Hateful conduct says Twitter – You be the judge

Image

I asked Twitter to reconsider their initial judgement, but they came back and confirmed their decision. I haven’t had an issue with them before, and I can’t see even a hint of hate here. Well, not unless the reader was a male feminist or something nasty like that. What do you think? I’m all ears

Here’s a link to the blog post mentioned in the screen-save provided above.

 

Has the accepted role of journalism become that of a woke lullaby?

On the 16 June 2023 Australian media operator, Crikey, issued the following advice in relation to an article written by senior staffer, Guy Rundle:

Crikey has made the decision to unpublish the article, and apologises to Brittany Higgins and readers”.

Thus Crikey didn’t simply grovel, it took the somewhat unusual step of also deleting the article in question from their website. So if you’d like to read the article and form your own view of the matter, well tough, as you’ll need to search high and low to find yourself a copy. You might also wish to read various papers on the topic that have been prepared by Bettina Arndt (example).

I’ve read the Crikey article and I can’t fathom the amount of venom it’s attracted. The author doesn’t accuse anyone of anything, he simply nominates and briefly discusses a number of possible scenarios. I could point to many pro-feminist/woke-authored papers that should have sparked greater outrage, and were far more worthy of removal. Anyway, I’ll study Guy’s article again in coming days and perhaps my view will alter. But I doubt it.

Considering the following points:

  • the rather large question marks still posed by the Higgins matter
  • the corresponding manner in which our feminist-saturated media deals with (or fails to deal with) stories about men and boys, and
  • that we seemed to be making progress in terms of the media tackling issues with their eyes a little more widely opened.

I’m more inclined to #FacePalm #sigh. Oh, I dunno. Surely I’m not alone in finding this episode to be both very disappointing and worrisome regarding where-ever it is that the media, government and sundry woke cohorts are heading?

And the silence that now surrounds the issue suggests that those who might otherwise demand answers, have gone to ground in the expectation that woke screamers will bay for the blood of anyone who dares lift their heads from the trench.

One point that has been raised, and understandably so, is the figure of AUD$3mill that was earlier suggested as the sum that Brittany received from the government. Brittany has stated that she didn’t receive anything close to this amount. So how much and why?

Surely you would think that someone would lodge an FOI request to clarify at least this point. But nope – silence.

Anyway we’ll see what, if anything, emerges in coming days.

 

 

 

 

Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework (2023)

On 15 March 2023, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the following matters for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:

  • to review the scope and effectiveness of Australia’s 2010 Human Rights Framework and the National Human Rights Action Plan;
  • to consider whether the Framework should be re-established, as well as the components of the Framework, and any improvements that should be made;
  • to consider developments since 2010 in Australian human rights laws (both at the Commonwealth and State and Territory levels) and relevant case law; and
  • to consider any other relevant matters.

The committee invited submissions up to 1 July 2023 in relation to these matters.

Readers might wish to pause now to look at the relevant website.

A copy of my submission follows:

A submission to the Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework

Dear members of the Committee

Thank you for extending this opportunity to offer my thoughts in relation to the work of the Inquiry.

That item within the Terms of Reference that my submission primarily addresses is:

Whether existing mechanisms to protect human rights in the federal context are adequate and if improvements should be made, including:

  • to the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights;
  • the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
  • the process of how federal institutions engage with human rights, including requirements for statements of compatibility”

It is my impression that the Australian Human Rights Commission exercises some, if not most, of its responsibilities through a lens of fashionable ‘woke’ assumptions, beliefs and ideologies, including those associated with gender feminism. I do not believe that this should be the case. I believe that the rights and the welfare of all substantial demographic groups within the Australian community should be equally and accurately acknowledged, valued and supported.

The online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.

Gender matters are most likely touched upon by all Commissioners, but the focus in this regard centres upon the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. All those staff appointed to this position have, to date, been female – which I believe to have been inappropriate.

I think I am correct in stating that at least the last two incumbents declared themselves to be determined and committed followers of feminist ideology. I would suggest that partly as a consequence of this, during that time no significant programs were undertaken by the Commission in which the primary focus was on the rights and welfare of men and boys. I have sought to clarify this belief via requests for confirmation addressed to the Commission, an example of which is provided on the final page of this submission.

I discuss this perceived gender bias at the commission in the following blog posts:

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

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

I note also the Commission’s submission to this current Inquiry wherein readers undertaking a word search on the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ will find 0 instances of the former, and yet 22 instances of the latter.

Still, things could be worse. Consider a recent Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade paper on the global theme of gender equality. The word ‘man’ features once in this document whereas ‘woman’ features 58 times

If my observation is correct then the question must be asked as to why such a marked imbalance – a clear example of actual sex discrimination – is considered to be acceptable. Feminists appear inclined to excuse double-standards like this on the basis of an assertion that women are substantially worse off than men, and have been for much of history. I reject such a view entirely, and if the relevant government agencies were willing to undertake the appropriate reporting then the actual situation regarding the genders might finally be made clearer for all. Instead, and for the time being, the widespread occurrence of Gamma Bias and of heads deeply buried in the sand shall continue to prevail.

Chart of the Day: For Every 100 Young Women in October 2021…. and ‘Equal Pay Day’ This Year Was March 15 — the Next ‘Equal Occupational Fatality Day’ Won’t Be Until September 18, 2032. These papers by Mark J. Perry provide USA data about men. Comparative data such as this should be produced and made available in Australia. This would help correct the plethora of gender-related misstatements such as those routinely addressed by, for example, the One in Three organisation.

How men are portrayed. Haw Haw Haw. The joke’s on us

#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012

The ongoing erosion of research and publication standards – aka fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

I further believe that those groups and individuals consulted by the Commission should not be filtered or excluded on the basis of the degree to which their beliefs happen to align with those of the Commissioners and their staff.

I would note that for several years now I have been blocked from accessing a social media account of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, although not the Twitter account operated by the Commission as a corporate entity. This blocking of information sources and alternative perspectives has become a common occurrence in pro-feminist web sites and/or news outlets. I believe this behaviour to be unhelpful and inappropriate, and doubly so in the case of publicly-funded organisations. This subject, and my associated dealings with the Human Rights Commission, are addressed in the following two blog posts:

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Diversity Council of Australia demonstrates it’s IRL attitude towards diversity and inclusion

Yesterday I noticed that I had been barred from accessing the Twitter feed of the Diversity Council of Australia (@DivCouncilAus). I wrote to them seeking details of their basis for taking such action:

“Good afternoon

I am writing to you today having just noticed that I have been blocked from your Twitter feed.

My Twitter account is @Fighting4Fair. I would be interested to know why, and whether this shall be a temporary or permanent situation. 

If I had posted threatening or vulgar material then I would totally understand your response, but that would not appear to be the case.

Would you kindly provide a URL to information regarding DCA rules in relation to your staff, members and others use of your social media accounts? If there are no such rules then perhaps I could trouble you to advise me as to how blocking my input aids, or is even consistent with, your goals in relation to diversity and inclusion?

One separate parting query if I might … I would be fascinated to learn how the gender balance of ‘Our Team’ (re: https://www.dca.org.au/about-dca/our-team) is consistent with those self same goals.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course …”

(Postscript: It’s now many weeks later and still no response. I also sent a note to the CEO of DCA, Lisa Annese, seeking the provision of their guidelines in relation to the management of social media accounts. If and when I receive a reply to that note, I will post a copy here.)

 

 

More feminist censorship: Cancellation of the Australian premiere of The Red Pill movie

“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The Red Pill challenges the audience to pull back the veil, question societal norms, and expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.” (Source)

The Australian premiere of The Red Pill was to have been in Melbourne in early November 2016. That didn’t happen. A feminist petition on change.org saw Palace Cinemas crumble and give in to their demands to cancel the event. This discussion thread looks at some of the misrepresentations made in the text accompanying that petition.

There were then several change.org petitions underway seeking to have Palace Cinemas reverse its decision, a link to one of which is provided below:

Stop Extremists Censoring What Australians Are Allowed To See. Save The Red Pill screening

More than 8,000 people signed this – almost four times the number of people who signed the petition that saw the screening axed! This petition provides a copy of the letter sent by Palace Cinemas advising that they were cancelling the event. The comments added by petitioners are also quite instructive.

In response to the number of people calling on Palace Cinemas to reverse their decision, feminists then rallied in opposition to make sure the film did not go ahead.

Feminists say publicly that they don’t want The Red Pill screened because of it’s alleged hateful and misogynistic message. That’s only partly true. In actual fact they are more frightened by the prospect of:

a) ordinary people being exposed to an alternative perspective on various gender-related issues, and in particular the public becoming aware of, and sympathetic towards, the men’s rights movement

b) the public questioning aspects of both the feminist narrative and the actions of feminists in the community. They are quite simply terrified of the prospect, knowing that exposure to those ideas will inevitably further erode the already dwindling level of support for their tainted ideology.

To my knowledge (at the time this blog post was originally uploaded) no-one in Australia had yet seen The Red Pill. Not the feminists who started and signed the petition, nor Palace Cinemas, no one. All we know about it comes via interviews with the film-maker, a movie trailer and reviews from screenings in the USA. There is no evidence to indicate that the film contains anything offensive or upsetting to the average adult.

This is what feminists do. Not the benign dictionary-definition feminists, I mean the ones in real life. You only need to see how often the ‘censorship’ tag appears in posts in this blog. Censorship and the erasure of dissenting voices, by whatever means, is absolutely a central theme in gender feminism.

What does that tell you about the inherent nature of this ideology? Why do not more people recognise this for the enormous red flag it is, and speak out accordingly?

This video is a good intro to the nature of this ground-breaking film.

Update April 2017: Dendy Cinemas in Canberra and Newtown cancelled scheduled screenings of The Red Pill. And again a petition was started calling on the cinema operators to reverse their decision.

Update June 2017: Cassie Jaye visited Australia to speak at the International Conference on Men’s Issues. During her stay she was a guest on Channel 10’s ‘The Project‘ and on Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise‘ program, both of which generated a lot of media attention.

Rachel Corbett (who was on the panel for The Project when Cassie was ‘interviewed’) wrote an article, and this is Paul Elam’s response.

This tweet and the comments appended is typical of the response to the ‘Sunrise‘ interview on social media … zero support for the program hosts

“Extreme misogynists”: Cassie Jaye vs the Aussie media (13 June 2017) Video

Director of “anti-feminist” documentary leaves The Project panel in stunned silence (8 June 2017) Despite this being a feminist forum, most of the reader’s comments are supportive of Cassie Jaye and/or her film.

A remarkably biased and unprofessional interview on ‘Sunrise’ TV show (11 June 2017) The following viewer asserts that many comments were subsequently removed from the Sunrise Facebook page. I can confirm that a video of the segment was not available via their Facebook page when I checked, and there was no relevant entry in their timeline.

Not content with that, in the face of a tsunami of condemnation on social media, Sunrise then demanded that Facebook remove copies of the interview from The Red Pill’s FB page and presumably elsewhere. So rather than do the right thing and apologise, Channel 7 tries to hide the evidence instead. This mishandling of the incident has only served to create further publicity for the film (and again here). Such clowns, and what a great example of why people have lost all faith in the MSM.

Our feral media attacks Cassie Jaye, by Bettina Arndt (12 June 2017)

A message for Andrew O’Keefe (12 June 2017) Video

Go ahead and see this prize-winning film for yourself:

There are now many avenues via which you can rent or buy The Red Pill.

The Red Pill Movie Facebook page / comments added to the Palace Cinemas Facebook page

IMD movie review page for The Red Pill

Further related articles:

The Cassie Jaye interview: reflections on The Red Pill movie, five years on (2 December 2021)

Cassie Jaye’s film on the men’s rights movement shocked Australia. Why? (29 July 2017)

A feminist review ‘The Red Pill’ (26 June 2017)

Sargon of Akkad comments on the University of Sydney protest at the Red Pill screenings (16 May 2017) Video, and here is a video on the incident by Karen Straughan

Professor writes dishonest review of The Red Pill Movie, gets REKT by Cassie Jaye’s mother (12 May 2017) Cassie’s mum goes feral at some jerkov named belov, who wrote this article (note the reader’s comments section).

Protesters clash, one arrested, outside The Red Pill screening and The Red Pill: What happened at the Sydney University screening protest (11 May 2017), which were followed by
The Red Pill screening divides campus ‘libertarians’ from pro-women groups (13 May 2017)

Articles in response to Dendy Cinemas shutting down scheduled screenings (April 2017): here, herehere, and here. Some letters to the editor of The Australian can be found here.

University of Sydney Union Board disallows screening of men’s rights film THE RED PILL (11 April 2017) Australia. Further discussion of this matter here

Jaye’s Red Pill documents social failure to promote gender equality (10 April 2017)

Well met, Professor Sullivan (13 March 2017) Video with Karen Straughan

The Red Pill takes top award at Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema (18 January 2017) USA

Feminists you’re wrong. The Red Pill is not a hateful film (17 January 2017)

The Red Pill in Brisbane: a hero’s journey (15 January 2017)

The Red Pill – An uncomfortable but important conversation (9 January 2017)

Feminists, don’t ban The Red Pill, watch it instead (7 January 2017) Even when feminists try really hard to appear mature and empathetic, they fail to convince … e.g. “a movement based on the notion that men and boys, not women, are the real victims of structural inequalities in modern society“. Said by no MRA, ever, Lauren. MRA assert that men and boys are ALSO “victims of structural inequalities in modern society“.

Are the Cards Stacked Against Men?: Censored Filmmaker Speaks Out (4 January 2017) Video

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys (3 January 2017)

Wedding Reception Under Feminist Attack Over Movie Screening (23 December 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Video interview between Steven Crowder and Cassie Jaye (16 December 2016)

Video regarding the difficulty experienced by organisers in screening The Red Pill in Canada (3 December 2016)

Men are now the downtrodden sex: Feminist (and mother of a son) reluctantly admits women’s fight for equality has gone too far – as two men reveal how they were pushed to the brink of suicide (1 December 2016)

Permission to screen ‘The Red Pill’ at Western Sydney University denied (29 November 2016) The author of this letter to WSU points out the double standard in relation to the University’s screening of ‘The Hunting Ground’

A Young Feminist’s Compassionate View of Men (28 November 2016

Some thoughts on the Berlin screening of ‘The Red Pill’ (17 November 2016)

The Red Pill, by Bettina Arndt (5 November 2016)

Is this the world’s most dangerous feminist? by Bill O’Chee (3 November 2016)

How a feminist petition to stop a film became an own goal (2 November 2016)

Dear Feminists, please stop telling us what to do, by Corrine Barraclough (31 October 2016)

Another feminist petition (31 October 2016) I live in hope that this one will turn out to be a hoax. Failing that these people need the assistance of mental health professionals.

Video interview with the organiser of the Melbourne screening (30 October 2016)

Studio 10 TV show debates the banning of The Red Pill (30 October 2016) It’s concerning to see Jessica Rowe (and others) adopting a view, and imposing it upon others, with so little effort made in terms of research or impartiality.

The Red Pill makes the Cut in Crowded Race for Oscars (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate, by Bettina Arndt (29 October 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Even Clementine Ford thinks the Red Pill should be shown (28 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Security guards hired for Melbourne screening of The Red Pill (27 October 2016)

Will you take the Red Pill? (27 October 2016)

Media coverage of The Red Pill (27 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Why Australian Men’s Rights Activists Had Their Bullshit Documentary Banned  (26 October 2016) The article belongs in the bottom of the cat litter tray, but some of the readers comments are good.

The Red Pill film review ~ Inciting compassion for men’s issues (26 October 2016)

Men’s rights group vows to push ahead with documentary screening (25 October 2016)

Cassie Jaye on Feminism and Men’s Rights Activists (24 October 2016) Youtube video

More Reddit/r/mensrights discussion threads on The Red Pill movie

redpill3

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Most public sector agencies, and no doubt many other organisations, develop and enforce policies to guide their employees in the appropriate use of social media. The focus of most such policies is to reduce the likelihood that employees will post something that compromises the organisation that they work for. Conversely, the main criticism of social media policies is their potential to muzzle employees from communicating freely with the public.

A study commissioned by the Australian Electoral Commission recognised that “social media afford(ed) new opportunities for engaging citizens in democratic processes” (p8), but warned that sites can “become ‘digital enclaves’ or ‘echo chambers’ for small groups of like-minded citizens who dominate discussion.” (p29)

Social media policies may make provision to block members of the public who post spam or abusive or threatening messages onto the Facebook page/Twitter stream/etc of the organisation in question.

Few social media policies, however, seem to address the issue of whether staff are allowed to block/ban or remove posts in relation to members of the public who post material that is not offensive, but which may embarass the individual/organisation and/or promote or reflect alternative ideologies or belief systems.

Granted, my research has been limited, but the sole exception I have come across thus far in the public sector is the ‘ACT Government Social Media Policy Guidelines‘. That policy includes the following clause:

“Openness and transparency should be the defaults, meaning blocking users on Twitter and locking Facebook groups designed for public interface is not advisable” (Source – refer page 27)

This topic recently reared its head as a result of my interaction with a government agency known as the Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’).

As readers of this blog would be aware, I maintain an ongoing interest in the operation of the AHRC (example). That being the case I periodically check the relevant social media accounts to maintain an awareness of what is being said and done, and occasionally to comment.

The other day I was surprised to discover this notice upon attempting to view the Twitter stream of the (now former) Sex-Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins:

Jenkins2

I looked at my most recent tweets to Ms Jenkins to see if I had inadvertently stepped over the line re: civility. This is what I found:

jenkins1

Fairly tame stuff, huh? As I expected. I challenge Ms Jenkins or anyone else I have communicated with to produce anything that they consider to be so offensive as to justify punitive action. I mean aside from generalised hurt feelings arising from transgressions against cherished ideology.

I’m both a tax-payer and a former public servant, and I would no sooner have binned correspondence from the public/hung up on people/etc than walk to work naked. And make no mistake, blocking constituents on social media is the current-day equivalent of such actions. How things have changed.

I wonder if such action is permissible for federal public servants under the existing legislative/regulatory framework? I wonder how commonly it occurs, and whether anyone actually knows?

I also wonder if the staff who engage in this type of systematic disengagement are more or less likely to hold particular ideological views? This PEW Research article, for example, found that the people most likely to block others on social media held consistent leftist/liberal views.

As I discussed in another blog post, this default position of silencing rather than engaging dissenting voices has become a hallmark of gender feminists.

It must be quite intoxicating to believe that your position is so right, and others so diabolically wrong, that dialogue with unbelievers is not just redundant but seemingly an affront to decency.

General guidelines for public sector staff,  in relation to engagement with the public including via social media, are set out in ‘APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice‘. It contains a number of provisions relevant to this issue such as:

2.2.3 The Directions about this Value require APS employees to engage effectively with the community, working actively to provide responsive, client-focused service delivery. <snip> Employees must also ensure that decisions and interactions with clients are objective and impartial, and in accordance with government policy.

4.5.7 <snip> employees should avoid partisan comment and ensure that their approach to speaking publicly about policies supports public confidence in the capacity of the APS to be impartial.

5.1.3 A real conflict of interest occurs where there is a conflict between the public duty and personal interests of an employee that improperly influences the employee in the performance of his or her duties.

(Postscript: Revised public service social media guidelines were released in August 2017)

The Australian Human Rights Commission comes under the oversight of the Australian Attorney-General. That being the case I approached that Department (the ‘AGD’) as follows:

“Today I noted that I had been blocked from accessing the Twitter stream of a senior member of staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Prior to this occurring I can confirm that I did not communicate in a manner that was abusive, threatening, etc (nor make an excessive number of posts for example) … actions that would reasonably justify being blocked or banned.
Such an action on the part of a senior public servant appears not just unprofessional, but amounts to censorship being applied to stakeholders simply on the basis of holding a dissenting viewpoint.
I am writing to you now to request details of the guidelines under which staff (or agencies themselves) within the AGD are permitted to ban or block members of the public from social media streams or pages. Specifically, is such an action even permissible in the absence of bad language, threats, etc?
I look forward to receiving your timely advice regarding this matter.”

The AGD subsequently replied:

“Thank you for contacting the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (the department). The department is not able to directly assist you. Your enquiry would be more appropriately directed to the Australian Human Rights Commission … “

The social media policy for the Human Rights Commission is provided here. The policy does not clearly state whether staff members are empowered to block people for reasons other than those specified therein – which I did not contravene.

I then directed relevant questions to the Australian Public Service Commission (‘APSC’) and the AHRC. In their initial response the AHRC directed me to their social media policy, which I had already indicated I had read. I replied:

“I am seeking an indication from you as to whether the Commission has either a policy or accepted practice whereby members of staff are empowered make
unillateral decisions to place blocks or bans on members of the public
seeking to access and engage with various online portals estatblished
by the AHRC.

As I indicated in my initial email, my focus is on situations where
there has been no clear contravention of the  standards of behaviour
set out in your policy.  I look forward to receiving your further advice on this matter.”

The subsequent response from the AHRC again directed me to their Social Media Policy. From that I think we can assume that they have either not understood the nature of my concern, or that such concerns are only to be addressed on an ad hoc basis.

In contrast I received useful feedback from Paul Casimir, Director Integrity, Employment Policy Group at the APSC:

“The Australian Public Service Commission has not developed guidance for APS agencies about the circumstances in which it would  be appropriate for an APS employee or an APS agency to block access to a Twitter feed or similar social media platform. This is a matter for individual agencies to consider in each case having regard to a number of factors including, but not limited to, the obligation under the Commissioner’s Directions to engage effectively with the community.

Where an APS employee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the APS Values or Code of Conduct that matter may be referred to the head of that agency for consideration as a potential breach of the Code of  Conduct.

However, it may also be relevant to you to know that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, is a statutory officer appointed under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As such, she is not an APS employee and is not bound by either the APS Code of Conduct or the APS Values in the way that APS employees are. The excerpts of your blog post from the APS Values and Code of Conduct In Practice do not apply to her.”

rightstalk-access-cropped

My own position on this matter? I don’t take Ms Jenkins gesture personally in the least. I do find it ironic, however, that someone whose job it is to protect rights should be so amenable to the removal of rights. Indeed the Commission is on record as asserting internet access to be a fundamental human right. The possibility that Ms Jenkins action was tainted with a degree of misandry is similarly repellent.

I believe that the sort of waspish and self-indulgent behaviour common to online feminist echo chambers is completely inappropriate when transposed to the digital portal of a public sector agency. In the latter situation the priority should not be shunning and shaming, but rather sharing and engaging. Such as approach should be consistently applied to all interested stakeholders – regardless of their ideological preferences and/or the extent to which their views align with those of the relevant agency or individual managing the account.

(Postscript 7 June 2024: The AHRC blocked me from accessing their Twitter account, with zero communication with me (then or since). You can read my final (benign) posts to them by word-searching on Twitter using my Twitter handle and theirs)

(Postscript July 2023: I note the following statement in the AHRC Submission Policy dated January 2020 – “The Commission also encourages informal submissions via its social media and other online forums“)

Take a look at ‘5 Current issues of ‘Internet censorship’: bullying, discrimination, harassment and freedom of expression‘. So the people that AHRC themself block … are they restricted to those who commit one or more of these five ‘crimes’? That would be *No*, right? The hypocrisy is astounding 

(Postscript 7 December 2022: Another now-common practice by woke politicians/bureaucrats/NGO reps is to elect to prevent Twitter readers to submit comments unless authorised to do so (example provided by Queensland politician Shannon Fentiman)

(Postscript 13 October 2018: Should politicians be allowed to block voters on social media?)

(Postscript 10 July 2019: ‘Ocasio-Cortez Sued for Blocking People on Twitter‘)

Postscript 7 August 2019: ‘High court rules public servants can be sacked for political social media posts‘. Interesting

Here’s an emerging initiative in the UK – a proposed petition to have their parliament consider this issue of citizens being blocked by public servants on social media. To access the petition related to the text below please click here and here (31 May 2022)

Free Speech Union Wins Six-Figure Settlement For Sacked Civil Servant (28 May 2023) And here’s how things look a further further steps down the pathway we are now on here in Australia

A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”

An article by Ruby Hamad has leapt to the front of the field in my ‘Foolish Feminist Articles of 2016’ competition. It’s entitled ‘Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?’. That’s the question, but we don’t have to read too much before we realise that Ruby already knows the answer … men don’t attend because they are disinterested or even contemptuous of women’s issues.

I beg to differ as I think that many men are keenly interested in women’s issues, if only because in most cases these are actually shared issues. It might surprise Ruby to learn that many advocate s for men’s rights were originally very supportive of feminist principles … prior to realising the chasm between dictionary feminism and feminist strategy/priorities IRL. In terms of showing contempt for the opinions of people of other genders, well with feminists I’d say that’s very clearly a case of ‘pot-kettle-black’.

The focus of Ruby’s article was a particular event, the All About Women Festival. “It’s a full day of talks and discussions about ideas that matter to women and provides an important platform for women’s voices … So, invite your friends, your colleagues, your best friend or your sisters.”

Ruby notes “It is astounding to me that men think they have little gain from an event such as this. Men need to hear first-hand what the world is like for women. Men need to listen while women speak.”

Anyhow let’s move on to consider the real reasons why men might have avoided this event, and other similar events in general. I’d also heartily recommend that readers consider the opinions of others as expressed in two related Reddit discussion threads here and here.

The first and most obvious answer is that men/men’s groups weren’t specifically invited to attend the event, a feminist event which is clearly presented as being about women and women’s voices. It’s hardly surprising that men might be disinclined to attend for fear of causing upset by intruding on a womens safe space. In other words some men may not have attended the event out of respect for women.

Secondly, feminist’s have a history of telling men who attend their events to keep their mouth’s shut, even in the case of men who identify as feminists. Why then would men wish to attend an event where they would be denied the opportunity of full and active participation, or perhaps even singled out for abuse?

Here’s one of countless examples of that occurring:

“Professor Tompkins praises Jill Johnston (author of the 1973 classic Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution) for being “what was then called a ‘ball-buster’: a take-no-prisoners, man-hating dyke”:

There’s even a key scene in the film when she gets really mad at a man in the audience and gives him an intense ball-busting dyke response to what simply seems to be his presence. She says: “Like, I feel a hostile male element in here and it’s bothering me…I don’t mind guys being here but I feel a hostile male element and, um, that’s making me, that’s making me agitated.”

When the young man attempts to engage her she explodes at him: “You better get the f–k out of here or I’m going to kick you right in the balls and get you out of here so fast man…. I don’t like your generalizations, man…. So sit down, shut up, or get out. I feel a hostile male vibe in here, and I don’t like it….You don’t feel it and I feel it. You feel something different than I feel!” (Source)

Thirdly, feminist’s themselves rarely attend events discussing mens issues unless to deliberately disrupt the proceedings, and usually after their earlier attempts to have the event cancelled failed (using lobbying and misinformation campaigns). Go ahead and google on ‘feminists disrupt mens event’ to rustle up some examples (here’s something to get you started). Clearly the notion that ‘women need to listen while men speak’ doesn’t fly. Can’t feminists just be grateful that men don’t stoop to reciprocating feminist’s own actions?

Fourthly, feminists, both individually and collectively, routinely use many and varied forms of censorship to block and silence men who endeavour to reach out to women to tell them what the world is like for men. Details in this blog post.

Does anyone else think the underlying message of this article is that feminists have ‘all rights and no responsibility’ when it comes to presenting their case?

And in case anyone thought that only Australian feminists would be sufficiently detached from reality to complain about men not wishing to attend feminist events, here is an example from the northern hemisphere:

SXSW’s Online Harassment Summit was just one more place for men to ignore women – Good solutions found a small audience (13 March 2016)

“Soraya Chemaly of Women’s Media Center remarked toward the end of a panel about women in the media: “It’s mainly women in this room. Probably we don’t need this information.”

Yes, I’m sure women know it all already. Gee, I bet that event would have been loads of fun if the other attendees were all as arrogant as Soraya.

In closing Ruby, maybe this article provides all the answers you need.

See also:

Football star calls out men for silence on abortion rights (25 June 2022) “American football star Megan Rapinoe has called out men’s silence following the US Supreme Court’s decision on abortion rights”. And thus suddenly men are criticised for *not* expressing their views on women’s issues.

From Sex War to Family Union: an interview with Neil Lyndon (6 January 2022)

AGAR: A man disagreeing with a woman isn’t always mansplaining | Toronto Sun (9 August 2021)

We should have the right not to like men (10 September 2020) and The Woman who hates men so much – she wrote a bestseller about it (11 September 2020)

Men, please stop hijacking women’s issues (18 October 2017)

The Feminist Far Left Is Making More Enemies Than Allies, by Claire Connelly (16 March 2017)

Sydney Girls High School prefects hit back after Sydney Boys’ viral video‘ (13 March 2017)

Dear men: Here is your engraved invitation to join the Women’s March on Washington‘ (14 January 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here

Munk Debates: The End of Men, by Leslie Loftus (21 November 2013)

How a feminist debate was derailed by asking all men to leave (4 December 2012)

Image

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

#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:

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

*That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

This blog post follows an earlier post of mine entitled ‘Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support‘. That item discussed the gender bias that is very evident in a particular WA Government web page promoting a domestic violence helpline service.

The same WA government web page was also the focus of this reddit mens rights discussion thread. Within that thread I came across an interesting post from someone with the moniker ‘dragonsandgoblins’. It’s interesting not just in relation to the information about domestic violence that it contains, but also because of how it demonstrates the censorship that occurs in relation to efforts to broaden the DV debate beyond the feminist-framed male perp/female victim model.

Anyway, this is what the author had to say:

“I actually wrote an article inspired by this exact webpage in 2013 that was published by http://rightnow.org.au/. Or at least it was published for about 4 hours before they pulled it. I’ll copy/paste it here because people may as well read it:

This webpage, hosted by the Government of Western Australia Department for Child Protection, contains two short paragraphs describing the domestic helpline services provided by this state government. The women’s helpline offers a range of services for women experiencing domestic violence. The men’s helpline on the other hand is more singularly focused, only offering counselling, and only for “men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive“.

The Government of WA does not offer a helpline service to male victims, instead assuming that women are the only victims and that men will always be the perpetrators. This is despite a growing body of evidence that males do suffer from domestic and family violence in significant numbers. For example, the Personal Safety Survey (2006) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that, 780,500 women and 325,700 men aged 15 years and over experienced violence from a current or previous partner in the last twenty years. In other words, 29.4 per cent of victims who suffered domestic violence were men. 92.5 per cent (301,400) of these male victims suffered this violence at the hands of a female partner.

The Publications and Resources webpage from the Government of WA provides domestic violence resources aimed at the general public and they are as gendered as the helpline services. Out of the “Freedom From Fear” resources, three fact sheets and one booklet are targeted at the violent party and, excluding the fact sheet “How do I know if I’m abusive?”, they all use gendered language that exclusively refers to the violent party as male and the victim as female. All of them bear subtitles describing themselves as being “for men who want to change”, with no reference to women who may want to do the same. The fact sheet aimed at victims also uses the same gendered language.

WA isn’t alone. For example, NSW Legal Aid offers a Domestic Violence Practitioner Service and a Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Program which aid women and children who are victims in legal matters such as getting Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) and victims’ compensation. The NSW Government Family & Community Services Staying Home Leaving Violence program “…aims to prevent homelessness by working with the Police to remove the perpetrator from the family home so that women and children can remain safely where they are.” If the NSW Government offers similar programs specialising in male victims, I was unable to find them.

The federal government also discriminates against male victims. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (The National Plan) paints a pitiful picture of the federal stance on male victims. Along with use of gender biased language The National Plan has seen the Commonwealth commit $86 million to support women and children who are victims and only $0.75 million to male victims. This discrepancy in funding is justified through the use of misleading statistics from the ABS Personal Safety Survey.

The section of the page that discusses male victims provides statistics that only 4.4 per cent (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey were assaulted by a current/previous partner compared with 31 per cent (73,800) of women who were physically assaulted. This is misleading because it doesn’t compare the quantity of male victims to female victims – instead it compares what percentage of all assaults against men were domestic violence to what percentage of all assaults against women were.

Looking at just these numbers – 21,200 male and 73,800 female victims – the divide in funding is twenty-five times greater than the divide in victims. The National Plan claims only “a small proportion of men are victims“, yet the ABS survey shows that they are roughly a quarter of all domestic violence victims. Is that really such a minority as to warrant less than one per cent of the funding committed under The National Plan?

Our state and federal governments are perpetrators of gender discrimination. Those discriminated against are not only men, they are victims. Victims who are denied services and support they need based on their gender.

(I apologise for the fact that some of the figures are out of date (for example I am pretty sure the funding disparity under the national plan has increased since 2013), and any dead links. This is presented unaltered from when it was written in 2013.)”

The author of the paper was then asked “Why was it pulled?” and responded:

“Well it was refined by 3 of their editors and myself before going up. After a while one of them was contacted by the editor in chief who pulled it and asked me to make changes such as explicitly mentioning that women are victims more than men (which I do already, since I actually state numbers), saying that I didn’t want funding for women reduced, and calling DV a gendered crime. He also said that I could be “more critical in relation to statistics”. Note that I only take stats from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, hardly a biased source. He also wanted me to mention that women under report DV. He also said and I quote:

…[the article] can be understood as arguing “men are being discriminated against in favour of women”.

I replied and said that I could make some of these changes but my word count ceiling would need to be increased. I said that I’d be happy to say women under report but I wouldn’t say that without mentioning that men under report too. I also said that I couldn’t avoid the theme that “men are being discriminated against in favour of women” because that is the thesis of the entire piece.

I get the feeling the editor in chief never wanted my article to go up at all because without further discussion he decided that even with changes my article shouldn’t be published because.

Your responses suggest to me that it is likely that even with changes, your article will not be suitable for Right Now. The primary reason for that is that you principally concerned with “the numbers”, as you put it, rather than the human rights debate. This means that you miss the point that these services for female victims of violence are not simply about statistics (the fact that more women are victims of violence in domestic contexts then men) but also about socio-cultural male dominance

In other words, these services exist not only because of the quantity of violence against women, but its gendered nature.

So there’s the rub.