The mainstream media is awash with articles infused with anti-male bias. Indeed after being conditioned through decades of exposure to this material, most people accept what they are told. In comparison to most of those articles, the focus of this post regarding alleged male risk-taking behaviour is admittedly rather benign. Indeed, if taken at face-value it appears to be sympathetic to the welfare of men & boys.
Examined more closely however the article reflects the contrasting and hypocritical manner in which the media addresses men’s & women’s issues.
The same day I noticed this article I came across another in a similar vein. That article mocks men in relation to another trait associated with masculinity – demonstrating protective behaviour towards women.
No there is nothing controversial about shaming men – just men – about pretty much anything nowadays. That’s kind of my point. And the article isn’t so much about “asking why“, but telling us why … apparently men are foolish.
And oddly, whilst this is an article about men’s behaviour, it begins with an account of the drowning of a 23 month old toddler. This seems to infer that even very young boys are dying due to masculinity-induced recklessness. Presumably female toddlers are more careful.
As the article is relatively brief, I’ll provide it here in its entirety:
“The twin brother pulled unconscious from a Sydney swimming pool has died three days after his sister, in what has been described as a “deeply disturbing” week for water deaths.
Charli and Robbi Manago, 23 months, had been fighting for life in The Children’s Hospital at Westmead since they were found in their family’s pool around 7pm on December 20. The hospital last night confirmed Robbi had died.
His death takes the number of coastal and inland waterway fatalities since Sunday to 11. Nine of the dead were men.
Experts say a deadly cocktail of conditions — male bravado, consistent warm weather, and a poor understanding of water dangers — has led to the deaths.
As police and volunteers return to Sydney’s Maroubra Beach to find the body of missing teenager Tui Gallaher and search a Wagga river in the south of NSW for a 42-year-old man, experts have warned people not to overestimate their abilities.
Between 80 and 90 per cent of drowning victims are male, according to recent figures.
Four people died on Boxing Day, including 60-year-old Geoffrey Blackadder, who died trying to save young relatives from a rip on the NSW north coast, and 25-year-old Amine Hamza, who died after swimming with friends at Bents Basin in Sydney’s west.
“It’s deeply disturbing. Men are more likely to overestimate their swimming ability and underestimate how dangerous conditions are,” said Justin Scarr, chief executive at the Royal Life -Saving Society Australia.
“Men are more likely to swim in locations away from lifeguards and crowds, and they’re also more likely to consume alcohol.””
As you can see, the premise of the article is that substantially more men die from drowning due to those men taking excessive and presumably avoidable risks.
May I ask you, when was the last time you saw a headline “X blamed on women’s risky behaviour”? Where ‘X’ might have been death/rape/injury/cosmetic surgery/whatever. 1965? That’s because journalists know that when they discuss any such situations they must, at all costs, avoid be called-out for ‘victim-blaming’. And yet the same consideration is not on offer when men are the victims. Gender equality when it suits?
The assertion that drowning deaths result from men taking undue risks appears unproven. The examples of swimming outside the flags and drinking are provided, although neither of these behaviours are exclusive to men.
There are other possible explanations for a gender variation in deaths, particularly the likelihood that men venture into the water more often, and for longer periods, than do women. Clearly those who don’t go to the beach, or who lie on their towels 95% of the time, are less likely to drown in the ocean.
All outdoor activities have some degree of inherent risk, i.e. they are all “risky”. Given that men are significantly more likely than women to participate in almost all forms of outdoor recreation, they are clearly more likely to be injured or killed participating in such activities. One of the few exceptions is netball, a sport recognised as having a low risk of drowning.
If a significant number of drowning deaths were due to medical emergencies then it would make more sense to focus on men’s health, than male shaming. It is likely that some of the male drowning deaths were also the result of men attempting to rescue others.
For the purpose of this discussion let’s concede that “risky behaviour” (to be defined) may indeed result in more men drowning than women. And of course it would be preferable that those tragedies not occur. But before rushing to judgement let’s also consider the issue of risk-taking by men in a broader context.
Men tend to take more risks than women, and this risk-taking results in a range of both positive and negative impacts on society. On the positive side I would go so far as to propose that risk-taking by men has been and continues to be the powerhouse of civilisation.
Need someone to step forward to defend a woman being attacked? Men are expected to step forward, and are shamed if they do not. Need someone to defend a country from attack? Ditto.
In Australia 97% of workplace deaths involve men – around 175 people in 2016. Men working in dangerous and unpleasant jobs that women generally won’t accept. Where is the outrage about the risks these men take in providing necessary services to the community?
Based on media coverage, or lack thereof, it would appear that men taking risks in the name of chivalry, industry and national service is acceptable if not expected. In contrast, men taking risks during their leisure hours is unacceptable and worthy of negative media attention.
Men don’t deserve to be shamed for exhibiting the trait of risk-taking, nor for choosing not to do so. In fact greater recognition that male risk-taking more often benefits society would seem appropriate.
Sure there will be times when some men deserve a thoughtful journalistic rap over the knuckles, but this should not be the default position. Similarly there are times when women’s behaviour merits a commensurate sanction. At the moment however women are rarely subject to criticism, are encouraged to take risks, and the blame for any negative repercussions more often placed at the feet of men.
It’s time everyone got on the same page with gender equality, and recognised that there should be one standard to which we are all held. And that support and empathy should be consistently applied and gender-blind. Anything less will see more of the same unfortunate and divisive gender bias that now permeates the mainstream media.
Reader posts in a related Reddit discussion thread here
Regular readers of this blog would be aware that I tend to get a bit riled about the way that men are consistently portrayed as the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, whilst their many good deeds are often taken for granted. Women, on the other hand, are far more likely to be portrayed as the victims of abuse or negative discrimination whilst their countless infractions are continually white-washed or minimised.
I just came across a post in a blog that reflected this sort of bias, a picture from which is provided below.
The post provides some tips on how observers might intervene in ways that would hopefully diffuse a volatile and potentially violent situation. That’s a positive thing. Unfortunately however, the blogger tainted an otherwise potentially valuable message with a goodly measure of gender bias, portraying:
Men as the aggressors
Women as the victims of male aggression
Women as the rescuers of women suffering male aggression
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the followers of Islam do not constitute a ‘race’. I also appreciate that in the context of anti-Islamic abuse, women are more likely to be singled-out due to their distinctive clothing.)
That said, in the broader context of racially-motivated abuse in public places, it would seem that:
Women are just as likely, if not more likely, to engage in taunting or abuse
Men are just as likely, if not more likely, to intervene to stop abuse (example)
And indeed I’ve seen evidence of many nasty incidents involving girls/women unleashing racist rants on others. Obviously some men are also racists, but I have noticed relatively few stories with men as perpetrators. Why might this be so? Could it be, for example, that women consider themselves relatively immune from harsh intervention by victims and/or bystanders? I’m thinking here of possible underlying factors such as entitlement, the pussy-pass, and ‘it’s different when a woman does it‘.
This July 2017 article “based on 243 cases of verified Islamophobic incidents collected over 14 months in 2014-15” suggests that “perpetrators were three times more likely to be male“. I’m more than a little dubious.
I also noticed that if you search on the words ‘racist rant by woman‘ on YouTube you get 165,000 results. If you search on ‘racist rant by man’, you get 317,000 results but the search results for the latter appear to capture video clips for both ‘man’ and ‘wo(man)’.
Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:
There have been, and there continues to be, many articles written about the topic of who should meet the costs of dating or courtship. Most articles appear to be written by women, and mocking (to varying degrees) the alleged or implied cheapness of men who dare object to paying the entire cost of a night out. Or as is more often the case, a series of nights out.
Whilst hardly a ‘life or death’ matter, this topic has special significance in that it illustrates how some traditional gender roles are aggressively retained whilst others are forcefully discarded. With the former all appearing to benefit women.
A number of justifications are put forward as to why one partner should pay for the other. Perhaps the most common is the suggestion that the person who makes the approach, and issues the invitation, should pay for the date. That is clearly very convenient for women given that 99 times out of 100, the male is the one doing the asking (this being yet another retained gender stereotype).
After that, the rationalisations as to why men should pay get even more ‘out there’ … especially when it is a feminist at the keyboard. Consider for example, ‘I Let Him Pay for Dinner – Am I a Bad Feminist?‘ by Suzanna Weiss (5 July 2016)
My own position is that if the costs of dates aren’t shared, or if partners aren’t treated on alternate dates, then it is free-loading no matter how you dress it up. And if the first date is such that you know there won’t be a second one, then you should definitely split the bill. Forget ideology, it’s just the decent thing to do.
And now the gender wage gap, in an increasing number of employment segments, is actually reversed (i.e. favors women). This means that in more and more instances, the female dinner-goer would have a more substantial income than her male partner (see related post). Surely now, women would be proud to pay their own way. Ha, ha, yes, I’m only kidding.
Almost all of the articles on this subject in the mainstream media focus on heterosexual couples, and are set in the context of first world western countries.
The heterosexual focus is interesting as my initial impression is that courtship costs are approached in a somewhat more egalitarian manner in gay/lesbian relationships. I have listed some articles about splitting costs & gay/lesbian dating and courtship below. If readers can suggest more and/or better references then please leave a message.
Hyper-masculinity? Toxic-masculinity? What is this masculinity thing that is painted as such a blight on society?
Why is there is never any mention of toxic femininity when (to varying extents) many of the same issues apply? Just look at my posts on for example, female violence, lack of empathy, sexual abuse by women, and damseling and the shameless exploitation of male chivalry.
The articles below all address the concept of masculinity, alternately either from a feminist, egalitarian, MHRA or another alternate position:
Today (30 December 2016) I noticed two articles that took a now common approach of using/portraying generally positive attributes associated with masculinity (protectiveness towards women & risk-taking behaviour) in order to mock or criticize men:
One of the pillars of feminism is that all women are in a state of perpetual victimhood, with one of the key reasons for this being the alleged violent and controlling nature of men. Feminists support this bias, in part, by pointing at the far greater percentage of jail inmates that are male. They assert that this is indicative that most crimes, especially serious crimes, are committed by men.
The situation is not that simple however given that there is clear evidence of substantial and widespread gender bias at every step of the law & order process within the justice systems of western democracies.
Yet feminists, who claim to be motivated by a desire for greater gender equality, have no interest in reducing this disparity. Instead they are lobbying to make this justice gap even broader (see this article, with further examples amongst the various linked articles listed below).
Instagram model jailed for bizarre masked robberies (22 September 2020) In news.com.au this article was entitled ‘Model sent to brutal women’s prison‘. Can you imagine an article entitled ‘Architect sent to brutal man’s prison’? It doesn’t have have quite the same heart-string tugging effect now does it?
What happens when an abused women fights back? (30 July 2019) So when a woman breaks a court DV order it’s wrong when they get sent to jail? Zero mention of men, of course, who are also victims and who fight back and get sent to jail.
Why doesn’t prison work for women? (29 September 2018) UK I’ll have to read this again to see if it suggested one single thing that was the fault of women, rather than men or some aspect of society at large. Whereas men, well, they can suck it up can’t they?
“On Tuesday, judge John Cook sentenced her to 10 years in prison on each of four felony counts, relating to the inappropriate relationship, but suspended all but 12 months, including time served– so that means she has about 6 months left to serve”. Pussy-pass? SUCCESS
I wanted to draw your attention to a disturbing development involving the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign (‘WRC’). Before proceeding, I should clarify that this particular organisation is separate and fundamentally different from the White Ribbon Campaign led by Ms. Erin Pizzey. The distinction between the two groups is discussed in this other post.
In summary, Erin’s organisation recognises and advocates for victims of both genders. It believes that the root cause of domestic violence lies in generational family violence, and that the patriarchy is an ideological concept devoid of value or meaning within the context of the debate regarding domestic violence.
The role of ambassadors within the Australian arm of the White Ribbon Campaign is described as follows:
“White Ribbon Ambassadors are men who recognise the importance of men taking responsibility and playing a leadership role in preventing men’s violence against women.
White Ribbon Ambassadors are formal representatives of White Ribbon Australia who have the knowledge, skills, attributes and determination to influence Australian men to critically evaluate their attitudes and behaviours toward women.” (Source)
Tanveer did just that. He showed leadership by writing an article about domestic violence that presented a perspective that included an acknowledgment of female perpetrators of violence, as well as a discussion of certain factors underpinning violent behaviour by both men and women.
For feminists this was like a red rag to a bull. They incorrectly interpreted “factors underpinning perpetration” as meaning “excuses for men to commit violence against women”. And as for his claims that significant numbers of women are also committing violence, well, every feminist knows that’s not true.
I should also point out that the sorts of ideas Tanveer shared in his article have been proposed by others and are hardly new or revolutionary. This fact sheet from SAVE, for example, also identifies various factors as being potential precursors of partner violence (refer Fact #5).
Here are some of the key items that have appeared in the media thus far:
Look at how the feminists turned on Tanveer by perusing his Twitter stream around 9/10/11 February 2015. See the brickbats hurled at him by high-profile feminists like Jane Caro and Elizabeth Broderick, as well as countless faceless SJW, their mouths frothing with spittle. It’s ironic how online bullying morphs from patriarchal scourge to sacred duty when someone dares to question the holy grail of feminism.
In a lengthy statement issued by WRC on 10 February 2015 it was noted that “Dr. Ahmed has agreed to participate in the Ambassador recommitment process”. (Source) Shades of totalitarianism … quite chilling really.
Yet despite the issuing of this statement an angry feminist horde continued to bay for Tanveer’s blood across the social media. See, for example, the WRC Facebook page (extract below) and Twitter stream. Perhaps somewhat surprising, most of the comments in the Facebook page were posted by women. Surprising only in that WRC is ostensibly an organisation for men. I guess the male supporters were well and truly cowed, just how their feminist masters wish them to be.
Australian ‘White Knight’ politician Tim Watts, now teetering on the cusp of becoming a fully-fledged ‘Mangina’, stood up in federal parliament to demand that Dr Ahmed stand down from his role with WRC. A video of Tim’s speech is provided in his Facebook page (see 11 February), with further righteous fury evident in Tim’s Tweets.
The feminist’s message is crystal clear: “Men, we want you nice and visible up the front but don’t you dare say anything that isn’t 100% in accord with the feminist narrative or we will turn on you in a flash.”
The WRC is not an organisation that is interested in accurately describing the nature of domestic violence, in objectively teasing it apart into its component pieces, and in considering the widest possible range of solutions. This is an organisation that places a higher priority on maintaining the ‘integrity’ of the feminist narrative, and in pursuing both individual and collective self-interest.
Thus WRC portrays a picture of DV that conforms to their biased viewpoint, and that only acknowledges those causes and those solutions that fit neatly into the framework that they themselves have fashioned.
The thing is, we have already thrown many years and many million of dollars at that approach, only to have the self-same feminists come back to the public-funding trough claiming that the problem is getting worse and that we are now facing an “epidemic” of domestic violence. “Oh, but if only we had more funding we could keep the women and children safe“.
The ideologues at WRC and elsewhere in the femosphere now chanting ‘cast him out’ are nothing less than blinkered gender fascists. How any right-thinking adult could continue to support this group simply beggars belief.
Rightly or wrongly I see some parallels with the case of recently-released Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste. I think I can state with confidence though, that any irony will be lost on SJW who pledged support for one, only to subsequently attack the other.
Tanveer’s next best step would be to accept a role as an ambassador for Erin Pizzey’s group, securing a far more inclusive outlet for his passion, as well as according him the opportunity to offer a one-fingered wave to his misguided former colleagues-in-arms.
Female aggression is now increasingly being portrayed and seen as acceptable, and almost a hallmark of an empowered woman. Look for example at some of the speeches made by female celebrities following the election of President Trump in the USA.
The feminist logic appears to be:
Women are oppressed
Men are oppressors
Violence against the oppressors is liberation (Source: ‘Sinisus’)
Ms Garner’s comments aren’t unusual – I have simply chosen hers as but one example of a long line of articles/comments that I have read expressing similar sentiments. This is the flip-side of a culture increasingly being moulded by feminist organisations like ‘White Ribbon Campaign’, whereby female aggression is downplayed or completely ignored whilst male-perpetrated violence is exaggerated.
In July 2014 Whoopi Goldberg started a feminist firestorm with her comments on a US talk show in which she said that women should not hit their partners, and that if they did they should not be surprised if the man hit them back. Feminists have misrepresented Whoopi’s position as being one of supporting men who hit women, but in fact she just said that she supported the position of the innocent party who was hit first (whether that be a man or woman). Her position was that neither party had the right to hit the other.
Inherent in this discussion is the view amongst many feminist women that because men are bigger/stronger [which is not always the case] that men never had the right to hit women, regardless of whether the woman struck the first blow. The video clip of Whoopi’s statement is here, and here are some discussion threads and articles: Vfm article by Paul Elam, VfM discussion thread, reddit #1.
Women kicking balls, I’d like to see that (22 January 2017) New TV ad promoting women’s sport. Imagine an ad ‘Men grabbing pussy, I’d like to see that’. Appropriate or humorous? Didn’t work for Don Trump and this one will reflect poorly on the AFL.
The last few years have seen a surge of social programs calling on men to step up to the line to perform some pledge or action for the womenfolk. These have been launched by government agencies, pro-feminist not-for-profits and various social media personalities. The foci of these demands for action have related mainly to sexual assault, domestic violence, and employment opportunity.
The #HeForShe hashtag/movement/thing was a reasonably high-profile example of such a campaign from the second half of 2014. The links below provide a small sampling of some of the other campaigns that have been and/or are now taking place:
Male Champions of Change (also discussed here, here and here) is a home-grown campaign which has now spawned a ‘Female Champions of Change‘ program. And no, the latter campaign was not intended to provide a corresponding support network to champion the welfare of men. Beyond Australia there is a similar program known as Men Advocating Real Change (MARC), mentioned in this article.
Most of these campaigns have been packaged on the basis of selling a message to the broader community that feminists want to be inclusive and work with men to address shared issues of concern. Perhaps feminists realise they now have a serious image problem, having been stung into action by developments like the #WomenAgainstFeminism movement. The problem though is that beneath the shiny wrapping paper, the nature of the various campaigns runs contrary to any notions of equality, mutual respect or inclusiveness.
Firstly these campaigns all seem to be promoted on the basis of overstating men’s responsibility for both causing, and solving, each particular issue. At the same time they underplay or ignore the accountability of women in contributing to the problem, as well as their own responsibility in relation to undertaking any necessary remedial action.
There seems to be a fundamental hypocrisy associated with a movement that claims that women are strong and equal, yet continually demands that men step up to address women’s apparently helplessness in the face of real or imagined adversity.
Secondly, it is telling that no similar movements have been proposed or created by women to support men. In fact, there is no sense of reciprocity whatsoever. Nor is there even public acknowledgement that men might need or deserve similar recognition or support. And heaven help the women who dare to raise awareness of the need to help men & boys (example).
And thus whilst we have one group of feminists demanding that men ‘help’ women, other feminists berate them for interfering in women’s issues and/or for seeking thanks/congratulations for being good. This is apparent, for example, in this Facebook post about a recent campaign known as ‘Red my Lips’ … peruse the bitter and angry comments by feminists and other ‘white knights’ directed at men behind the campaign – and men generally.
Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak? (10 March 2016) Australia. And of course no reciprocal expectation on women to attend events addressing male issues (unless to pull fire alarms and disrupt proceedings). See also my related blog post here.
We have just seen Julien Blanc tossed out of Australia, a fellow that apparently makes a living running seminars on how to pick up women. I don’t support him or the whole PUA thing, but yet again I can’t help noticing that men were called upon to deal with him.
Still in Australia, ex-Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce headed a Task Force on Family and Domestic Violence. Submissions to the Inquiry had just closed at the time this article appeared in the pro-feminist Guardian newspaper. It seems that those people who prepared submissions need not have bothered, as Quentin already knew that men were the problem and that the “the key drivers of change should be men and police“. That’s right ladies, no need to lift a finger, off you go and get yourselves a nice cup of tea whilst the menfolk cop all the blame plus the job of making things right.
Finally, some blinding irony with the movement called ‘Men Speak Out‘ who “aim to engage men in the process of ending FGM and, on a larger scale, to end violence against women and promote gender equality through a human rights’ approach“. Bearing in mind, of course, the negligible level of interest/activity by feminists in ending the practice of involuntary male circumcision.
The very concept of “He For She” makes women look like helpless children. This isn’t even “She for She,” implying sisterhood and communal responsibility. This isn’t even “We For She,” which is one-sided and focused on a minority of victims of violence and social problems, but at least community-minded. “He For She” blatantly states that men have all the power (even when they don’t) and that women need men to do their work for them (even when THEY don’t).
It’s regressive and gender-traditionalist and feminist all in one, simultaneously telling women that they can be free to be doctors or lawyers or strippers on poles, so long as big strong men open up all the big heavy doors for them. It’s patronizing to women and insulting to men, and if a man had come up with the hashtag he would have been called out as a patriarchalist traditionalist chauvinist pig. “Let’s help out those less fortunate little ladies, eh guys? Guys???”
Those posts found that the ‘wage gap’ is an issue that is persistently misrepresented by the feminist lobby, and that differentials in salary are generally reflective of personal choice rather than gender discrimination in the workplace.
This post explores the notion that there is a flip-side to the ‘wage gap’, that I label the gender ‘expense gap’. This concept is borne from the premise that men/boys incur significant additional expense, in comparison to women, to access or obtain various goods or services and/or to perform the role that western society demands of them.
The existence of a gender expense/cost gap is addressed in the media from time to time, but such discussions are limited to the gynocentric meme of a ‘pink tax’. Such articles, examples of which are provided below, focus on women paying more for retail products such as shavers, fashion, haircuts and sanitary products. The reality that men pay more than women for other goods/services is overlooked.
The Gender Expense Gap is broader and more pervasive than simply retail pricing differentials, encompassing for example:
Men being required to pay more for a particular product or service than a woman for the same or similar product or service (i.e. gender discriminatory pricing). A broad range of examples can be identified including nightclub entry, membership of online dating sites, and insurance (health, life, auto, etc). Here is one such example.
Men being expected (via social convention) to meet the full cost of a given expense, e.g. a restaurant meal or a holiday, rather than the relevant expense/s being split 50/50 with their female companion
Men being forced, by law, to incur certain expenses that would either not be incurred by women, or would only rarely be incurred by them, e.g. payment of alimony or spousal support
Men being unable to avoid particular expenses (without a penalty being applied), that women in the same circumstances would or could avoid (e.g. in the US, women are less likely to meet their commitments to pay child support, and less likely to be penalised for doing so)
Men being denied compensation or financial support that would, in the case of women, offset costs incurred by them. Consider for example discounts or financial incentives or external funding support denied to men but available to women, e.g. scholarships and educational grants (example), superannuation top-up payments (here and here), maternity leave, and rebates or tax reductions for female-owned business start-ups.
How might we also, for example, assign a financial cost to factors such as workplace deaths (overwhelming affecting men), and the health impacts of reduced medical research/treatment (whereby the government spends a pittance on men/boys relative to women/girls).
This is a most challenging task as far as economic analysis goes, but nevertheless ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. A related reddit discussion thread can be found here.
Let’s look now at some of the specific factors that might be considered:
Although times are certainly changing, men typically remain the primary breadwinner in the family and are responsible for supporting most/all of the living expenses of their spouse and children. Men are also likely to bring considerably more assets into the marriage than are women. Woman however still typically remain in charge of making most of the decisions regarding the expenditure of household income.
The following quote addresses the average differential between earning and spending in male/female households:
“Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% more money that they earn. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children.” (Source)
Divorce/Separation, incl. spousal/partner/child support and alimony
Sources addressing the issue of spousal maintenance/alimony can be found in this other blog post, but some examples are provided below.
UN Women Australia MBA scholarship (May 2020) Each scholarship is worth $60,000 – available at the University of Sydney Business School. I have since written to relevant agencies about this matter, details regarding which can be found in this post.
“The decision [to escape provisions of sex discrimination legislation] will allow Ivanhoe Grammar to target female students in its advertising and to offer sweeteners to attract girls, including “scholarship and bursary assistance”.”
“It would be bad enough that men are continuously shamed for earning more than women, and told that because women get better grades in easier subjects, that women are more intelligent (SourceFed, 2014) or motivated (Lewin, 2006). However, women are also given disproportionate financial aid to attend college, even though they are now a sizeable majority of college students compared to men. While data is difficult to find, using the University of Oklahoma as an anecdotal example, in 2007 women received 78% of scholarships, and between the years of 2008 -2013 women received 89%, 77%, 68%, 94%, 92%, and 100% respectively (OU SLIS, 2013).
Government grants are another major source of funding for women wishing to attend college. There are numerous resources available created specifically for women (Scholarships for Women), but none specifically for men, unless you count athletic scholarships, which are a sticking point with Feminist activists who resent that female athletics lose money while male athletics make money for colleges (Bloomberg News, 2011). It seems fans aren’t interested in paying to watch female athletes perform at the level of a male high school junior varsity team. However, if you put athletics aside, and focus only on the resources available to help men obtain college degrees, those resources are sorely lacking, while money is being thrown at women who are wasting it on Liberal Arts degrees instead of STEM.” (Source)
In a segment on the ‘Sunrise’ morning TV show there appeared a video where actors simulated a display of partner harassment/violence in a public space. In the first scenario the man was the aggressor, and in the second scenario they reversed the roles. The differing reaction by members of the public was profound. The same clip has been circulating on the internet for some time now and has been the subject of much discussion in fora such as Reddit Mens Rights (see link below).
I was interested to see how the topic was dealt with on Sunrise for a couple of reasons. Firstly in promotional clips they seem to suggest that the story was about whether members of the public should intervene in instances of partner violence – rather than about the different reaction to having a male as aggressor versus female as aggressor.
Secondly, I was interested because one of those presenting the story was Andrew O’Keefe who is heavily involved in the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ in Australia. The issue here is that the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ is complicit in injecting into the public’s consciousness the notion that ‘domestic violence = men’s violence towards women’. In so doing the ‘Campaign’ and other domestic violence advocacy groups like it, divert attention from the other facets of domestic violence (i.e. M+M, F+F, and female on male violence).
It was indeed ironic then that Andrew tut-tutted the contrasting public reaction to female on male violence shown in the video, given that could be viewed as an outcome of the message broadcast by the White Ribbon Campaign and many pro-feminist organisations like it.
The unfortunate fact is that the average member of the public simply does not now recognise a woman’s aggression towards a male as being domestic violence, or that women’s aggression generally is of any particular social significance.
Youtube has apparently removed at least one video showing women abusing men (after it hit 6,000,000 views), but has left online videos showing men abusing women – details in this reddit discussion thread (30 October 2014)
This discussion thread and linked video isn’t about partner violence, but it does show how many members of the public will paint a man as the aggressor even when a woman initiates violence and continues despite efforts to reason with her.
This paper contains many links to further sources proving examples of male victims of domestic abuse not being taken seriously.
Also not about partner violence but still relevant – this video shows a female student assaulting a male student while a female teacher watches on but fails to control the situation.
It’s not clear whether this incident at a US school was partner violence or not, but I have included it here as the media coverage and school commentary certainly display a gender-based double standard (18 February 2016)
An article about gynocentrism: This paper concerns the mindset that underpins the widespread failure to recognise men as being worthy of assistance or positive intervention in situations like domestic violence. This concept is further explored here.
Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading: