the following posts on this issue:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/addressing-anti-male-bias-by-an-australian-state-government-department/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/dv-connect-is-non-judgemental-but-men-calling-their-helpline-are-sneaky-perpetrators/

Q3. Support the safety and recovery of victims

First and foremost there needs to be dedicated refuge/shelter accommodation for both men and women, including those men who flee with their children. These facilities should be professionally managed and subject to performance reviews and spot-checks.

Conflicts of interests should be avoided and, for example, an arms-length relationship should be enforced between those developing government policy, and the recipients of related funding. See

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-experience-of-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/

Funding should also be provided to organisations, such as ‘One in Three’, that advocate for the welfare of men and boys victimised by DV and/or provide direct services to victimised men/boys. At the moment I am not aware of any funding directed towards such groups, and indeed both feminist spokespersons and feminist organisations actively oppose the allocation of funds for this purpose. They do so for example, by attacking/shaming relevant groups and individuals, and by misrepresenting relevant studies and statistics that identify the incidence of male victimisation:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/fudging-the-figures-to-support-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-feminist-attacks-integrity-of-advocacy-group-for-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/sallee-mclaren-must-write-on-the-blackboard-i-must-not-challenge-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

Q4. Perpetrator accountability

As you will see when reading through the articles and papers listed in the various blog posts I have mentioned here, female perpetrators are basically ‘let off the hook’ except in the most serious and violent of cases.

The literature in the web sites of advocacy groups implies that all perpetrators are male, men are usually the ones arrested/removed when police attend a domestic dispute, women are less likely to be charged, and if charged the punishment is likely to be less than in the case of a male.

This sends entirely the wrong message to abusive women and their victims. In the first instance they are less likely to see themselves as having a problem, and to seek help. In the latter case victims are less likely to report abuse and/or seek help thinking that they will not be believed (and even if they are no practical assistance will be forthcoming).

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-punishment-of-women-and-the-notion-of-a-pussy-pass/

Gender equality, in which I am a firm believer, means that men’s and women’s lives are of equal value, and that men and women should be treated equally before the law, and elsewhere.

 

 

Queensland Government continues to ignore male victims of domestic violence

In October 2015 the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was quoted as saying that more should be done for male victims of domestic violence. At the time I wondered if this was mere lip service to test the PR waters … or was there actually something tangible in the pipeline? Many people, including myself, earnestly hoped for the latter.

And so on 2 December 2015 when the Queensland Government issued a media release regarding the provision of additional accommodation for victims of domestic violence, I was cautiously optimistic. That media release was entitled ‘New shelters opening for domestic violence victims‘

Well, for the sake of accuracy the title of that media release should have included the word ‘female’ before the word ‘victims’. There are many male victims of domestic violence, and yet there was nothing for them in this latest allocation of public funding.

Here are some extracts from that media release:

Two new 72-hour crisis shelters for women and children fleeing domestic violence will be opened in December.

Minister for Communities and Women, Shannon Fentiman and Minister for Housing and Public Works Leeanne Enoch said the two shelters – located in Brisbane and Townsville – will be open and accessible 24 hours a day.

Minister Fentiman announced in February that the two shelters would be established as the first commitment to a recommendation in the Not Now, Not Ever report.

“When women make the brave decision to leave a violent relationship, we must make sure we have the support and services there to help,” Ms Fentiman said.

“These new shelters will give women and children a secure haven where they can feel safe and get the professional support they need to start afresh.

“Shelter staff will link women with specialist services to provide support until they have safe, stable housing in place, as well as connecting them with ongoing support about court, health or other issues.”

“The new services will also provide mobile support to any women still needing to be placed in motels.” …

“One of the unique aspects of these shelters is they will cater for pets, which was a recommendation from the Not Now, Not Ever report, given women in violent situations can also have threats made against their pets.” …

The Department for Housing is also providing $21.8 million in 2015-16 for 56 specialist homelessness services to help women and children escaping domestic violence across Queensland.”

Male victims of domestic violence, who also sometime flee with their children, also need emergency accommodation and support services. As far as I am aware there are no beds in DV refuges available for men in Queensland, only beds in homeless shelters. These two types of facilities are not one and the same.

Minister Fentiman, why have the needs of male victims yet again been ignored despite the Premier being on record as stating that more needs to be done for them?

Will the Minister advise me that support is provided to women because the “overwhelming majority of DV victims are female“? Will she then throw in a sop about an increase in funding for Mensline, a telephone service about which feedback has been appalling?

The sum total of assistance provided by Mensline to men, many themselves victims of violence, is referral to an anger management program. See both this post and this one for background regarding the pronounced gender bias displayed by this and similar ‘help’ lines.

Despite a budget of almost $200 million, as of September 2016 the Palaszczuk Government has yet to provide any tangible targeted support for male victims of domestic violence, nor any program/s to address the needs of female perpetrators of violent or abusive behaviour.

Nothing. Nada. What a disgrace.

See also:

Men are not mentioned in the title of this Department (or any other QLD Dept), which says a lot about the Queensland Government’s priorities re: people of that gender (April 2019)

Video showing the unhelpful and biased manner in which the QLD Government responded to the One Nation proposal in relation to DV law reform (24 October 2017) See also this related article by Corrine Barraclough.

Watch the two QLD government ads showing on TV in July 2017, dealing with financial abuse and psychological abuse, neither of which show female perpetration

Brisbane DV shelter and services helping women live safer lives (4 July 2016)

“Ms Fentiman said the Palaszczuk Government has provided $1.1 million to Micah Projects to deliver the Safer Lives Mobile Support Service for 12 months, which has helped more than 800 women and 350 children over the last six months.

“This program has helped to increase the safety of women and children and the accountability of perpetrators,” Ms Fentiman said.

“Importantly, the service has also secured an agreement with Centrelink so women in motels due to domestic and family violence can access crisis payments.”

Micah Projects also receives more than $1.7 million to deliver additional domestic and family violence responses, including a perpetrator program.”

Key achievements in addressing domestic violence in Queensland in the six months to May 2016

‘Queensland domestic violence services get $6m boost‘ (15 January 2016)

Just how much of this allocation will be directed to supporting male victims of domestic violence Minister? Aside from more sexist and discriminatory screening of male callers to Mensline, any of it ay all?

#FireClementineFord: A case-study in feminist hypocrisy

In an earlier post I mentioned how feminists routinely assert – or at the very least imply – that women are continually abused by men online. They consistently neglect to mention that many women perpetrate online abuse, and that many of them appear to be feminists/SJW. I have also previously written about the widespread feminist proclivity for silencing those advancing alternative perspectives and/or wilfully dishing-out retribution.

Clementine Ford is a feminist journalist known for the virulently anti-male commentary she disseminates by virtue of her position with Fairfax Media. Should you wish to lodge a complaint in relation to a Fairfax journalist, the first step is to go to the website of the publication that published the offending article. Find and click on the ‘Contact Us’ link, and then send your complaint to the editorial team. For example, with regards to The Age website click on http://www.theage.com.au/support/ and then click on ‘Editorial Feedback’. The next step is to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council.

In late November 2015 Clementine received a message from some fellow called Michael Nolan, who called her a “slut“. She lodged a complaint with his employer which resulted in Michael being fired. Clementine’s version of events is detailed in this article, with a related radio interview here. The incident was also picked up by the international MSM (and note the more than 1,750 readers comments it attracted).

Clementine asserts that there are no consequences for men who threaten women online. That’s demonstrably untrue given that there are laws in place to address such behaviour, as well as actions that can be (and are) taken by ISP’s or web site providers. To the extent that such measures prove ineffective, then any such deficiencies would apply to both male and female trolls. As a consequence it seems pointless to single out men as being immune from repercussions, unless of course the intention is simply to demonise men and build further support  for the women-as-victims narrative.

The feminist response to Clementine’s action sought to have us believe that doxing and punishing people for making actual threats of violence was the focus of their fury. This is little more than a ‘red herring’ to win public support, as the true emphasis appears to be silencing those advancing opinions critical of the feminist narrative. We are talking here about comments that very rarely threaten violence, and whose impact is no more severe than one of hurting the feelings of the recipient feminist.

The feminist rage quickly grew and quickly manifested itself in the creation of an online blacklist of those people whom feminists consider to be trolls … essentially a vigilante response.

I don’t support people using foul or threatening language online under any circumstances. But neither do I champion those who respond to such messages by way of shrill over-reaction. Especially when they themselves have an established track-record of disseminating online abuse. And god knows, Clementine Ford falls well and truly into that category …

“Who among us hasn’t had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE?” (Source)

A sampling of some of Clementine’s other noisome literary offerings is provided below (with a few more listed in this post). I might also point out that Clementine recently saw fit to label another Aussie journalist, Miranda Devine, a f**ing c**t! This is mentioned part way through Miranda’s article about pro-feminist censorship entitled ‘So now banks are censoring columnists?’

Clementine Ford truly is a stunning hypocrite, and a potty-mouthed one at that. And if Michael deserved to lose his job then so too does Clementine. And given her prolific and protracted output of gender hate – far more so. So with that in mind, please consider signing this petition.

ford_hypocrisy8

ford_hypocrisy14

ford_hypocrisy6The response from the online community (to Clementine’s response to Michael Nolan’s comment) was certainly polarised.

Three examples of the anti-feminist response were:

If not for double-standards she’d have none at all, by Tim Blair (1 December 2015)

Rabid feminazi Clementine Ford brags about getting a man fired from his job on Facebook (1 December 2015)

No clemency for Clementine (10 December 2015) Radio interview involving well-known female men’s rights activists, the Honey Badgers

Examples of the voices of the demented feminist sisterhood who quickly rushed to Clementine’s defence include:

Tara Moss says we should stand up against this sort of behaviour (1 December 2015) BUT women are more likely to call women sluts than are men, the man that Clementine complained about did not say she should be “gang raped or murdered“, and as if calling Clementine a slut will “bully her into silence“. Oh please!

Why Clementine Ford is so important to women like me (2 December 2015)

A man lost his job for harassing a woman online? Good (2 December 2015)

Online abuse of writer Clementine Ford highlights how bullying can cost you your job (3 December 2015)

See also:

Controversial Aussie feminist Clementine Ford sparks outrage with ‘disgusting’ post about Charlie Kirk’s assassination (11 September 2025)

Hateful Clementine Ford (1 January 2024)

Clementine Ford and the everyday misandry men face (1 June 2020)

Image

Clementine Ford & Catherine Deveny among 12 pages of City of Melbourne COVID-19 arts grants (5 May 2020)

Exhibitionist feminism: An infantile disorder (13 November 2019)

Controversial columnist Clementine Ford quits in spectacular, foul-mouthed tirade against newspaper (31 January 2019)

Hardline feminist Clementine Ford’s Lifeline speech is CANCELLED after thousands demanded the charity remove her as keynote speaker for tweeting ‘all men must die’ (15 May 2018)

Clementine Ford’s father is a member of One Nation Party (11 October 2017) ROTFL

Feminist Clementine Ford sparks walkout by refusing to answer schoolboys’ questions (31 August 2017) The Principal at Aquinas should be sacked

Feminist Author to Fan: ‘Have You Killed Any Men Today? If Not, Why Not?’ (27 June 2017) with a further article on this incident by Corrine Barraclough

You can dress her up but you can’t take her out (21 June 2017)

Clementine Ford bullies school boys after giving talk at school (8 May 2017) with related discussion in the ‘Toy Soldiers’ blog

Feminist Clementine Ford thinks her online abuse of a severely Autistic man was totally justified. Oh, and it’s all the fault of men, of course (12 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Clementine Ford leads the charge in the battle for feminism’s final frontier (1 October 2016) Oops, apparently I have this all wrong … Clementine is actually a hero and a champion to the downtrodden.

“Australia’s most prominent feminist” Oh god, if that’s the best the movement can offer up. Someone at ABC clearly has been hitting the Kool-Aid fairly darn hard.prominent

This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Clementine Ford teaching your children (18 July 2016)

Why you should never attack Clementine Ford (16 July 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Real change requires work – something not all men understand (1 July 2016)

Being blocked is not the same as being censored, by Clementine Ford (8 April 2016)

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) If men did this (in relation to female trolls) it would be denounced as evil, but women do it and it’s meant to be justice, right? Related reddit discussion thread here

#EndViolenceAgainstWomen: Thousands join social media campaign to name the men who troll them online (4 December 2015)

Opinion: Pricking the social and sexist conscience can sometimes hurt (7 December 2015) “… some commentators chose to remind readers that Ford had called people such as former PM Tony Abbott and columnist Miranda Devine crude names too. The huge difference is that Ford owns her words. She does not threaten violence.” Yoo hoo, Karen, Micheal Nolan didn’t threaten violence either.

Neither this article nor this one really say anything new, but do feature some interesting readers comments. This article, on the other hand, sees a male feminist author calling for compromise get shouted down by feminist readers (related discussion thread here).

And here you can read about threats made to a women who had the temerity to express her opposition to Clementine’s position

This earlier article, comparing the management response to reader complaints about Mark Latham versus Clementine Ford, is also quite relevant … as is this profile of Clementine by Mark Dent.

‘Clementine Ford’s Distorted Vision of Australia‘ by Jim Muldoon (13 May 2015)

‘The Misandry Choir’ (31 December 2012)

And in true feminist fashion:

ford_blockWell, at least I have plenty of company on Clementine’s BlockList – 133,000 other people as of February 2016 – many of whom are women.

ford_blocked

Many more examples of Clementine’s hate and hypocrisy can be found at www.clementineford.com, including this good article by Greg Canning.

ford_hypocrisy1

ford_hypocrisy3 ford_hypocrisy4

ford_hypocrisy7.png

ford_moresame

ford_hypocrisy11 ford_hypocrisy12

ford_hypocrisy13

DanielAndrewsMP Clementine with Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria prior to appearing together on ABC’s Q&A program. Politicians like Dan appear to care more about the number of followers that someone has on social media, than they do about what a person thinks, says, and stands for. His is an attitude that has no doubt played a big role in bringing about the abysmal and still declining state of politics in this country.

clems_slurs

clementine1clementine2