Dr. Michael Flood – Prawn of the Patriarchy

The Australian Institute of Family Studies – another taxpayer-funded feminist mouthpiece

“The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) is a Melbourne-based Australian Government statutory agency established in 1980 under the Family Law Act 1975.

The Institute has a proud record of high-quality, responsive and impartial research into the wellbeing of Australian families. Our vision is to make a positive contribution to the wellbeing of Australian families by advancing understanding of the factors affecting Australian families and communicating findings to policy makers, service providers and the broader community.

The Institute operates within the portfolio of the Department of Social Services (DSS) and is responsible to the Minister for Social Services. The Institute has ongoing relationships with various other government agencies, policy makers and the community sector. Staff at the Institute are employed under the Public Service Act 1999.” (Source)

The latest annual report for the AIFS tells us that it burnt through almost eighteen million taxpayer dollars in financial year 2015/16, and that as at 30 June 2016, there were 75 staff (3/4 of whom were female).

Regrettably, the Institute appears to have a strongly feminist orientation and corresponding anti-male bias. Even more regrettably, it is but one of dozens of publicly-funded organisations of similar persuasion.

In June 2017 the AIFS issued a publication entitled ‘Fathers who use violence‘. And no, for reasons that are not acknowledged, there is no corresponding document regarding abusive mothers. Of course the document should have been entitled ‘Parents who use violence‘, but apparently that would have constituted a little too much gender equality for those in the driver’s seat.

Another indicator of the extent of feminist bias in the AIFS is the inclusion within their web site of contributions by Michael Flood (example) who holds views highly antagonistic towards the men’s rights movement. In this example it would have been far more appropriate for Dr. Flood’s view to be presented with a counter-argument provided by someone from the men’s rights movement, but clearly that concept didn’t make it past the powers-that-be (if indeed it was even considered at all). More on Dr. Flood and his tortured relationship with the men’s rights movement here, here, here and here.

Yet more gender bias on display in this report on female sex offending by Senior Research Officer Mary Stathopoulos. Reddit poster ‘DougDante‘ comments thus:

“The bias was clear in the introduction. “the debate”, which is really about providing boys and men equal access to services for victims of domestic and sexual violence, constructed as if doing so would imply that police must be forced to waste resources trying to identify equal numbers of victims and perps of each gender, “is dangerous”.

Denying boy and man victims services and silencing them – not dangerous.

The survey also highlighted shocking disparities in New Zealand where only 0.6% of convictions were against women offenders, more than 5 times lower than other nations. Are women there more moral, or is that a female rapist’s paradise?

Perhaps I missed it, but the authors did not recognize that shocking number a signal of a systematic rape culture that ignores women’s sex crimes, and used it to justify ignoring boy and man victims.

Excuses are often made for female abusers such as in the report when they stated, “most striking feature is a history of previous victimisation”, but male abusers have the same histories!

This is why it’s important that no one be allowed to abuse any child or adult.”

See also:

Footnote as at 24 October 2022: I responded to a Tweet issued by AIFS concerning recent research undertaken by them which appeared to have an anti-male bias.

I asked AIFS, “So all demographics are at risk but you’ve only studied men. Presumably it’s important to portray women in a positive light, whilst avoiding the risk of uncovering data inconsistent with feminist imagery, yes?”.

Credit to them for replying, but they did not answer my query as to why only men were studied in a project about problem gamblers:

“Hi there, this data comes from Ten to Men: The Longitudinal Study of Male Health, which is focused on male health. You can find out more at tentomen.org.au“

Gender bias in Australian Institute of Family Studies Experiences of Separated Parents Study (2 November 2017)

Footnote as at 19 January 2022: Sometime this week I was blocked from the AIFS Twitter account. I have today written to the AIFS asking them the reason why I was blocked, and requesting a copy of their relevant policy. l will post a copy of their response as and when one is received from them. In the meantime you might be interested in reading this post and/or this post.

Footnote as at 20 January 2022: The AIFS lifted the Twitter block & stated as follows: “Thank you for your enquiry. We apologise for blocking your Twitter account as this was done inadvertently. We have now unblocked your account.”

Why is it so very hard for MSM to allow objective airing of men’s issues? The example of Triple J Hack’s ‘debate’

This evening ABC2/Triple J Hack are to broadcast what is billed as a debate on the topic of ‘Is Male Privilege Bullshit‘. In fact it will most likely be nothing more than yet another bigoted feminist soliloquy.

They have most likely scheduled this program due to the considerable amount of recent publicity concerning the screening of the Red Pill movie, and the feminist lobby’s desperate need to try to claw back some credibility.

For background or updates readers can peruse the Twitter streams for @ABC2, @TripleJHack @TomTilley and/or the corresponding Facebook pages.

ABC2 have invited the likes of Clementine Ford and Nakkiah Lui to join the panel. Of course, if you want to have a fair and balanced discussion you invite misandrists onto the panel. If worst comes to worst then the rest of the sisterhood can claim ‘not all feminists are like that‘, then rinse and repeat.

While Karen Straughan (‘GirlWritesWhat’) features in a promo video, sadly she will not be participating on the discussion panel. Cassie Jaye (‘Red Pill’) was to be interviewed (via satellite) during the show but pulled out stating:

“I already see so many warning signs of inherent bias based on the program’s marketing … I don’t see what I can gain by being a part of this when it’s clear that the show is going to give selective and limited airtime to certain guests over others.” (Source)

Additionally, yesterday ABC2 published this biased and misleading article about domestic violence (‘DV’). The focus of the article is an assertion that the Australian finding that one in three victims of domestic violence are male, is false. This is not the first time that Australian feminists have attacked this statistic.

The article quotes well-known anti-men’s rights advocates Michael Flood and Michael Salter, and includes various factual errors as well as misrepresentations of the MRA perspective on the issue of DV.

Here is a rebuttal of that article prepared by Greg Andresen of the One in Three organisation:

“I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into correcting the following factual errors from your article “What about men?: Challenging the MRA claim of a domestic violence conspiracy”:

The article claims, “In the 2012 PSS, about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner in the last 12 months. The ABS warns the estimate has a standard error of 25-50 per cent (meaning the real figure could be 50 per cent higher or lower) and “should be used with caution”. If we look at experiences of domestic violence over a longer period, we find the proportion of male victims sharply falls.” The 2012 PSS also found that about 33 per cent of men said they had experienced an act of violence from a current partner since the age of 15. There was no standard error. This is the same proportion, not a “sharp fall”.
It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three… Emergency departments: Two-thirds of patients presenting for family violence reasons were female.” This is exactly one in three, not a fall.
It claims, “When we look at other stats, the proportion of male victims also falls below one in three. Victoria’s 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence compared several sources…”. The Royal Commission into Family Violence found (I quote), “Over the five years from July 2009, the proportion of male victims has increased and in 2013-14 male victims made up 31% (n=5,052) of total victims of family violence”. That’s pretty close to one in three.
Dr Salter claims, “For men experiencing violence from a female partner, it’s primarily self defensive or it’s expressive in terms of a push or a slap” without citing any research to support his claim.
It claims, “Some MRAs argue the one in three figure actually underestimates the number of male victims of domestic violence, because men are either too ashamed, too stoic, or too chivalrous to report being hit by their female partner… But apart from these anecdotal reports, there’s no other evidence to back up this claim, and no easy way of measuring this potential statistical bias.” The 2012 PSS found that men who have experienced partner violence are 2 to 3 times more likely than women to have never told anybody about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; twice as likely as women to have never sought advice or support about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; up to 40% more likely than women to have not contacted police about experiencing current and/or previous partner violence; and half as likely as women to have had a restraining order issued against the perpetrator of previous partner violence. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.
Michael Brandenburg said, “Certainly there’s a cohort of men who experience family violence… In our experience a significant number of those experience violence not by intimate partners, but from other family members.” The 2012 PSS found the vast majority of partner and dating violence committed against men is perpetrated by females (94%). Only 6% occurs in relationships with a male perpetrator. See http://www.oneinthree.com.au/infographicrefs.”

The Australian mainstream media have apparently learnt nothing from the marked backlash against the rude and biased treatment of film director Cassie Jaye on The Project and Sunrise TV programs.

It is so incredibly frustrating that they are unable to address men’s issues in a fair and objective manner, and simply provide the public with the facts and different opinions and let them form their own views.

The debate tonight is designed to try to inflict maximum damage on the men’s rights movement. It will only dig the media an even deeper hole in terms of their credibility in the eyes of the community. Instead of bringing people together and fostering understanding and consensus, media stunts like this simply set the scene for more lobbing of grenades from trench to trench.

Media coverage after the event:

Hack critique Pt. 2, by Gary Orsum (22 June 2017) Video

Hack Live: What happened when we debated male privilege (21 June 2017) with related Reddit discussion thread

Bettina Arndt tells why Cassie Jaye ditched Hack Live (20 June 2017) Video

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Privilege, respect and entitlement

Female Privilege Check-list

Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
Variety; multiformity
The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

Does the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics & answers:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
To attract and hold fast
To attract or please
To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
To betroth
To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ might not be the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick (also chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program).

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when people dare mention issues that might be perceived to detrimentally affect them, is to tell men (and their female supporters) to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies or ‘‘pick-me’s’. This latter term is a derogatory label that feminists apply to women who are sympathetic towards men’s rights issues.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could not care less about helping men, excepting a few situations where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women (e.g. paternity leave for men).

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? Perhaps one thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as an adjunct to the debate? What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the Council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes)

A useful portrayal of victims of domestic violence … from an unlikely source

The focus of this post is an article entitled ‘There is nowhere for us to go’: Domestic violence happens to men too, by feminist journo Ginger Gorman. I have seen Ginger’s work before and was somewhat taken aback to see what appeared to be an item sympathetic to men.

Ginger’s article began with a detailed personal account by Nick of the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of his wife. Nick also recounted the extreme difficulty he had accessing professional support.

The author noted that this was a common theme amongst the men who volunteered to tell their story, but failed to provide statistics on the number of services catering to male versus female victims of domestic violence.

But then Ginger wheeled in outspoken male feminist and misandrist Dr Michael Flood who pushed the predictable feminist line on domestic violence:

(Another myth put about by some feminists is that most domestic violence against men involves male partners, whereas in fact 94% of domestic violence against men was perpetrated by female partners)

Ginger then told the story of Mereana who had experienced relationships involving two-way verbal and physical abuse. Mereana had suffered extensive abuse as a child as a result of which she suffered possible brain damage as well as emotional problems. Mereana did a stint in jail, and since then had sought help for her issues (although still exhibited violent tendencies).

The next part was interesting:

““I had to go looking and digging to find someone to help me confront and dismantle my issues and work out my triggers. There’s no support for female perpetrators,” she says.

In part, she blames white middle class feminists for this, who she says have “protected the conversation” about domestic violence to the exclusion of “all those other voices.” Finally, Mareana convinced a violent offenders’ counsellor at a local men’s support service to take her on as a client.”

If only Ginger had seized on this point, and done some digging, for e.g. how many states/regions actually do offer programs for violent women? As far as I know, almost none. Why is this issue not raised in the many costly inquiries that have taken place in recent times?

Michael Flood then re-appears to disparage the ‘One in Three‘ group, which advocates for the welfare of male victims of domestic violence. This is a task with which Michael already has considerable experience. This particular comment was unfair, inaccurate and more than a little ironic:

“[One in Three] has spent “at least as much effort trying to undermine campaigns to address violence against women.””

Actually Michael, ‘One in Three‘ take pains to point out (in their submissions to government, for example) that they are NOT seeking to undermine support for female victims. I think what Michael is referring to are instances where ‘One in Three‘ provide alternative data sources that debunk misrepresentations put forward by feminist groups (often in the form of attacks on One in Three).

I would suggest that One in Three believes there to be a strong case to support all victims of domestic violence, and that this does not require or benefit from the gender bias and misrepresentation that pervades the Domestic Violence Industry.

On the other hand, Michael and other feminists seem to consider it their sacred duty to undermine efforts to raise awareness of female perpetrators and their victims. And with even more examples of such behaviour here, here and here.

The article concludes with the suggestion that any blokes out there who need help with this issue, can call Mensline. Sadly that’s all there is, but the feedback about that service is anything but complimentary, with many male callers reportedly being treated as abusers in denial only to then be signed up for anger management classes and/or passed on to groups offering crisis accommodation for the homeless.

See also:

ABC Life Matters story on male victims of domestic violence (10 August 2016) Australia

The negative (and invariably false) portrayal of the men’s rights movement

The nature of criticism put forward in relation to the men’s rights movement says a lot about both the MRM and it’s critics – but mostly not in the way the authors intended.

At the outset let me note that while writers may claim to be directing their criticism towards the men’s rights movement, they are frequently either unknowingly or deliberately inaccurate.

As I’ve said elsewhere in this blog, one of the great things about those people who are supportive of the men’s rights movement is their extraordinary diversity. They may not agree with every aspect of MRA beliefs, nor us them, but they have taken the time energy to research and to present their views.

A selection of related papers:

Radical anti-feminism the most prevalent form of violent extremism in Australia, report finds (18 July 2024) This article in news.com.au provided further information including a link to the actual report produced (26 July 2024).

Bi-Annual Report From ‘Diverting Hate’ (March 2024) This project is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships

FBI documents associate internet slang like ‘based’ and ‘red pill’ with ‘extremism’ (11 April 2023)

Schiff, Durbin demand Google and YouTube crack down on dangerous Incel content (25 October 2022)

Yes, I Am Afraid to Write About Men’s Rights (12 July 2022)

This is why I’m teaching my nine-year-old son about incels (12 September 2021)

Men who hate women and their online refuge of scoundrels (28 November 2020) Australia. Staggeringly one-eyed and biased coverage of the issue from the feminist perspective.

Goodbye Spectator (21 November 2020) UK

The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men join the incels (7 February 2020)

Are men’s movements a new form of terrorism? (25 November 2018) Australia

Did you forget International Men’s Day? Don’t worry – the men’s rights activists did too (22 November 2017) Australia. Another offering from the poison pen of Jane Gilmore, who produces many such cookie-cutter hatchet-jobs on the men’s movement.

One Nation has reached an inexcusable new low (26 October 2017)

‘Men’s rights’ movement rooted in ignorance (27 September 2017)

Discussion thread regarding an MRA meet-up that was promoted in the Reddit Los Angeles forum (August 2017) Many of the comment illustrate the negative knee-jerk reaction that any mention of men’s rights commonly elicits

The Privilege Discussions We Need To Have (21 June 2017) If I get time I would love to write a rebuttal of this post. A classic example of someone who clearly thinks they know a great deal about the men’s rights movement but whose understanding is in fact deeply flawed.

How the ‘pissing pug’ became a perfect metaphor for the men who hate feminism (3 June 2017)

I am so sick of people acting like “misandry” is equivalent to misogyny (1 June 2017)

“Stop referring to them as Men’s rights activists” (undated)

New Hampshire State Rep Who Created Reddit’s ‘Red Pill’ Resigns (17 May 2017) Feminists can be as hateful and biased as they like but has one ever been forced to resign from public office? This selective and media-endorsed persecution of anti-feminists and MRA’s is why so many opt for anonymity in the first place.

‘You can’t tell me women don’t lie, of course they do’: why Men’s Rights Activists hate AVOs (12 May 2017) Except pointing out that the AVO process is sometimes abused is not the same thing as hating AVOs.

The conservative young men who need a trigger warning when women are around (1 May 2017) Australia

Professor says she felt raped by white male student’s paper touting men’s rights (25 April 2017)

The Anger Bias (29 March 2017)

Holden and Kia pull ads from YouTube as Google boycott widens (26 March 2017)

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

Men’s rights movement infiltrates political parties, Calgary prof cautions (8 March 2017

On International Women’s Day, don’t forget men, by Ben Pobjie (8 March 2017) Australia. The secret to witty caricaturization is knowing your subject, and this guy is clearly clueless about MRA’s and the men’s rights movement. Then again, if he understood the movement, he’d be less inclined to mock it.

Don’t call it men’s rights (6 January 2017) Canada

Philip Davies MP interviewed by radfem Jane Garvey, BBC Woman’s Hour (20 December 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked video

Hannah Wallen comments on feminists accusing men’s rights advocates of being “angry” (15 November 2016) Video

Can feminist men open up a useful dialogue with men’s rights activists? (1 November 2016) Australia. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Men have problems – but men’s rights activists aren’t solving them (24 October 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

David Futrelle is a high-profile critic of the Men’s Rights movement. “Futrelle is considered the go-to expert on the Men’s Rights Movement by many mainstream journalists”. This web site discusses his work.

Karen Straughan (Female MRA) dissects a negative review of the film ‘The Red Pill’ (13 October 2016) Video

The MGTOW group really, really don’t like women (8 October 2016) You’d think feminists would be delighted to have more men disengaging from women, but no it’s just too good an opportunity to mock and misrepresent. This article is a knock-off of another article in The Independent (UK) a week earlier.

Comment: Hanson’s policies on family law equally dangerous, by Jane Gilmore (15 September 2016)

“Hanson’s audience is, as it always has been, bitterly angry white men, furious that their place at the front of every queue is no longer guaranteed by the power of their tiny, white penises”

Men’s rights activism and the mad rush to victimhood, by Caitlin Johnstone (14 September 2016)

Guy at party mentions the issue of violence against men and a women spits her beer in his face and mocks him. Other people at the party encourage HIM to apologise (video)

Why I’ll never date a feminist (9 September 2016) Check out the readers comments, many of which attack the author regarding his physical appearance, etc etc. Further discussed here and here

Backlash: Angry men’s movements, by Michael Flood

Why don’t mens rights activists fight for men’s rights? by Jane Gilmore (25 August 2016) Australia. It being extremely hypocritical for this feminist writer to level this criticism – see this post

Suspend the rightwing Tory MP Philip Davies? No way, he’d love it, by Michael White (15 August 2016) UK. Then see the video of his presentation

The burning question I didn’t get to ask Pauline Hanson on Q&A (21 July 2016)

“In response to Sonia Kruger’s comments, radio personality Meshel Laurie stated the bare facts: “The most dangerous people in Australia are Australian men who kill Australian women at a rate of one a week.”

“That’s more than any terrorist has ever done,’ pointed out her co-host, Matt Tilley. Following One Nation’s logic, is the solution to domestic violence to ban all men from entering Australia?”

Dylan Jones: men have never had it so good (9 August 2016)

Cracked’s 5 Lies and Strawmen Attacks on the MRM (5 July 2016)

Deluded men’s rights activists are conspiracy nutjobs – don’t believe a word they say (23 May 2016)

Swallowing the Red Pill: a journey to the heart of modern misogyny (14 April 2016)

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

Mum angry about son uploading meme concerning society’s expectations on men vs women, and feminists rush to her defence

Do you think the ‘Disrespect Nobody’ ad campaign is horribly sexist? (28 February 2016) Note the many stereotypical negative comments against any suggestion that men’s victimisation should be acknowledged. Here is the ad itself with comments an MRA. Strangely, the Disrespect Nobody website itself is gender-neutral.

How creating outgroups manufactures outrage (27 February 2016)

Laurie Penny (for it is she) says all you do is “hang out on forums talking about raping and beating up women” in an open letter to Who Don’t Need Feminism (21 February 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

The men hijacking family law reforms (Februrary 2016) by Nijole Cork. Revelations regarding trolling activities allegedly undertaken by this author here.

The fact is, I like men. Just not these men (8 February 2016) by Wendy Tuohy. Australia

Here’s what we think of you and your ‘rape van’ (18 January 2016) Australia

Why the MRA ‘Manosphere’ Isn’t Actually Helping Men Cope with Rejection (4 January 2016)

Men’s Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Hate (1 January 2016)

What The Media Fails To Tell Us About The Men’s Rights Movement (28 December 2015)

Men’s Rights Activists are cave dwelling idiots (21 December 2015)

“Red Pill”: Feminist hit-piece gets decimated in the reader’s comments section (13 November 2015) UK

Barbara Kay: Anti-male ignorance on parade at the CBC (13 November 2015) USA

Equality, Feminism, and the Zero-Sum Game (18 October 2015) Reddit mens rights discussion thread

Miranda Devine and Men’s Rights Activism, by Naomi Fryers (3 October 2015)

Malcolm Turnbull on domestic violence: Some people will hate what the PM had to say (24 September 2015)

” … there will be voters out there who really object to the Prime Minister calling out their attitudes towards women …”

So if you disagree with the Prime Minister’s ill-informed comments and/or the nature of his package of funding, then it’s because you hold negative attitudes towards women.

How MRAs and the MHRM help men (16 September 2015) YouTube video that rebuts some of those feminist criticisms

Men’s Rights Agency – Feminism (undated) Australia. Includes reference to comments by Judge Alistair Nicholson, who “publicly accused those who disagreed with the practices of the Family Court (mostly men), as being “discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional“. Nicholson, the Chief Justice of the Family Court further abused his advantaged position, (i.e. protected from rebuttal under the secrecy provisions within the Family Law Act), by claiming “most persistent critics behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children“.”

Feminist collective supports violence against men’s rights advocates (14 September 2015) Australian video

Why does speaking out about the issues men face always trigger a furious reaction? (8 September 2015)

Hilarious ‘men’s rights’ campaign urges people to stop ‘Mancrimination’ (29 June 2015)

The Men’s Rights Movement: Feminism’s Mirror Image (25 June 2015)

The propaganda of toxic feminism Part 31 (21 June 2015) Video

‘There’s a group of men who believe you are trying to ruin their lives. And I met them’ (17 June 2015)

Possibly a Guiness record for unashamed feminist hypocrisy: sticky post, “Tell Pride to ban CAFE”. Two post further down: “Why are MRAs blaming feminists for Pride CAFE backlash” (10 June 2015)

What if we awarded men danger pay for getting married? by Janet Bloomfield (8 June 2015)

The propaganda of toxic feminism part 28 (4 June 2015) Youtube video

No, I will not take the Men’s Rights Movement seriously (28 February 2014) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread

#BlameOneNotAll reveals feminist hatred for men, by Jack Barnes (28 May 2015)

Ten of the worst anti-feminism arguments: DEBUNKED (20 May 2015) In this article the author subsequently rebuts criticism of the men’s rights movement provided in an original article

Five Feminist TV Hosts Vs MGTOW – Peter Lloyd, author of ‘Stand Up For Your Manhood’ (7 May 2015) Youtube video of Australian TV show

New ‘bro-bible’ claims feminists have turned men into 2nd class citizens (23 April 2015)

Yes, Men Have Problems — But The Men’s Rights Movement Doesn’t Come Close To Dealing With Them (20 April 2015)

Why we should probably stop paying attention to men’s opinions (20 April 2015)

4 ways men’s rights activists actually hurt men, by Amanda Marcotte (17 April 2015)

Pickup artist: Women with short hair are committing self-harm, should be monitored by authorities (17 April 2015)

The AgainstMensRights forum on reddit.com

6 Cheap Ways People Dismiss Feminism – And How To Hold Your Ground When They Do (30 March 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread

David Futrelle redefines the words “sick motherfucker” (27 March 2015) Notorious mangina seeks to blame Germanwings tragedy on MRA

Milo Yiannopoulos vs. Feminism: A response to The Big Question (20 March 2015)

“There is much fudging of stats by the Father’s Rights movement and IMO many (not all) of the men in those groups are [domestic violence] perpetrators posing as victims.” Reader’s comment by Barbara Roberts, Author of “Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion.” Co-leader of A Cry For Justice (Source) 21 March 2015

Inside men’s rights groups (21 March 2015) and related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Are you man enough for the men’s rights movement? (March 2015)

Responding to GQ’s “Are You Man Enough for the Men’s Rights Movement” (20 March 2015)

I’m an MRA-bashing Feminist—But Because I’m Male, Trolls Leave Me Alone (11 March 2015) Please tell me this guy isn’t serious

MRA Group Attacks Ontario’s Anti-Sexual Violence Campaign with an Idiotic Billboard (10 March 2015)

Leah McLaren: How men’s rights groups are distorting the debate about equality (13 March 2015)

Men’s rights campaigners should work with feminists instead of fighting them (9 March 2015)

To the Male Supporters of the Men’s Rights Movement (19 February 2015) Rubbish article but do take time to peruse the reader’s comments

How To Be A Man, According To A Woman (29 December 2014)

Why It’s Time For Male Allies To Fight Men’s Rights Activists (24 December 2014)

Men’s rights groups resorting to macabre blackmailing stunt (24 September 2014)

In Which a Grumpy Lesbian Offers Her Feminist Understanding of Men (3 February 2015)

8 Things Some A$$#ole Says in Every Debate About Sexism (19 February 2015)

The ‘Men’s Rights’ Movement Is Hilariously Self-Defeating (27 February 2015)

Understanding the misogyny and bigotry of the illiberal, anti-MRA progressives at Cracked.com (28 February 2015)

Puerile trash avoid facts on domestic violence, by David Penberthy (20 September 2014)

“Men’s rights” group’s sad reality: Behind the doors of a depressing confab (11 July 2014)

The Anatomy of a Men’s Rights Activist (25 June 2014)

Feminism didn’t kill men’s rights advocate Earl Silverman (30 April 2013)

Anti-Feminist Backlash and Violence against Women Worldwide, by Katherine van Wormer (2008)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in:

Australian feminist attacks integrity of advocacy group for male victims of domestic violence

Feminist efforts to shut down, disrupt and/or denigrate the 2014 Conference on Mens Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have already allocated blog posts to several such organisations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Australian Gender Equality Council (Budget unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We collect, synthesise and summarise developments in:

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

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

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

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

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

… but no reply since. Hmm.

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

What’s happening overseas?

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

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

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

Further organisations slated for review

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

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

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

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

Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic Violence Victoria All female staff? tick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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