The 2017 Women’s March, Women’s Strike & other anti-Trump protests

As you are no doubt aware, in November 2016 the American people chose a new President. He’s a bit different from the previous one, and some people aren’t too happy about this. Piers Morgan provides further context in his article entitled:

Memo to millennials, that awful feeling you’ve got is called losing. It happens. If you want to know how to win, stop whinging for a bit and learn some lessons from Trump

In this post I have thrown together a few snippets concerning the troubling, unproductive and all-too-often violent leftist/SJW/feminist response to the democratic process …

Some related articles:

Women’s Marchers Say Pro-Lifers Can’t Be Feminists

Limo torched in anti-Trump protests belonged to Muslim immigrant who faces £80,000 bill

Commentary: After assault by inaugural protesters, a call to redefine nation’s character

Women’s March featured speaker who kidnapped, raped and tortured a man (with related Reddit discussion thread here)

Feminists should face their own flaws, not sneer at Melania Trump

Ann Widdecombe Calls Women’s March ‘Pathetic’ on Good Morning Britain (video)

College Professor Exposes Women’s March on Washington (video)

Dear Daughter: Here’s Why I Didn’t March For You by Mary Ramirez

Women’s march: #ButItsAboutEquality! by Hannah Wallen

White Women behaving badly by Janet Bloomfield

More divisive that Trump by Corrine Barraclough

About the organisers/speakers & celebrity hangers-on:

The celebrities shown here loathe Trump because of how he objectifies women

What others thought of the Women’s March and preceding protests:

Tangible outcomes of the Women’s March:

And after the Women’s March came the Women’s Strike on 8 March 2017:

A Day Without Women, A Defamation of Men (8 March 2017)

Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march (25 February 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Women’s strike could be coming and history tells us what will happen by Jane Gilmore (8 February 2017)

Pray men never take a day off by Janet Bloomfield (18 September 2013)

Men’s Referral Service: Clayton’s* support for male victims of domestic violence

“The Men’s Referral Service provides telephone counselling and referrals for Australian men impacted by family violence.” (Source)

The Men’s Referral Service (‘MRS’) web site does not provide any information about the management of MRS nor its legal or financial details. Readers are informed that:

“The Men’s Referral Service is a service of No To Violence, Male Family Violence Prevention Association (NTV). Find out more about NTV.”

Further details regarding MRS can however be accessed in their ACNC register entry, including their constitution, list of directors, and financial returns. The most recent financial report (year ending 30 June 2015) showed annual income of just over $2 million, of which just under $1.7 million was received in the form of government grant/s. The biggest single expense, just over $1.7 million, was listed as “staffing costs”.

Whilst the material provided in the MRS web site provides some pretence about their interest and involvement in supporting male victims of domestic violence, they are very much a pro-feminist organisation whose primary interest is the isolation and treatment of abusive men.

The MRS was recently thrust into the limelight as a result of a decision by feminist NSW Minister, Pru Goward, to award them an extremely lucrative grant ($13 million over 4 years) to ostensibly provide support services for male victims of domestic violence.

That ill-judged decision was discussed in some detail in this Nov 2016 article by Bettina Arndt, and also in this media release from the One in Three advocacy group – which I would recommend that you now take a moment to read.

This news came some time after the original media release announcing the availability of funding for male victims of domestic violence. This was much- applauded at the time by individuals opposed to the gender-biased nature in which government grants had been dispensed up to that point in time:

“For the first time in NSW, male victims of domestic and family violence will receive dedicated support, NSW Attorney General Gabrielle Upton and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Pru Goward announced today.

“As part of a record investment in domestic and family violence prevention, the 2016-17 Budget included $13.3 million over four years to make it easier and faster for men and boys to get help when they need it,” Ms Upton said.” (Source)

Thus this has been very much a case of two steps forward and one step back in terms of achieving a reasonable and equitable level of support for male victims of domestic violence.

*To learn the meaning of the term Clayton’s see here

See also:

Inside the Men’s Referral Service, a call centre dealing with Australia’s abusive men and domestic violence (3 May 2020)

One man’s grassroots insight into the Duluth Model domestic violence perpetrator programme (15 December 2016) Helps explain, amongst other things, why unsuitable groups like MRS are awarded contracts like this one.

Should we scrutinise ALL reports of family violence? (2 December 2016)

Someone has described how the new feminist DV intervention system in Australia works in menslib and askfeminists. Its absolutely disgraceful (February 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

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

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

Excuse me NSW Government, your gender bias and lack of objectivity is showing (again)

On bigotry as art (#KillAllMen at NIDA)

NIDA →Productions & Events →#KillAllBlacks

#KillAllBlacks

Date/Time: 19 Oct 2016 – 25 Oct 2016

Eight men create an internet utopia where they discuss the most intimate details of their lives, the most righteous, and the most hilarious. Drinking, sports, work, activism, and how to be an out and proud Klansman. But when one of them disappears after being attacked everything changes. #KillAllBlacks suddenly moves from joke to reality.

OK, relax. I’m just pulling your leg. Australia’s prestigious Institute of Dramatic Arts didn’t really fund and host a production called #KillAllBlacks. That would be bigoted beyond belief. Can you imagine the uproar? Chortle, chortle. As if!

No, in fact they funded and hosted a production called #KillAllMen. It’s still bigoted of course, but the essential difference is that men are a social group that one may now denigrate without fear of repercussion. The #KillAllMen hashtag has quite a history, as discussed in this further blog post.

Oh, I can hear some of you chorus “but there is no comparison at all – men have all that privilege. Look at all those male politicians and CEO’s!“.

Ignoring all those men of colour for a moment, just what percentage of men are politicians or CEO’s? One per cent? Even that?

The writer, Nakkiah Lui, identifies as an aboriginal. One might have thought she would possess an abundance of empathy regarding bigotry. Or at least enough to avoid such a grotesque mis-step. But clearly her feminism trumps her empathy.

Hypocrisy is the short answer, but those preferring the challenge of a TL:DR version can chew on ‘cognitive dissonance‘.

Bigotry dressed up as art is still bigotry. Shame on NIDA

killallmen

Addendum: Ms. Lui was aware of this post as of the day it was uploaded, and was invited to offer a rebuttal. Subsequent feedback consisted of witless ad hominem delivered in a manner reminiscent of terriers yapping behind a screen door. The one criticism that contained even an ounce of substance, was that I had not seen the play.

How ironic then that feminists have just succeeded in having the Australian screening of a film about mens rights cancelled. A film that, ahem, not one of them had seen.

redpill

So on the one hand we have an individual castigated for saying bad words about a feminist production in a personal blog, but with no serious intent of having the play cancelled. On the other hand we have 2,000+ feminists and white knights deliberately setting out to deny everyone the opportunity to experience a production. The former production finished its run, the latter never got started.

Again, this patriarchy of ours sure does work in mysterious ways.

See also:

Hateful Clementine Ford (6 January 2024) Scroll to the last two paragraphs to read about her proposed publicly-funded theatre production

Why it’s not OK to say ‘Kill all men’ (2 December 2021)

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:

  1. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
  2. Variety; multiformity
  3. The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
  4. 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.

benlawDoes 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:

  1. To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
  2. To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
  3. To attract and hold fast
  4. To attract or please
  5. To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
  6. To betroth
  7. 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“.

dcadebate

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

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

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)

Female privilege checklist

Consider those organisations whose default position is one exemplified by a clear bias towards supporting women/girls. The Australian Human Rights Commission is just one of very many such examples, with more listed here. To my mind a better and fairer approach would involve a gender-neutral approach where support was allocated based on *actual* need as measured in a transparent and objective manner.

I wonder how the senior staff of these organisations rationalise their biased priorities. I assume they feel that it is justified as (in their minds) ‘women have it so much worse’/’men have it so much better’. Indeed feminists loudly proclaim the overwhelming privilege of being male. But what about female privilege?

I have seen lists such as the one below on a number of previous occasions, but this one is particularly detailed. I obtained it from the web site of Anti-feminism Australia, although clearly it originated in the U.S of A. You will note for example some references to ‘selective service’ (i.e. mandatory military draft).

Allow me at the outset to put forward a couple of disclaimers:

  • Not all of these points apply equally, or at all, in all countries. I have already mentioned the example of ‘selective service’ which does not apply in Australia.
  • While all of the points of privilege apply to and/or would be asserted by most feminists, the same could not be said to be true of all women.

A recurrent theme in this list is that of the rampant double-standards that are now applied in relation to men and women, a factor that is part and parcel of gender feminism.

I intend to ‘tweak’ the list with my own thoughts over coming months. I am interested to hear the views of others so please feel free to provide a comment to add further points to the list, or to dispute or amend anything already listed.

Oh and just to keep things ‘equal’, here is a Male Privilege Checklist that was apparently distributed at the University of Western Australia’s Orientation Day.

See also ‘I love my female privilege!‘ by Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) (10 January 2017) and ‘The Female Privilege Checklist‘ by Karen Straughan (6 May 2011)

List of female privileges

1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.

3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.

4. Regardless of my mate value society has organised fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.

5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.

6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.

7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.

8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.

9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.

10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.

11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.

12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.

13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.

14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.

15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing discount because of my gender, or may avoid incarceration entirely. If I am very pretty and/or pregnant it will increase my discount.

16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.

17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behaviour is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defence for murdering that same husband.

18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalised for failing to do so.

19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.

20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly 100% of workplace fatalities.

21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.

22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.

23. Seven times as much jewellery will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.

24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.

25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.

26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes. (See this paper for example)

27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.

28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.

29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.

30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localised. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.

31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.

32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.

33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.

34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshalled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.

35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control 80% of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.

36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.

37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.

38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.

39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.

40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behaviour I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.

41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.

42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organisations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalised 30% of the time.

43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.

44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.

45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.

46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.

47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.

48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.

49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.

50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.

51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.

52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.

53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.

54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.

55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.

56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)

57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.

58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.

59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.

60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.

61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.

62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.

63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.

64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.

65. My gender makes up 53% of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.

66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.

67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.

68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).

69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.

70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.

71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.

72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.

73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.

74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.

75. Anytime I find an organisation just for men I can denounce it as sexism.

76. I believe that women should have organisations just for women.

77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an asshole.

78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.

79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.

80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.

81. I think that organisations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.

82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.

83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.

84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.

85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offence against all women.

86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.

87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.

88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.

89. I can criticise the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticise me or other women.

90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.

91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.

92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.

93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.

94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.

95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.

96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.

97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

See also:

18 Things Females Seem To Not Understand (Because, Female Privilege), by Mark Saunders (18 April 2014)

Felicitous feminism (23 July 2019) Article by Mark Dent

Feminist Privilege: Updated Master Post

Image

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

On privilege, respect, and entitlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenkins2

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

jenkins1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AGD subsequently replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rightstalk-access-cropped

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”

girlrising

The article linked to this Twitter post is entitled ‘Be bullish about investing in women, and … be better at everything‘ by a truly cringeworthy ‘White Knight‘ journalist by the name of Leszek J. Sibilski.

“On the morning of June 14, 2016, I found myself surrounded by 5,000 women as part of the first day of the first United State of Women Summit convened by The White House at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. The #StateofWomen movement brought together activists from all 50 US states and from around the world.”

Firstly let’s just point out that no, there is no corresponding government-supported ‘United State of Men Summit’. Just as there is no corresponding ‘White House Council for Men and Boys’, etc etc. Because? Because? Patriarchy?

“I was honored to attend this historic assembly particularly as there were probably only a few dozen men invited, excluding the secret service detail and support services.”

So, only a small number of mostly elite men were allowed in, and by invitation only. And this muppet felt “honoured” to be at such a forum? What? In contrast I have yet to hear of a conference on men’s issues at which the entry of women was restricted on such a basis. And if there were one, can you imagine the select few female attendees – assuming you could convince them to attend in the first place – subsequently describing themselves as “honoured”? LOL

“I have not forgotten about my own gender. I am the one who constantly reminds our global community that every year on November 19 there is a very important holiday to celebrate: The International Men’s Day!

Oh, you’re the man, Leszek! And pray tell how much mutual respect and support have you had from your feminist colleagues in relation to that endeavour? Because the typical reaction I encounter is one of disgust and annoyance, along the lines of “oh, it’s men’s day every day of the year!

“At the end of the summit, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey deliberated about what message the present men should leave with. They both decided, with total agreement from the audience: BE BETTER AT EVERTHING! Be better husbands, be better fathers, be better employers! They all agreed that involving boys and men is critical for the well-being of girls and women in the near and distant future.”

We should all be better at everything Leszek, but we find ourselves in a time where men are held responsible for all things bad whilst women are held accountable for very little indeed. ‘Demonise’ and ‘white-wash’ are the two respective terms that spring to mind.

I would have thought that ‘gender equality’, which is what feminism is mean to be all about, would assert an equal responsibility on women to be better wives, better mothers, better employers, etc. But I’m not seeing any pressure being brought to bear in that regard. And certainly not in your simpering offering.

Turning finally to the question posed in Leszek’s article, the answer is that men are delighted to have women attend conferences learning about and discussing men’s issues. The implied suggestion that men might react otherwise is both sexist and condescending. And indeed many women do attend such events, and their participation is warmly welcomed.

Unfortunately the situation with feminists is somewhat different. Leszek, I suggest you google search for accounts of what has happened when conferences or other forums have convened in Canada or the U.S to discuss men’s issues. As far as the involvement of feminists is concerned, this generally takes the form of disruptive protests including actions such as bomb threats and pulling fire alarms. And this often after attempts to have the function cancelled have failed.

Such is the level of interest in, and respect for, men’s issues shown by the feminist lobby. Society as a whole suffers as a result of their lingering ignorance and bias in relation to the relevant issues, such as are addressed elsewhere in this blog.

Here are some other posts in my blog that are relevant to this issue:

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

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

#HeForShe: Men pressed into service with nary a hint of ‘quid pro quo’

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

If the central tenet of feminism is equality then what mens/boys causes have feminists championed recently?

Organisations with women at the helm perform better (so they say)

Here’s a post for Girl Rising and the World Bank: Discrimination against males in the context of humanitarian agencies/causes

Oh, and Leszek, this one’s for you: On chivalry

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear. 

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

CFMEU

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men.  At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

harassed

 

On male-only and women-only spaces

“The course has hosted golf’s prestigious Open championship no less than 16 times in its 125-year history, the backdrop for wins by greats such as Nick Faldo, Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player.

But Muirfield, with views over the Firth of Forth and a favoured retreat of Edinburgh’s judiciary, has forfeited its right to hold the championship again after members voted to continue its ban on women joining the club.” (Source)

The subject of male-only and women-only spaces is one which I see written about fairly often – generally from the feminist perspective. And that perspective is that male-only spaces are uniformly undesirable and should be eradicated, whilst female-only spaces are desirable and much-needed.

Which is ridiculous. And just as chock-full of hypocrisy as are most of the other building blocks in that ideological house of horrors that is gender feminism.

The topic has been raised in relation to mens and boys organisations and clubs like Men’s Sheds and Scouts, university student houses (frat-houses) and societies, fitness centres, etc.

I normally wouldn’t bother writing a post about this subject as it is not one of the more pressing issues, but I have just read an item by Janet Bloomfield/Judgybitch which stirred me into action. Great article + some good comments too. See Why are feminist women so fucking pathetic? (24 May 2016)

Other articles relevant to this topic:

Is it time to stop men congregating in groups? (18 May 2024)

Lawyer who raised ‘boys’ club’ concerns over judgment accused of misconduct (28 March 2024)

Necessary sanctuary or blatant discrimination? The decades-old battle over women-only spaces (24 March 2024)

Building safer spaces for women (27 October 2023)

Men are boycotting gyms due to creepy women (20 September 2023) Video

We should have women-only times in Scotland’s parks (17 May 2023)

Single-Sex Spaces for Me, But Not for Thee, by Janice Fiamengo (9 April 2023)

The boy’s club is under siege, by Bettina Arndt (25 November 2022)

Perspective: The real reason the all-women workspace failed (16 September 2022)

The push into male space: News item about girls in the boy scout organisation, with commentary provided by Rollo Tomassi (5 February 2019)

Dartmouth Fatstock: Sexism row over men-only awards dinner (12 December 2018)

Women are dropping $3,055 and waiting on an 8,000-person list to join an exclusive, no-men-allowed club based in New York City (7 November 2017)

Harvard Crimson: University Is Right to Ban Fraternities, Wrong to Ban Sororities (27 September 2017)

Salon upset to learn whiny men were right about women-only movie screenings being discriminatory (9 August 2017)

Cafe of Confusion (7 August 2017) Video

Feminism’s latest victim: St Paul’s College, by Miranda Devine (14 June 2017)

Guy buys movie ticket, internet outraged (27 May 2017)

Bro-go areas: the last few men’s only clubs (15 March 2017)

Muirfield golf club to allow women to join for the first time (14 March 2017)

Return of Women-Only Offices Proves That Equality Has Gone Into Reverse, by Martin Daubney (3 February 2017)

Girls allowed: why women-only co-working spaces are the latest office trend (January 2017)

No boys allowed: the new rule of co-working spaces (4 January 2017) USA

Gender discrimination is bad for business (4 November 2016) Australia

You know that narrative about train groping and women-only carriages in Japan? About that (19 October 2016) Japan. Reddit discussion thread

Why women hate male-only groups, and why they shouldn’t (15 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Duke offers men a safe space to contemplate their toxic masculinity (30 September 2016) USA. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Hawleywood men’s barber shop ruffles feminist feathers (6 September 2016) Australia

All Clubs at Harvard Have to Be Gender Neutral—Except Women’s Clubs (16 August 2016)

SheShed importer says demand has exceeded all expectations  (17 July 2016)

Michigan State University Faces Civil Rights Complaint Over WOMEN-ONLY Lounge In Student Union (12 July 2016)

Glastonbury Festival 2016: Glasto will have a women-only venue for the first time (5 June 2016) See also here

Safe Space Shut Down After Anti-White, Anti-Male Statements Leaked (31 May 2016)

Burlesque, body shots and bi-curious: Sydney gets its first Skirt Club (30 May 2016)

Australia: Tuggeranong Men’s Shed split over allowing women to join (February 2016) Reddit post with linked sources

Man Sues Gym over ‘Women Only Hours’ (Youtube video)

The Colonization of Male Space (5 August 2010)

Australian 2016 Federal Election: No party willing to step up to the mark for men & boys

The last Australian federal election was held on 2 July 2016, and was ultimately (narrowly) won by the Liberal Party/National Party Coalition.

This post concerns those gender-related policy positions adopted by the three main players during the campaign: the Australian Labor Party (ALP), the Liberal Party/National Party Coalition (LNP), and The Greens.

In another blog post I provide details regarding the relevant positions adopted by some of the minor parties.

Gender issues did not feature amongst the key issues debated during the election campaign. The one specific gender-related issue which was aired was domestic violence. With that in mind, let’s look at what the major parties had to say on that topic:

The Domestic Violence statement provided in the ALP web site can be found here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0

The Domestic Violence statement within the Liberal Party web site is accessible here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 1. That sole mention refers to the contentious ‘Mensline’ counselling service – read more about Mensline here.

The Domestic Violence statement in the National Party web site is here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0

The Greens Domestic Violence Policy is here. The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0. By way of contrast, the word ‘women’ features 31 times.

None of the major parties have shown any interest in addressing issues that detrimentally affect men and boys. None of them have issued significant statements in support of male victims of domestic violence, nor have they made reference to female perpetration of violence.

The major parties are essentially all in lockstep with the feminist movement, the only area of divergence being the amount of money that each is willing to relegate to/waste on feminist causes.

Amongst the major parties, the Greens offer the most ardently pro-feminist perspective, with the ALP running a close second. It was the Greens, for example, who were the driving force behind the current federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality.

The federal budget released by the Government in May 2016 represented the first salvo in the election campaign:

“In this Budget the Government has allocated $100.0 million over three years for Domestic and Family Violence: New Initiatives To Break the Cycle of Violence. This builds on the $101.2 million provided for a Women’s Safety Package announced by the Government in September 2015 (detailed in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Year Outlook 2015–16). This measure will draw on the recommendations of the Third Action Plan (part of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–22), due for release in mid-2016. [Footnote]” (Source)

Further details of what were proposed and some related background information are provided at:

Domestic and family violence budget review 2016-17
The number of times the terms ‘men’ or ‘male’ (e.g. male victims) feature in this document = 0. Again, by way of contrast, the word ‘women’ features 28 times.

Budget Paper No. 2. Part 2 Expense measures. Social Services (See Domestic and Family Violence — new initiatives to break the cycle of violence)

With respect to media coverage, the first relevant item I noticed discussed one particular funding measure announced by the Government … see ‘Family violence legal aid boost of $30 million won’t solve crisis: Lawyers‘ (12 May 2016). As is essentially ‘par for the course’ , the article implies that all victims of domestic violence are female.

The next cab off the rank was the ALP in ‘Federal Election 2016 Campaign: Bill Shorten promises $65 million funding boost to family violence services‘ (14 May 2016)

“Labor will provide funding certainty to frontline family violence organisations if it wins government, Bill Shorten has promised. The Opposition Leader has committed $65 million over six years to ensure 1800 RESPECT, Our Watch and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) can continue their work in tackling family violence.”

Again, each of the major Australian political parties is unambiguously pro-feminist, regardless of how overtly they choose to express it. At this point none of these parties have chosen to raise awareness of, or to provide practical support for, male victims of domestic violence.

During an otherwise tedious and predictable campaign at least Mark Latham entertained via poking pins into feminist/white knight thought bubbles.

Further coverage of gender issues during the campaign:

Feminist group ‘Fair Agenda‘ compiled their own scorecard on how the parties stack up in relation to domestic violence. You can probably guess that their criteria differ from my own.

Here is the election wish-list of another feminist group, the ‘Australian Women Against Violence Alliance‘. They sent me a tweet stating “All victims should have access to support” yet there is no mention of male victims here.

Suicide prevention funding not reaching men says Labor senator (16 June 2016)

Bill Shorten speech launching Labor’s gender equality policy (11 June 2016) Bill uses the word ‘men’ five times versus 55 times in the case of ‘women’. Whilst Australian women get reassurance, support and encouragement, the men get this:

“men who have harmed them and their children”
“men rely on women for childcare”
“childcare remains a responsibility that Australian men too often unfairly leave to Australian women”
“25 per cent of women nominate a lack of childcare as their reason for leaving the workforce. In the case of men, it is 3 per cent.”
“It is primitive and wrong that women are paying the mortgage on houses occupied by men who have harmed them and their children”

The ALP sees providing a myriad of policies to support women whilst providing none to address men’s issues as “gender equality”. But wait, there’s more.

Bill goes on to state that “Australia cannot afford six Liberal years of ‘budgets for blokes’.” Seriously Bill? You mean all that money lavished on the Ministry of Men’s Affairs? Oh wait, there isn’t one is there? In fact all I can see is hundreds of millions poured into organisations like these.

**I challenge Bill or any other ALP politician to add a comment to this post providing examples of current federal budgetary allocations which they feel only benefit “blokes”**

Bill has also promised a hand-out for women’s health. Real men don’t get sick right, mate? {insert gratuitous joke about ‘man-flu’ here}

What might political parties include in their electoral platforms if, you know, they gave a damn about men and boys? In this paper a fellow put forward some ideas in relation to the  2015 UK election.

Female journalists expose barrage of federal election sexist abuse (1 July 2016) With just one example of alleged abuse provided in this and the linked article, and no details provided regarding online abuse of male reporters, it’s hardly convincing case of a campaign of gendered trolling.

Despite the rhetoric, this election fails the feminist test (28 June 2016) The word ‘women’ appears 17 times in this piece by rusted-on feminist Eva Cox (‘men’ = 0 btw). But it’s ok, as we are reassured that “feminist issues are about a better society for all, not just advancing women in a male defined world”. And while feminists want more, they are being offered a veritable buffet compared to the situation for men/boys.

“While both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have issued women’s policy documents, these are strong on equality rhetoric but short on the continuing gender inequities, instead offering some funding to fix service problems.” What a shame that the dog chewed the corresponding men’s policy documents.

Election 2016: Labor commits $88 million to provide safe houses for domestic violence victims (11 June 2016)

The f-word enters the campaign and trips up both major parties (8 June 2016)

Malcolm Turnbull declares himself a feminist and chokes up over his family history, Turnbull finds it easy to declare himself a feminist, and Grandfather PM talks up the power of girls (6 June 2016)

Australian Brotherhood of Fathers election campaign round-up (2 June 2016)

Gender differences in voting intentions in the current campaign as of 16 May 2016

Gender differences in voting patterns in previous Australian elections

Powerful coalition of women call for both parties to stop their war on women‘ (17 May 2016) The election campaign demands of one feminist organisation (WEL)

Why neither party should ignore gender in this election (13 May 2016)

Domestic violence: Rosie Batty launches Australian election campaign push (5 May 2016)

Finally, a quick glimpse of what’s happening in the U.S Presidential campaign: here and here. This UK article is entitled ‘Why are men’s issues consistently ignored in electoral manifestos?‘  (29 May 2017)

Here is Bill Shorten’s take on domestic violence – notice how much attention he offers re: male victims. (July 2017)

It looks like the 2019 federal campaign may see gender issues given a higher profile, though I suspect purely employing the feminist perspective. Here was the first shot fired … (more details here)

Shorten promises $400 million to boost women’s superannuation (19 September 2018)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in the following posts:

Partners in alms: A primer on the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’

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

Dealing with mens issues – The current situation in Australia

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