feminism – Page 8 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Regarding the notion of ‘ironic misandry’

August 2014 saw the publication of a number of articles discussing an unfortunate development in the gender debate that has been labelled ‘ironic misandry’.

Misandry is, of course, the irrational fear and loathing of men. These articles spawned the #MaleTears hashtag on Twitter, as well as the production and marketing of a range of products on the theme, such as coffee mugs and t-shirts.

The Rise of the Ironic Man Hater by Amanda Hess (8 August 2014)
Me and my #MaleTears: Facing the consequences of ironic hatred by Ally Fogg (10 August 2014)
Ironic Misandry: Why Feminists Pretending to Hate Men isn’t Funny by Sarah Begley (12 August 2014)
Hating men isn’t funny, says writer who doesn’t get good jokes by Dayna Evans (12 August 2014)
Your Guide to Understanding Ironic Misandry by Clementine Ford (26 August 2014)

I loathe the concept of ironic misandry and see it as yet another symptom of an ideology that has gone seriously off the rails. Here’s why:

1. Ironic misandry is entirely at odds with the credo of ‘do unto others’

According to Wikipedia, “the Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following:

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated

This concept describes a reciprocal, or two-way, relationship between one’s self and others that involves both sides equally, and in a mutual fashion.”

Many of us think of ‘do unto others’ as being a Christian credo, but the same or similar phrase is common to many religions and cultures across history. That’s no accident. ‘Do unto others’ is a noble and eminently sound ideal that would be understood and supported by most reasonable people.

Ironic misandry runs contrary to how I want to treat others or be treated myself. Ironic misandry does not represent how I want my friends and family to be treated, and I don’t think it’s how most women want their male friends or family members to be treated. And don’t even try to suggest that mocking men is different because … patriarchy.

And in terms of the community generally, how would most women would react were this concept to be turned back onto them in the form of ‘ironic misogyny’? But more on that later.

2. Ironic misandry isn’t ironic

The definition of ‘irony’ is:

the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.

But the indisputable fact is that real life feminists don’t believe or act in the opposite manner, i.e. treat men in a loving and respectful manner. Look at my posts on feminism, feminist anger, and feminist censorship for examples of what feminists say about men and how they treat them. Heck, just look at comments by Clementine Ford in her paper listed above, or Samantha Allen in this article.

Clementine Ford describes the “I bathe in male tears” logo and associated paraphernalia as “one glorious phrase and a handful of beautiful associated memes“. She goes on to state that “images such as the above pillory the buffoonery of the MRA movement while giving increasingly stressed out and undermined women a means of laughing at the enemy.”

So despite the fact that feminists are always telling us how they don’t hate men, Clementine has no qualms about referring to us as “the enemy“. (Oh I get it, just joking, right?)

Ironic misandry isn’t rocking the boat with regards to the status quo – it’s reinforcing it.

The proponents of ironic misandry consider it first and foremost a humorous invention. I beg to differ. As would, I would suggest, most mature adults concerned about social justice and the welfare of men and boys. In fact pretty much anyone with an ounce of empathy, a conscience, and a brain in their head. Either way, you can’t change sexist bigotry into something else just by claiming it is funny. As they say, “a monkey in silk is a monkey no less“.

Regardless of the selective blindness of feminists, many men and boys are suffering and their tears are very real. For example, we have just experienced the suicide of comic genius Robin Williams, at a time when the suicide rate for men is substantially greater than for women. Ditto for homelessness, etc.

3. Ironic misandry erodes mutual respect between the genders

Ironic misandry removes even further respect between the genders, when mutual respect is an essential ingredient in moving onwards and upwards with the gender debate. We need to be doing everything we can to build respect not eroding it further. Ironic misandry and other feminist devices like it will condemn us to many more years of lobbing grenades from trench to trench instead of working together to address a multitude of issues of shared concern.

Given that that the original ‘Slate’ article has been addressed by others, I’ll conclude this post with some comments in relation to the paper by Clementine Ford which I found to be particularly noisome:

MRAs will have you believe that misandry is:
a) rampant within the feminist community and
b) capable of causing equal if not greater harm to men than millennia of oppression and disadvantage could ever possibly do to women.

As I indicated earlier misandry IS rampant within the feminist community, as is feminist denial about that fact. I challenge you to assume a male identity and go online and try to post reasonable comments in debates regarding gender, and see how you are treated. How you are are routinely abused. How your posts are removed. How often you are banned, excluded, denied a voice.

Oh, and by the way Clementine, didn’t you/your editor close your article to comments so very quickly once the expected support failed to materialise? Let’s see what reader Jane was able to contribute before the shutters came down on your sideshow:

Baffled to why teenage girls don’t describe themselves as feminists? Re-read this article and imagine yourself as a teenage girl looking for relevance to her life. Instead of a reasoned argument, inspiration or anything that might be impacting her now or in the future, Clem “click-bait” Ford delivers a short rant on why it’s fun to ridicule certain people on the internet. Sure it might be a “release valve” to Ford who must have to deal with some crazy nutters on the internet but if this is the only article they read on feminism this week while asking, “Am I a feminist?” then I can understand why many, a few or even one young woman might reply, “If this is feminism, then no.”

Feminists just love to exaggerate the position of MRA with assertions like “MRA claim that men are more oppressed than women”, “MRA would have you believe that everything bad that happens to men is because of women”, and so on, and on. Can Clementine point us towards even one reference where MRA have stated that misandry can cause more harm than all the oppression and disadvantage ever experienced by women? Of course, she can’t – because no MRA ever made such a statement.

“Misogyny and misandry are treated by MRAs as interchangeable things, with the latter being widely viewed as ‘just as bad, if not worse’.”

No, MRA treat these as two distinct things. The fact that some MRA might consider ‘misandry’ to be worse, is due only to the level of denial and hypocrisy within the feminist movement (regarding their inherent misandry), and the resultant chasm between how feminists demand to be treated and how they treat others.

“Feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy, thus liberating both women and men from its suffocating clutches.”

OK, Clementine, please provide some examples of feminism “liberating” men from anything.

“Humour is a vital tool for feminists lest we lose our marbles completely when dealing with the irrational and factually incorrect bleatings of people who, among other things, argue that sexual violence statistics have been made up by feminist run government agencies to oppress man’s sexual nature.”

Clementine, some examples please of statements made by MRA that are “factually incorrect”, or where MRA have claimed that sexual violence statistics were made up … “to oppress man’s sexual nature”. MRA have highlighted inaccuracies and distortions within statistics related to domestic violence, sexual assault, and other issues. I invite you to examine and comment upon the many examples that are provided in my blog posts on these topics. MRA raise these concerns only in the interest of enabling informed public debate based on a balanced and accurate portrayal of these important social issues.

4. Gender reversal: What happens when a man attempts ironic misogyny?

In 2010 Paul Elam published an article entitled ‘October is the 5th annual Bash a Violent Bitch Month‘ in response to an earlier article in the feminist journal ‘Jezebel’. Although Paul has always asserted his article was satirical, years later it is still cited by feminists as proof of the alleged hideous misogyny of the men’s rights movement. A well-written discussion of Paul’s article can be found here.

In early 2016, Daryush ‘Roosh’ Valizadeh hit the headlines across the world when it was reported that he supported the legalisation of rape. This is what he actually wrote. Roosh’s article is explained further in ‘What Roosh’s satire exposed about modern-day socialism’.

Did feminists extend the same patience and understanding towards Paul’s or Roosh’s ironic offerings, to which they themselves felt entitled? Absolutely not, and in Roosh’s case both he and his supporters were subjected to a global campaign of harassment and threats of violence. Yes, the very same behaviour that feminists angrily assert that men oppress women with. Anyway read both this article and this one, and you can form your own view.

Moving forward to June 2016, and Australian TV personality Eddie McGuire chose to offer up a little of his own brand of irony. Team feminism went ballistic. And on and on they went:

I refuse to date men who like footy, by Koraly Dimitriadis (13 July 2016)
Time to call BS on the ‘just jokes’ defence, by Chris Bath (28 June 2016)
There can be a fine line between humour and menace in blokes banter, by David Penberthy (26 June 2016) Male self-loathing tosh (**Then read a good rebuttal by Mark Dent here**)
This is what happens when you call out sexism in Australia (25 June 2016)
Police: Don’t take McGuire’s comments lightly (23 June 2016)

And finally, Miranda Devine’s sensible comments on the matter here

See also:

The evidence is mounting – a man’s place is in the home (4 November 2017) I don’t see the humour here but the author, Hadley Freeman, claims it’s satire:

Hadley’s article was very similar to this 27 October 2017 article in Slate.com

In this article Irish feminists reject the notion of misandry (October 2017)

“It is impossible to have an “ingrained prejudice” against men when we live in a world made by men for men. In a patriarchal society, the idea of men who are oppressed by virtue of their gender could never be anything but a joke.“

Clementine Ford: This is the personal price I pay for speaking out online (13 July 2017) Such a martyr to the cause of misandry. And “a message that was quite clearly withering satire” Oh yes. Clearly. Because vagina.

Men shouldn’t get offended by people saying that “men are trash” (12 July 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Michelle Carter found guilty by judge in text message suicide case (16 June 2017) USA

Why you should think twice before laughing at that rape joke online (8 June 2017) Clementine Ford rails against “dark humour” – now that’s ironic

I am so sick of people acting like “misandry” is equivalent to misogyny (1 June 2017) These feminists won’t even concede that misandry is a thing.

Forget your PC nonsense, this hormone needs to be banned from workplaces (29 May 2017)

Bad Girls Advice members call for the group to be shut down after posts made fun of terror attack (24 May 2017) In this case, not so much ‘ironic misandry’ as ‘ironic misanthropy’

‘Anti-feminism’ posters at American University investigated as a ‘hate crime’ (10 March 2017)

The one question I’d like to ask those who defend Wicked Campers’ vile ‘humour’ by Clementine Ford (19 February 2017)

Woman urges people to ‘murder all male babies’ (24 January 2017)

Women kicking balls, I’d like to see that (22 January 2017) New Australian women’s football ad campaign

Hwages: Music clip sparks debate, celebration in Saudi Arabia (5 January 2017)

#KillAllMen: A feminist play at Australia’s National Institute Dramatic Art (October 2016) as discussed in this blog post

“Eight women create an internet utopia where they discuss the most intimate details of their lives, the most righteous, and the most hilarious. Dating, camming, work, love, and how to be an out and proud feminist. But when one of them disappears after being attacked everything changes. #KillAllMen suddenly moves from joke to reality.”

Feminists treat men badly. It’s bad for feminism, by Cathy Young (30 June 2016)

Now this IS ironic (25 May 2016) USA

Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson’s diversity solution: ‘Kill’ all the old white men (13 February 2016) UK

Men: Here are ten perfect holiday gifts for the feminist in your life (21 December 2015) So a Masters in Gender Studies qualifies someone to write articles like this … impressive

The Year in Male Tears (21 December 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

Some people sadly missed the point about #MasculinitySoFragile (24 September 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Hateful Guardian writer Julie Bindel proposes Feminazi concentration camps for all men (5 September 2015) Further good paper on this issue here (The Other McCain)

Ironic Misandry Claims Its First Victim, by Amanda Hess (22 May 2015) and here is other side of this story

The irony of ironic misandry (13 May 2015)

‘Rape prevention tips’ go viral. Upset men (23 March 2015)

29 Perfect Accessories For All Women Who Don’t Give A F*ck (22 March 2015)

And of course it’s definitely NOT funny should some men attempt to start their own campaign with a similarly whimsical theme (16 March 2015)

Feminists are bad comedians (15 March 2015)

http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/2d0wax/tw_not_tumblr_men_that_dont_laugh_at_ironic/ (the disscussion thread from which the discussion thread extract shown above was sourced)

No, we don’t literally want to ban men. But 2014 was the year women got even (16 December 2014)

Samantha Allen explains why she hates men (7 November 2014) An example of not-so-ironic misandry

Deprogramming women’s hatred of men (10 September 2014)

The ironical irony of ironic misandry (4 September 2014)

Clementine cashes in (12 September 2013)

Clementine Ford on “those accusations” and what motivates her activism (22 August 2014)

Misandry: Feminists Pretend to Hate Men and It’s Not Funny | Time (12 August 2014)

Clementine Ford calling fellow feminists stupid (8 May 2012)

More bleating from Clementine Ford by Greg Canning (3 June 2012)

Down under news roundup by Greg Canning (14 September 2013) Refer para.6

The Misandry Choir by Andy Bob (31 December 2012)

Deep down in places feminists don’t talk about at parties (‘pussy cartel’)

Let’s set aside the dictionary definition of feminism. And all the nice cuddly things feminists are quoted as saying in the mainstream media. There are other significant considerations or issues of concern to real-world feminists. But even though they may feel deeply about them, they rarely admit to it. This post is about one such issue. It’s referred to under different names including women’s sexual currency, erotic capital, or the ‘pussy cartel’.

Have you ever wondered why feminists have such a visceral reaction to the topic of western men with foreign wives, prostitution (involving men paying women for sex), men viewing pornography, men using sex aids for solo pleasure, and MGTOW?

That reaction is summed up succinctly in this post in a discussion thread about men with foreign wives:

“Anything that gives men more options seems to piss them off. Also why they despise prostitution. They really seem to think that women derive value from sex, and treat any women who aren’t trading it for things as they see fit, the way a union views scabs.” (Source)

Yes, sure, that’s just one person commenting about a one particular topic. But I have seen the same suggestion put forward, often simply as an aside, by others in many separate discussions about the various topics listed above.

Granted this does not apply to all women who identify as feminists, but please let’s not divert into the maze that is NAFALT. Likewise I won’t be side-tracked into discussions as to the fairness or appropriateness of women choosing to sleep with alpha males rather than ‘nice guys’, or remaining celibate, or whatever. Women can choose to do pretty much whatever they want with their own bodies. And, aside from women in sexual servitude in third-world countries, women exercise this choice every day of their lives. Good for them.

What I do object to though, is the denial and hypocrisy surrounding the reality of modern-day sexual mores, and of feminists claiming the moral high ground when often so very poorly qualified to do so. And to those who acknowledge reality but attempt to lay responsibility at the feet of the ‘patriarchy’, I say nonsense! Utter nonsense!

In the film ‘A Few Good Men‘, a ‘Code Red’ was said to be an unofficial military order to rough up an uncooperative soldier, with the aim of enforcing and strengthening team unity. Who remembers Jack Nicholson (as Col. Jessep) bellowing the line: “You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.”.

Is it true in fact that feminists recognise that a woman’s strongest (and increasingly now their only significant) bargaining chip is their power to grant or withhold sexual relief?

Is it not also that feminists see people who fall into the categories mentioned above (e.g. men with Asian wives, etc) as devaluing the sexual currency of women, and loathe them for it? Often even seeking retribution against them?

Does the feminist version of a ‘Code Red’ consist of a package of shaming tactics? For example, slut-shaming for prostitutes and party girls. Shaming of men with Asian wives with comments like “you couldn’t get a woman in your own country” and “you’re too weak to handle a union of equals“.

This theme is explored further in the following papers:

Why Do Men Watch Porn? (25 April 2021)

Pornographic Progress, Sexbots and the Salvation of Man (7 April 2016)

Author Tells Women to Use Their “P*ssy Power” to Get the Men They Want (6 April 2015)

Study reveals price plays exclusive part in women’s approval of sexualy explicit advertisements (9 December 2013)

Seems like its women who mostly slut-shame (27 September 2014)

You can’t get laid in the United States (26 September 2011)

http://theumlaut.com/2013/07/02/the-economics-of-slut-shaming/

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/sex-cartel/

http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/20ptr7/stormblade260_explains_why_people_think_women/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-women-without-any-rights-know-all-about-erotic-capital-2341700.html

http://www.the-niceguy.com/articles/SupplyDemand.html

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/08/sexual-economics/

Gender hypocrisy in porn debate (25 September 2013) This article was also reproduced in the AVfM web site with readers comments (some quite funny)

Intimate partner sexual abuse (3 August 2014)

Feminism’s homophobic roots – demanding compulsory heterosexuality because homosexuality oppresses women (A discussion thread on reddit/mensrights, July 2014) One reads little about the relationship between feminism and gay males, although there are quite a few gay male MRA.

Women should masturbate but men who do are lonely creeps

They’re afraid of men masturbating (20 September 2010)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nica-noelle/are-women-sexually-oppressing-men_b_5582485.html

Reddit discussion thread on slut-shaming

A Cold War fought by women, The New York Times (18 November 2013)

Women call other women sluts to guard their social standing: Study (29 May 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in reading:

Western men with Asian women: Gender relations through a different frame of reference

On Australian men seeking foreign partners

On sex, sexuality and sluts

Girls showing their bits = empowerment? patriarchal exploitation? self-indulgence? other?

On prostitution

Will fembots be a game changer?

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

I was reading through an article the other day and noted the phrase: “All the research suggests that businesses perform better if you have a critical mass of women in the senior ranks. It’s right that businesses focus on that” (Source)

I’ve seen the same or very similar comments advanced elsewhere, generally in the absence of citation of actual research. It brings to mind another much-used feminist mantra: “The overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women”. It’s like, well it’s sounds right, it’s been stated by some well-known feminist/s, thus we should accept it and just move on.

So moving right along … I watched a segment on the morning TV show ‘Sunrise’ this morning, as it had been promoted as being about how companies that had women at the helm performed better. Allegedly proved via the results of a “new international study”. They also mentioned that the tired old issue of the gender pay gap would also be addressed.

The Sunrise Facebook page (17 August 2014) states:

“The companies that perform best financially have the greatest numbers of women in leadership roles, according to one of the most comprehensive workplace studies ever undertaken.

The study looked at 2,000 organisations in 48 countries, but is not the first to suggest that women leaders boost a company’s financial performance. The study showed that women only hold 28% of leadership positions, despite the fact that lucrative companies had a higher percentage of women leaders.

In Australia, men are paid on average 17.1% more than women to do the same job. Less than 5% of our top CEO’s are women. Why do you think this is the case?”

The discussion was between the ‘Sunrise’ hosts and two women: Margie Warrell and Nicki Gilmour. Very early on in the segment Nicki stated “well I [haven’t seen] didn’t do the study and I’ve [only] seen it briefly“. Huh? I thought it was central to the segment?

I went hunting for details of this research, and then posted queries on Twitter (to Sunrise and Margie Warrell) and the Sunrise Facebook page seeking a URL for the study in question. Nothing, so I emailed the Sunrise production team to ask the same question on 18 August 2014. Nil response … ever … you can draw your own conclusions from that.

So I guess I have to ask … just how desperate were the ‘Sunrise’ production team to milk the gender issue that they chose to run with this story? Is it really good enough (in the media’s eyes) to just assert something without producing any tangible evidence to support it?

I am aware of some related research within the web site of Mike Buchanan, but the studies he cited found the opposite relationship to be true (i.e. bringing women into senior roles sometimes had a negative impact on company performance). See for example:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/a-remarkable-statement-by-a-leading-proponent-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-the-boardroom/

One would hope that the media would seek to present a diversity of opinions regarding this, and other gender-related, matters. Alas no.

I am also aware of the 2011 study undertaken by the Reibey Institute in Australia. That survey is different, however, in that it only looked at the difference in performance between companies that have no women directors versus those that have at least one. That also seems to have been the case with another study undertaken by Credit Suisse (see also actual study here).

Clearly many variables need to be identified and accounted for when attempting business comparisons such as these, other than simply ‘Performance’ versus the presence of a woman on the board. Even were this hurdle competently addressed in the above-mentioned studies, it could not be said that the presence of additional women on the board (and/or in senior management, as the case may be) would result in further incremental improvements in performance. This is an important point bearing in mind that those who raise this topic often do so in the context of talking-up the concept of gender quotas.

The Business Council of Australia 2013 report entitled ‘Increasing the Number of Women in Senior Executive Positions‘ also mentions the Catalyst Group survey in the USA, but this doesn’t appear to track relative business performance. Mike Buchanan also mentions the Catalyst Group study in one of his blog posts where he states:

“In all the reports we’ve analysed – including those from the feminist campaign group Catalyst, to which Ms Sunderland refers – it’s made crystal clear that correlation [between business performance and having women on the board] isn’t evidence of causation, and can’t even be taken to imply it.”

Additionally, a double-standard seems to apply when the CEO/politician in question fails to perform. When it’s a woman, a defence is often mounted on the basis that criticism was due to sexism. Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton are two classic examples. In the case of men, such a claim would be extremely unusual.

I don’t have an axe to grind about whether board members or senior staff are male or female, only that the decision should be based on qualifications, skills and experience. And if they subsequently fail to perform then they should be shown the door. Again, regardless of gender.

What I do object to is the media, or others in a position to influence or educate, presenting as reality some belief or another that has yet to be substantiated via fact-based analysis. That, and having the credibility bar set at widely differing levels depending on the extent to which the particular view being espoused falls within current-day parameters of political correctness.

In closing, I remain unaware of any suitably rigorous studies that make a sufficiently strong case that more women in a business = stronger performance. Should a reader know of some then please advise accordingly.

See also:

Former UNE vice chancellor Brigid Heywood sentenced for offensive behaviour (7 May 2025) … and here’s Ms Haywood a little earlier on, waving her feminist flag: Gender Equity, then and now (18 July 2019)

A hilarious new article by Professor Susan Vinnicombe, professor of women and leadership at Cranfield University (27 November 2024)

Why women destroy nations & civilizations and other uncomfortable truths (28 November 2024) Video

China’s ‘beautiful governor’ Zhong Yang jailed over affairs with 58 subordinates (30 September 2024)

Women on top, by Bettina Arndt (26 June 2024) Recommended reading

Managers Tend To Sugarcoat Women’s Reviews To Their Disadvantage, New Research Shows (21 June 2024)

A seemingly light-hearted study on women’s haircut advice has surprisingly dark psychological implications (20 October 2023)

‘Significant concerns’ in Downing Street as NatWest boss quits over Farage leak (26 July 2023)

Labour MP Jess Phillips under investigation for breach of parliamentary rules (27 April 2023)

CEO tells employees to stop complaining about not receiving bonuses while she gets $1.2m bonus (18 April 2023)

Frank founder criminally charged with fraud over $175 million JPMorgan deal (4 April 2023)

The ‘women on boards’ scam: Campaign for Merit in Business publicly challenges Hanneke Smits, CEO of BNY Mellon Investment Management and the new Global Chair of The 30% Club, to answer some questions and wind up The 30% Club (13 February 2023)

The ‘women on boards’ scam: Our public challenges of four leading proponents (14 December 2022)

Kamala Harris and Female Sexual Power, by Janice Fiamengo (25 September 2022) Recommended reading

Woman sparks debate after accusing other women of being ‘toxic’ and saying mothers often ‘abuse and bully’ daughters and she prefers working with men (14 August 2022)

Grammar-challenged judge fingered in road rage incident at Brooklyn school (16 July 2022)

Virgin Australia and its boss Jayne Hrdlicka hit with bullying claim (12 April 2022)

‘I am being bullied’: Kimberley Kitching made formal complaint before her death (17 March 2022) Australia

Mike Buchanan’s Campaign for Merit in Business (undated)

“Mike presented oral evidence to the House of Commons “Women in the Workplace” inquiry in November 2012, along with Steve Moxon, the author of The Woman Racket (2008), and Dr Catherine Hakim, the world-renowned sociologist whose paper on Preference Theory (2000) revealed that while four in seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is. THAT is the single most important explanation – not nebulous “barriers” – for why fewer women than men make it to the top of companies and other major organizations (at least on the basis of merit, with a level playing field).”

We need to talk about Karen, by Paula Wright (13 February 2022)

Watters: This was Ocasio-Cortez’s downfall (1 February 2022) Video

Women Bullied At Work: Here’s Why Your Female Boss Doesn’t Support You (19 February 2020)

Ending Australia’s gender pay gap: ‘Managers can make or break DEI’ (28 October 2021) A recent spray from the pro-feminist sector – to be reviewed

The Great Cancellation: The new movement coming to expose bad bosses (28 October 2021) Typical – the article isn’t about bad bosses – it’s about (allegedly) bad *male* bosses.

Elizabeth Holmes Plans To Accuse Ex-Boyfriend Of Abuse At Trial : NPR (28 August 2021) Heck, don’t you know, only men can be held accountable?

Is ‘gender equality’ the new sexism? – Dentistry (5 July 2021)

Rosemary Rogers: How fraudster former NAB chief of staff’s lavish life unravelled (14 December 2020)

When women commit war crimes (28 October 2020)

Women-led businesses are being excluded from the government’s Boosting Female Founders initiative (23 October 2020) Australia. Nothing similar for males, but let’s ask for more anyway.

‘Inferior’: British wife ordered to pay $180k for racial abuse of Aussie Duncan Bendall (9 September 2020) Ewww. And she was a feminist too, it would appear

Trigger warning! Female CEO deviates from the IT & Women script (2 April 2018) Video

Judge accused of drinking, having sex in court removed from bench (1 September 2020) USA

Mike Buchanan is highly critical of an article by Dame Helena Morrissey (28 July 2020) UK

It can seriously pay to get more women into leadership. This new research shows how (18 June 2020) Addresses recent Australian research by Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre and the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). This research is also summarized in this ABC article of 19 June 2020. It is strongly asserted that the findings constitute proof of a causation effect in appointing a female CEO significantly boosts company performance.

Audrey Gelman steps down as CEO of The Wing as employees stage a digital walkout criticising the company for failing to ‘practice the intersectional feminism that it preaches’ (12 June 2020)

Nick Farr-Jones slams Rugby Australia’s management (4 April 2020)

Queensland chief scientist pleads guilty to fraud (12 March 2020)

Labour councillor, 30, collected thousands of pounds in rent from three properties but lied so she could live in council flat for 12 years, court hears (7 February 2020)

Goldman Sachs will no longer do IPO’s for companies with all-male boards (23 January 2020) From 1 July 2020 Goldman Sachs will not work on IPO’s from companies that don’t have at least one “diverse” board member

Isabel dos Santos: Africa’s richest woman ‘ripped off Angola’ (20 January 2020)

Investor bias is real and it’s bad news for women (2 December 2019)

Naked doped-up Congresswoman showing off Nazi-era tattoo, smoking bong nude with staff (25 October 2019)

Janice McAleese: Ex-NI Events Company boss sentenced (23 October 2019) UK

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes reportedly can’t pay lawyer’s fees (7 October 2019)

Mike Buchanan’s letter to the Economics Editor of The Times newspaper (10 July 2019) UK

Kids Company founder urges judge to spare her the ‘stress’ of a court case over the charity’s financial meltdown after taking £42m of public money (14 May 2019)

Janice Fiamengo‏ tells – More lies about women in leadership positions, how much BETTER they are than men: new patents go through roof, profits skyrocket! Will the nonsense never end? I have many meta-studies to prove it just ain’t so. (17 April 2019)

NSW Police arrest company director in NAB fraud scandal investigation (1 March 2019)

Sacked ABC boss Michelle Guthrie rated as ‘arrogant’ and ‘in bottom 4 per cent for integrity’ (29 November 2018)

Charity defrauder also faked cancer (14 November 2018)

Michelle Guthrie departs from role as Managing Director of the ABC (24 September 2018) “Despite offering praise for some of Ms Guthrie’s work, Mr Milne said her leadership style was a factor in the board’s decision.” And then Michelle claimed to have been “touched inappropriately” by former Chairman.

British companies need a ‘genuine culture change’ to get rid of alpha males and promote women, say ministers (13 September 2018)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Tries To Blame Sexism For People Calling Out Her Claims (11 August 2018) So if we can acknowledge that appointments are made on the basis of gender, then so too it appears that appointees can subsequently dismiss criticism on the basis of it just being sexism.

‘We took turns being her slave’: MP’s staff (21 July 2018)

Female leaders are valued over males – Evidence from almost 100 studies (21 October 2017) Reddit discussion thread and linked academic paper

High-ranked women less generous than men when sharing a reward with their collaborators (10 October 2017)

Christine Nixon’s cries of sexism deflect from her shortcomings (27 July 2017)

Manchester International Festival: Putting women in control of the world (5 July 2017) No reader’s comment permitted, but some discussion on Twitter with a very similar article running in The Guardian.

Diane Abbott – the woman Corbyn trusts to protect Britain from terrorists – embarrasses herself in new car crash interview (6 June 2017) UK

Though Outnumbered, Female CEOs Earn More Than Male Chiefs (31 May 2017)

More on Eman Sharobeem’s rorting (17 May 2017) … and the outcome in September 2018

Community health boss ‘rorted’ holiday, jewellery, gym (1 May 2017) Australia

“A contender for the NSW Australian of the Year awards rorted more than half a million dollars in public funds while she was in charge of two publicly funded community health organisations, a corruption inquiry has been told.”

Women hate being CEOs – and they suck at it (8 April 2017) with a follow-up article entitled ‘Do men make better CEO’s than women?’ here.

The blokey culture of finance means we’re missing out on a mountain of ability (18 January 2017) Australia needs a female Treasurer because some qualified women feel hard done by (as do some men), because a woman would do the job better, and well … because.

Arlene Foster describes calls for resignation as ‘misogynistic’ (4 January 2017) Northern Ireland

Argentina ex-leader Cristina Fernandez charged in corruption case (27 December 2016)

#Girlboss author Sophia Amoruso speaks about Nasty Gal’s bankruptcy and her resignation (11 November 2016)

Hillary only thanks women and girls in her concession speech. Then she wonders why so many men don’t vote for her. Feminists & SJWs seem unable to learn anything (10 November 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

‘I deeply apologise to the nation’: South Korean president Park Geun-hye (4 November 2016) and then
South Korea’s ousted President ‘sorry,’ leaves mansion (12 March 2017)

Watch incompetent “Chief Human Capital CEO” Emerson from DHS incapable of answering specific questions (30 October 2016)

Female trade minister walks out of trade talks crying. Male opposition MP says we should send an adult. Outrage and sexism (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Ex-Yahoo employee sues Marisa Mayer claiming she led an illegal purge of male employees (8 October 2016)

More women on Qld boards could deliver $87 million: Deloitte report (5 October 2016) Research available here, together with details of the Queensland Government’s ‘Women on Boards’ program (Currently under review)

Want to boost your share price? Hire more women (27 September 2016) I have yet to locate and review the second Credit Suisse study mentioned in this article, so won’t comment further at this juncture.

Feminists seek funding for start-up business but fail to impress potential investors (19 September 2016) Video

Do women prefer female bosses? (18 September 2016)

UK female MP shadow foreign secretary claims “sexism” because she was asked a basic question she did not know the answer to (12 September 2016) Reddit discussion thread with linked article

Disgraced CEO’s heartless response to suicide (9 September 2016)

Women in startups the new disruptors (1 September 2016) Ill-disciplined feminist bandwagon-jumping from a journal that should know better.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

What your shopping habits say about you (4 August 2016) Australia. Women spend more and worry less so that makes them “better financial managers“. Say what? OK so this is about household rather than corporate spending, but it nevertheless promotes a sexist gendered view in relation to potential business acumen. Research summary can be found here

Is There A Double Standard When Female CEOs In Tech Stumble? (3 August 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Saatchi boss Kevin Roberts disciplined over gender comments (31 July 2016) UK. Thou shalt not question the feminist narrative. See related Reddit discussion thread here and related video here. Kevin subsequently resigned his post.

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes goes from $5.9 billion to nothing (17 July 2016)

Yahoo’s False Prophet: How Marissa Mayer Failed to Turn the Company Around (24 May 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Subsequent article on this issue here (19 July 2016) Marissa responds to criticism by lamenting “gender charged reporting“. Like if she was a he, then criticism would evaporate? As if.

“When Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer bought Tumblr for a cool $US1 billion in 2013, she pledged ‘not to screw it up.’ (Three) years later, it’s become apparent that Yahoo has failed on that promise.”

The Intense Scrutiny on Marissa Mayer Shows Women Leaders Get Way More Flak Than Men (3 May 2016) But we’re not allowed to criticize female leaders when they fail to live up to expectations because that’s misogyny

Gender Diversity Doesn’t Boost Corporate Profits (6 April 2016)

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance? (9 March 2016)

What happens when you invest in companies with women at the top (8 March 2016) Australia

ASX 500 companies that employ more women make more profit, study shows (8 March 2016) “Top publicly listed companies that employ more women on their boards make more money, a new study shows, boosting the case for regulations that require big business to set policies to increase gender diversity.”

The relevant study can be found here. Firstly, the study doesn’t find that more women=more profit. The study finds that companies with one or more women on their board generally perform better than companies with no women on their board. Secondly, such a finding in no way supports a case for mandatory quotas, as this could (amongst other things) result in women being appointed with lesser skills than is the case at present.

More women on boards means more money for companies: study (8 March 2016) Australia

Cherie Blair’s healthcare business shuts to leave investors with huge losses (5 March 2016)

Why Women-Led Businesses Outperform Their Peers (18 February 2016) USA. Many studies cited but none provide compelling evidence that the actions of female CEO result in improved business performance. See also readers comments.

More females on boards means more profits for S&P/ASX 200 companies (17 February 2016) Australia

European queens waged more wars thank kings (27 January 2016) USA

Marissa Mayer’s kingdom is crumbling around her (4 January 2016)

Meet Your Saviours & Protectors (4 November 2015) Video concerning the recent unelected appointment of women to positions of power in European countries and the EU

Meet The She-E-Os: Why Do So Many Female Tech CEOs Turn Out to Be Disappointments or Frauds? (27 October 2015)

Google boss: ‘Volkswagen scandal wouldn’t have happened if more women were in charge’ (8 October 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread here

Elizabeth Broderick reveals why Australia must consider quotas to get more women in senior roles (5 September 2015)

Sex in the boardroom (6 June 2015)

Women at the top is better for business and the environment (28 April 2015)

The ‘All blokes’ versus the ‘Gender Diverse’. Guess which boards perform better? (23 April 2015) Australia

Companies with more female executives make more money (23 April 2015) ABC’s The Drum (video)

Yes, we need more women on government boards. Here’s why (31 March 2015) Some good readers comments

Daniel Andrews, board quotas and the myth of ‘insufficient women’ (31 March 2015)

Gender diversity improving at banks, but very slowly (12 March 2015) Australia

Cameron’s naive crusade for boardroom gender diversity will only hurt Britain (9 March 2015)

A Better World, Run by Women (6 March 2015)

6 reasons your business needs female leadership (19 January 2015)

Risky business: why we shouldn’t stereotype female board directors (3 December 2014)

Diversity fatigue: why business still struggles to close the gender gap (25 November 2014) Includes links to further research on the subject which I will review in due course

Gail Kelly’s Margaret Thatcher-style executive team (25 November 2014) The bank with the least number of women directly reporting to the chief executive is the only bank with a woman at the top

The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation (16 June 2012)

“In 2003, a new law required that 40 percent of Norwegian firms’ directors be women – at the time only nine percent of directors were women. We use the pre-quota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin’s Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards.”

Experts: In most cases, accused embezzlers are women (5 March 2012)

Picture of new Italian premier Meloni and text: This woman just smashed the glass ceiling in Europe's oldest country. Meloni is the first woman to lead Italy, yet I can't find a single article celebrating her achievement in the "pro-woman empowerment" American corporate media. Odd. Almost like our media are bullsh*t frauds

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Less than 50/50 representation does not automatically imply ‘gender bias’

On affirmative action and the imposition of gender quotas

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

#IfIWereABoy

Oh here we go again … another hashtag craze. This time it’s #IfIWereABoy, and it’s discussed in this article and here it is on Twitter.

The people at reddit/r/mensrights (and here) have suggested wording for the banners that they think should be held up:

#IfIWereABoy…I’d probably be dead by now

#IfIWereABoy I’d collapse under the pressure of being held responsible for the consequences of my own decisions

#IfIwereaboy, I would be glad that I live in a country where there is no mandatory army service for boys.

#IfIwereaboy I would be scared to go to college in the US because I’d fear a girl would cry “rape” if I did as much as look at her.

#If I were a boy people would make fun of me for the job I love to do, namely being a nurse

#If I were a boy I’d still be in jail.

#If I were a boy I would see my children less.

#If I were a boy I’d had an idea about male socialization and social pressures.

#If I were a boy I wouldn’t hold up this sign.

#If I were a boy I’d be pretty pissed about the lack of empathy on these signs

#If I were a boy I’d probably have had my genitals mutilated at birth

#ifiwereaboy I’d be nine times more likely to die in a work related injury

#ifiwereaboy I’d be expected to work 30% longer hours for the same pay

With regards to the banners that feature in the article the folks have also suggested a number of interesting alternative perspectives for the ladies to consider. See reddit and elsewhere for further details

#womenagainstfeminism

Up till now I have incorporated comments by women opposed to feminism within several earlier posts within this blog, particularly:

About feminism & feminist antipathy towards issues faced by men
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Not all feminists are like that (NAFALT)
Karen Straughan and others on feminist shaming tactics

But in past weeks the #womenagainst feminism hashtag has really taken off, so let’s celebrate this by launching a new post dedicated to the subject.

This is the blog that got people talking (and here it is on Facebook). And then came the feminist backlash, which ranged from bemused to concerned/pleading to (mostly) white hot anger:

They’re right, I don’t understand feminism (22 June 2023)

“Feminist Bitches” Who Needs Them? (11 August 2014) Both the article and readers comments have to be read to be believed – stupid on steroids. But be sure to read the contribution by ‘Bowspearer’ in the readers comments section – most insightful and eloquent.

Glenn Reynolds zaps infamous lib writer Nina Burleigh for #slutshaming young conservative women (2 August 2014)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/14/women-against-feminism-show-how-bad-arguments-against-feminism-really-are/

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/five-times-the-women-against-feminism-tumblr-proved-women-really-need-feminism-20140717-3c2so.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/anti-feminist-women-hobby-lobby-decision-great

http://jezebel.com/things-i-learned-from-womenagainstfeminism-1609067794

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/24/hey_women_against_feminism_feminism_still_has_your_back_so_youre_welcome/

http://the-coveted.com/blog/2014/07/23/why-the-not-feminist-feminist-trend-is-frightening/

http://www.vice.com/read/women-against-feminism-have-a-strange-fixation-on-jars-723

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/24/you-don-t-hate-feminism-you-just-don-t-understand-it.html

Feminist Rebecca mocks the young women appearing in the #IDontNeedFeminism web page

“Women against Feminism” – The unfortunate product of the intimidating and hostile side of modern day feminism (27 July 2014)

Let’s bite the hand that feeds us shall we? (30 July 2014)

Are men behind the #WomenAgainstFeminism blog? (30 July 2014) Becky can’t believe that women would turn against the cult, men must be behind it! Ridiculous beyond belief.

Oh no, wait a minute, this is even more stupid. #womenagainstwomen is apparently for pedophiles and dirty old men (31 July 2014)

And here in Australia the feminists are really frothing at the mouth with rage (see also readers comments) (‘The Conversation’, 18 August 2014) Here nutty feminist ‘Jena’ responds to one of the few anti-feminists who bothered to post comments:

“I actually don’t need to answer to you Andrew and historical record is my proof of the fact that Lincoln, Wilberforce and other reformers have been lionised while your response to this article is singular proof (documented) that females are denigrated for the same work.

Now, it is left to me to also state that females are not compelled to answer to you and so, in future, your comments will be ignored by me at least.”

The Feminine vs. Feminism: Strong Women Rejecting Weak Ideas (1 October 2015)

Feminists aiming to strengthen their foothold in Thailand

July 2014 saw an unusual spate of pro-feminist articles appear in the Thai media, suggesting a concerted effort to raise the profile of feminism there. I first noticed this article in the Bangkok Post, one of the two main English-language newspapers in Thailand. It used a recent terrible crime (the rape and murder of a young girl) as a vehicle to bang the feminism drum in a country that is wonderfully thus far relatively free of the feminist yoke.

Next I came across this article in a popular regional English-language magazine. It discussed a feminist get-together in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The author of that article, Hilary Cadigan, subsequently wrote a follow-up OpEd in response to comments from readers including myself.

On 27 July 2014 the Bangkok Post published an editorial entitled ‘Feminism is not a dirty word‘, which was followed only a few days later by ‘Australia’s ‘hidden’ abusive migrant marriages‘.

That latter article appeared to greatly exaggerate the risk to Asian women in relation to marrying foreign men. Feminist scare tactics like this are ten percent motivated by a desire to protect the welfare of a small minority of Thai women potentially vulnerable to exploitation, and ninety percent about punishing western men who reject feminist-indoctrinated women as partners. (See this post as to one possible reason why)

Some might say “well perhaps Thailand is a country that could benefit from feminism?“. Well yes and no, but mostly no.

Firstly, and by way of background, I am fortunate to be somewhat familiar with the country and its people. I am also aware of the views of western women regarding Thailand, via personal discussions and many years of scanning media and online sources including expat fora. Whilst there are Thai feminists, online discussion and English-language media coverage is driven by female western expats who rankle at the nature of society here. Whilst a few are sensitive and understanding of the nuances of Thai culture, the vast majority are not. Indeed, the depth of Thai experience of too many western commentators is limited to media coverage of sex-trafficking and prostitution, and perhaps a stroll along Pattaya’s Walking Street during a brief holiday stopover.

Unsurprisingly, Thai society does have its share of negative features. As in the west, some of these impact disproportionately against girls and women, some impact disproportionately against men and boys, with most affecting people of all genders. Chief among this latter group of factors is the huge disparity between rich and poor within Thai society.

I have two concerns, the first of which is the nature of feminism and its potential impact on Thai culture. My second concern is more general and involves those who seek to superimpose western mindsets and ‘solutions’ onto/into completely different cultures.

The primary vectors for feminism in Thailand are western women working in embassies, in international organisations (e.g. various UN agencies, World Bank, etc), and in a myriad of western NGO’s and charities.

Readers should also recognise that in Thailand, as in many other countries, there is a substantial financial dimension to feminism. One example of this is a large ‘rescue’ industry that focuses on ‘helping’ women and girls. Never mind that the majority of people trafficked in Thailand are men working in the fishing and construction labor industries, who are the recipients of negligible assistance (and none whatsoever from feminist organisations). This gender bias by aid organisations is a world-wide phenomenon, and is addressed in this other blog post.

My own view is that feminism (or at least that form of feminism now dominant in western society – ‘gender feminism’) is not the remedy that’s needed to effect lasting positive social change in Thailand. The affect of this pernicious ideology would simply introduce new biases and inequities, whilst further eroding traditional aspects of Thai society worthy of being maintained.

A few background articles that might be of interest are:

Wikipedia entry on feminism in Thailand and on Women in Thailand

Thailand’s SIGI rating

Meet the incels and anti-feminists of Asia (27 June 2024) This article from The Economist bemoans the fact that Asian men are daring to say no to the incursion of feminism into their culture

‘Hold. Make. Take Space’ feminist forum in Bangkok (4 August 2022) Supported by UN Women, the Australian government and others. See earlier media release regarding another function (28 March 2022)

As South Koreans go to the polls, a backlash against feminism has become political (8 March 2022) No, not Thailand, but interesting developments to the north. More on this topic here.

A Reddit discussion thread about the current situation with feminism in South Korea (19 April 2017)

This Reddit discussion thread was created by a Malaysian feminist who, to her credit, was seeking information on mens issues. It is included here as some of the responses may be of interest

Thailand’s first female Prime Minister vs Thai feminists (14 August 2011)

Feminist activists find peace in Thailand (23 July 2010)

(As an aside, I note this last article includes a reader’s comment: “A group of female tourists in Thailand posted their responses to sex tourism in a video, and received some harsh backlash”. Well, gee, western women volunteered some biased and fairly harsh criticism of the behaviour of western men and received some of the same in return. This happens in grown-up society. Instead of childish pouting, why not address the specific points raised?)

‘Sunrise’ provides equal time for feminism and men’s rights

The ‘Weekend Sunrise’ show surprised and pleased by providing separate interviews with MRA Paul Elam and feminist Laci Green.

On Saturday morning there was an interview with Paul Elam

Paul discussed the fact that mens work/life choices are more limited than women, but most of the all-too-brief interview was taken up with a discussion of rape hysteria and the need to address the problem of rape in a more rigorous and fair-minded manner.

Reddit discussion thread here and here is an article about Paul’s interview

On Sunday morning it was the turn of Laci Green

The intro provided by Andrew O’Keefe – and his comments throughout the interview left absolutely no doubt where his allegiance lies … “The history of feminism is long, strong and proud …. in fact (if not for feminism) married women, you would still be the property of your husband“. Oh please.

Feminism is wonderful – just badly misrepresented, feminism is not about hating men, feminism is just about equality and stopping sexual objectification, blah blah blah. Keep moving folks, nothing new to be seen/heard here.

“The boobs are used to sell everything …” Yes indeed Andrew, and that’s nowhere clearer than watching Laci’s efforts on Youtube.

Reddit discussion thread here which features the comment:

“[Laci] is what we call one of the “Aren’t Like That” feminists that all the other feminists use to cover their bigotry. You want to know what kind of person Laci Green is? Let me tell you.

First, I have to explain a few things. In the hood, we like to have parties. We like to get rowdy, smoke some herb, get crunk. We like to play music loud and act a fool. The problem with this is, the cops show up. Now, I’m not sure you all know what its like having the cops show up, but some people at this party have illicit drugs, or arrest warrants, or just no fucking sense. So someone has to talk to the cops. You always want to have a well spoken, easygoing, friendly person at your parties so that THEY can talk to the cops and make sure none of the other people at the party get into any shit.

Thats who feminists like Laci Green are. They’re the person Feminism has answering the door when society comes knocking and wants to know what’s going on.”

More about Laci Green here and here

(Postscript 4 December 2018: Bettina Arndt, Sam Armitage and Nat Barr stirred up the feminists with this discussion of the #MeToo phenomenon. And then – of course – a follow-up article about the outrage, entitled ‘Sunrise cops criticism over one-sided #MenToo discussion’)

What George Will wrote – and what happened next

Firstly, might I suggest that you read the article that started this whole affair – here it is here. The article was called ‘Colleges become the victims of progressivism’, was written by George Will, and published on 6 June 2014.

George’s article concerned the mythical rape culture and associated culture of female victimhood that has taken root and is flourishing in North American university campuses.

I originally mentioned this issue in my post about feminist censorship, but the subject has now taken on a life of its own and well and truly warrants its own post. What makes it so significant is that it perfectly typifies what feminism has done, and is continuing to do, in stamping out dissenting views. Or more specifically, in stamping out people who dare to express dissenting views.

The feminist backlash against the publication of George’s article was immediate and soon resulted in him being sacked from his role at the newspaper in question. Yup, so much for the Land of the Free. Yay feminism!

Petition to fire George Will launched by wife of White House Media Director (12 June 2014)

St. Louis paper dumps George Will for Michael Gerson (19 June 2014)

(Mis) reading George Will (19 June 2014)

Tony Messenger: The man who fired George Will (19 June 2014)

Rage against the outrage machine (23 June 2014)

Here’s how the smear machine works – courtesy of Michelle Dean and Gawker (24 June 2014)

“People aren’t misunderstanding what Will wrote: They deliberately misrepresented what Will said …” (24 June 2014)

There is no internet ‘outrage machine’ – just these outrageous rape apologists (25 June 2014)

And Ms. magazine was still railing against George Will and his cohort of rape apologists etc etc in August 2014 in this piece of wild-eyed lunacy entitled ‘The Second Wave of Backlash against Anti-Rape Activism‘

Women’s studies professors pitch tantrum over George Will appearance (19 October 2014)

Raucous protesters choke entrance at George Will’s Miami University speech (22 October 2014)

If only 12% of campus sexual assaults get reported, then only 1 in 32 women at Ohio State are sexually assaulted, not 1 in 5 (20 October 2014)

Due process is still being kicked off campus (13 May 2016) USA

On Australian men seeking foreign partners

Some time ago I bookmarked an article entitled ‘Why overseas women love Aussie men‘. I was intrigued how the writer (a guy, by the way), managed to package a subject that could easily rankle female readers into something quite palatable. The potentially prickly subject he tackled was the phenomenon of men seeking partners from outside Australia.

In fact the author not only made the topic appear benign, but even presented it in a way that might conceivably massage the egos of readers. Part of his strategy was to present the issue as being one of foreign women preferring Australian men, rather than the other way around. Although he did sneak in that cheeky little quip at the end “If only they were more appreciated at home“. “They” being Australian men.

Although the author focused on American women, in fact women from the USA barely make it into the top ten list with regards to those granted partner visas. As you can see from this source, women from various Asian countries (particularly China, the Philippines and Thailand) are far more popular choices. This data is five years old, but numbers have remained steady since then. That doesn’t mean that demand for foreign brides is static however, with further growth in numbers prevented by annual quotas on spouse visas issued by the Australian Government.

I imagine that the reason for the focus on North American women (in the article) was simply to run with the Hollywood/male movie star angle. Another reason though might have been the fact that many western women have a certain ‘thing’ about being second-bested by Asian women. This is usually kept well under wraps, denied even, only to emerge guns blazing under the right set of circumstances (as mentioned in this other blog post).

The writer coyly suggested that the observed attraction to foreign partners was simply due to the ‘grass being greener on the other side of the fence’. It’s an approach that won’t hurt any feelings, as there is no need to acknowledge or reflect upon possible shortcomings on the part of Australian women.

Ah, but can you imagine the furore if the author had taken an alternative approach and asked the question “why are so many Australian men rejecting Australian women as life partners?“. Not that pro-feminist news.com.au would have accepted such an article for publication. Oh the bitter recriminations and backlash about men only wanting ‘submissive slaves’. The shaming remarks like “men who are threatened by independent women!” and “men who couldn’t get a women in their own country!” The horror, the horror. To those reading this and nodding their head to such sentiments … well I can only assume that you have little knowledge of Asian culture or personal experience with mixed-race couples.

I wonder to what extent this trend of Australian men marrying women from non-western backgrounds is due to changes in the attitude and behaviour of Australian women brought about via the pervasive and overdone influence of feminism? Heck, this could be a good topic for a thesis – that is if you could find a university brave enough to sponsor it.

Many thoughtful men in western countries now believe that their choice is limited to a MGTOW lifestyle, celibacy, or life as a purse-pooch/walking ATM (i.e. resigning themselves to the increasingly anti-male strictures of the society in which they live). For these folks an epiphany sometimes occurs upon exposure to life and relationships within a culture where feminist ideology, as we now know it in the west, has yet to take root. I think this is fairly evident in some of the references linked to this post about cross-cultural marriages. That blog post also addresses the negative bias and stereotyping directed at men seeking foreign partners as reflected in articles such as this. As one reader aptly noted:

“This is Scott Morrison and the Coalition playing dog-whistle politics again. Let’s not focus upon the thousands upon thousands of successful cross-cultural marriages that enrich Australian society – that would be a good news story! – let’s focus on a trivially small number of cases (exactly 2 were cited by Morrison) where an ambitious sugar-daddy seeks his naive, young asian bride. This is just pandering to small-minded racists who operate on simplistic stereotypes. This only increases the stigma against intercultural couples.

I’m angry about this because I’ve experienced this first hand. As an Anglo-Australian who has married an Asian seven years younger than me, I’m aware of the stereotypes that are directed our way. Nevermind that we are happily married, never had an argument and share everything together. This is something my brother, who has a partner 11 years his junior doesn’t have to go through because she’s Anglo-Australian too (Nor did my parents who were also separated by 10 years age gap.) This is simply a double standard based on race that society, and especially Scott Morrison needs to build a bridge and get over.

I have many friends who are in happy, loving, cross-cultural relationships. Unlike other couples we have to go through the rigours of laying our personal lives bare to the Immigration Department – who I can assure you are very thorough. Then after that we have to go through this nonsense. Scott Morrison should stop playing politics with people’s relationships and Governments should butt out of marriage. It’s nothing to do with them.”

What a pity most western feminist-influenced women don’t do introspection. Introspection seems to have gone the way of empathy.

And as for listening to what men say … pfff! As high-profile feminist turned MRA, Warren Farrell, famously stated “In our society, the sound of men complaining is like nails on a chalkboard“.

See also:

For some social context surrounding the topic of this post perhaps take a look at http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/09/The-Sexodus-Part-2-Dishonest-Feminist-Panics-Leave-Male-Sexuality-In-Crisis

Sorry, Aussie blokes. American men are better suitors (10 August 2016) Entitled Australian woman thinks Australian men need to ‘lift their game’ to be more worthy. Australian men say “bon voyage, princess”

Aussie woman goes on 130 first dates but zero second dates (11 May 2015)

Why I am for the Importation of Hot Foreign Women (17 February 2015)

Are Australian women really all that bad? (15 July 2011) with 451 readers comments

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission (previously the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government.

The Commission falls under the portfolio of the Attorney-General of Australia. The Commission works within the legal framework of Australian law. The most relevant legislation in the context of this post is the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the most recent version of which can be accessed here (as at August 2016).

As at 30 June 2022 the gender ratio for ongoing full-time staff was 74% female and 26% male. For all staff however the ratio of men to women is 20% and 80% respectively (Annual report 2021-2022, p124).

The Commission has a number of specialist commissioners, with gender issues being primarily addressed by a ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’. The most recent Commissioner was Kate Jenkins who undertook her duties from April 2016 to April 2023. “She ends her term with the sincere thanks of the Albanese Labor Government for improving the lives of Australian women.” Kate is to be replaced by Dr Anna Cody, whose appointment will commence on 4 September 2023.

Elizabeth Broderick served as Commissioner from 2007 to September 2015. This blog post addresses that earlier period, whilst a further post deals with the subsequent period (up until September 2023).

Thus far all eight people selected to fill the role of ‘Sex Discrimination Commissioner’ have been female.

According to the AHRC web site:

“Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe.

They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

Respect for human rights is the cornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feel included.”

See also ‘Equal rights of men and women‘

A review of their literature, however, suggests that the AHRC is infinitely more concerned about the welfare and rights of those humans that are female, than they are about the other half of the population.

A word search on “men” within the AHRC web site turned up 912 results, which was promising. Or at least it was until I looked at the first few results. Two of the top three results were papers about domestic violence and harassment, in which men were portrayed (only) as the aggressors and women (only) as the victims:

The first paper ‘Men breaking the silence’, by Elizabeth Broderick, began as follows:

“Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. Attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having negative stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as domestic and family violence and abuse, sexual assault and sexual harassment. In Australia, too many women live in fear of violence every day.”

In my blog post entitled Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men? I provide many references supporting the assertion that there are as many women guilty of intimate partner violence as there are men, or close to it. But Ms Broderick’s paper gives no hint of there being substantial numbers of male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence … why?

What useful purpose, with regards to the goal of protecting human rights, is served by demonising men and giving violent women a free pass?

The second paper in the AHRC web site, ‘Sexual harassment. Know where the line is‘, begins thus:

“Sexual harassment is prevalent in Australian workplaces. One in four women have experienced harassment at work, and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise. Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

Even given the often compromised standards of feminism, that’s a fairly disingenuous opening gambit. Consider:

“One in four women have experienced harassment at work”

How many of these complaints related to the harassment of women by men? How many of these complaints were upheld?

“and mens harassment of other men is also on the rise”

That seems to imply that only men harass men, and that is simply untrue. And what about womens harassment of women, is that also on the rise? One would expect that, in the case of a professional agency like this, adequate context would be provided to evaluate statements like this.

“Nearly one in five complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) relate to sexual harassment.”

And again, how many of these complaints concerned the harassment of women by men, and how many fell into the other categories? i.e. men harassing men, women harassing women, and women harassing men.

I then looked at other papers either written by Elizabeth Broderick, or in which she was quoted, to see the extent to which her views favoured one gender over another. What I found was of considerable concern.

In my blog post entitled Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways I mentioned an article co-authored by Ms Broderick. That article is called Know where the line is: Melissa Hoyer and Elizabeth Broderick address sexual harassment. I would recommend that you read the article and especially the readers comments that follow – most of which expressed outrage at the extent of feminist bias on display.

In another article entitled ‘Gender on Agenda‘ (Courier Mail, 4 June 2014), Ms Broderick “expressed dismay” at the small number of women on company boards and suggested the imposition of gender quotas to be an appropriate response. As I have noted here, here and here, the justification for imposing gender quotas is dubious.

Ms Broderick has on many occasions expressed concern at the treatment of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. As far as I am aware, however, she has consistently failed to address the extent to which men are also affected by harassment and discrimination at work.

Further browsing in the AHRC web site and google searching on ‘Elizabeth Broderick’ turned up many further articles and speeches in a similar vein. This recent speech entitled ‘Towards a Gender Equal Australia‘ (18 November 2014) only makes mention of men due to their potential utility in achieving further gains for women. Men apparently have no issues of their own to deal with or, alternatively, Ms Broderick considers any such needs to be inconsequential.

Would someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I could not find a single instance where Ms Broderick expressed concern for the welfare of men, for example as victims of harassment, sexual assault, or domestic violence. Instead men were consistently cited as perpetrators of inappropriate behaviour (or at least complicit in such behaviour) and/or as the group to be held responsible for making changes or implementing initiatives to address problems experienced by women.

As far as I am aware Ms. Broderick has offered no corresponding statements in relation to the need for women to modify their own behaviour, or concerning women’s responsibility towards addressing problems experienced by men.

Further, I have seen very little acknowledgement being given to the contributions made by men in achieving progress on issues of inequality or disadvantage affecting women. The one exception was her own Male Champions of Change project, a program fitting safely within the confines of feminist dogma. Again, if this is incorrect then I would certainly appreciate a reader directing me towards any such statements of support.

In Ms Broderick’s eyes, it would seem that the life of men is all blue skies. Yet when it comes to womens dealings with men, well, ‘all rights and no fault/responsibility’ seems to pretty much sum things up.

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick concedes that the Australian Human Rights Commission has no initiatives targeting men. “We have very limited resources, so our work is necessarily directed at identifying the greatest areas of gender inequality,” Broderick says. “So, while we actively engage with men and some of the men’s groups, we have not directly worked on men’s rights issues.” (Source)

One facet of the degree of bias displayed by Ms Broderick is the inaccuracy evident in some of the statements attributed to her. For example, in this 2014 interview with Jackie Frank she stated:

“About 1.2 million women [in Australia] currently live in an intimate relationship characterised by physical violence”

In actual fact the most recent nationally representative survey found that 114,600 Australian women report having experienced violence from a current or previous partner during the preceding twelve months (Source). A tenfold exaggeration? Really?

The ‘Misinformation’ page within the website of the ‘One in Three’ organisation also attributes the following errors to Ms. Broderick:

“One in three women will live in an intimate relationship characterised by violence over her lifetime”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “the Personal Safety Survey 2005 found that 160,100 women have experienced violence from a current partner since the age of 15. This is 2.08% of Australian women. This equates to one in forty eight women.”

“Almost 90% of the victims of domestic violence are female”. Correction by ‘One in Three’: “Up to two-thirds of domestic violence victims are female, and at least one third are male.”

From ‘Tackling sexual harassment’ a resource for secondary school students produced by the AHRC:

“Girls can sexually harass boys. Although this doesn’t happen as often as boys harassing girls.” (p9) Based on what data source? How/why is this even relevant to note in this document?

“Complaints received by the Commission show that 95% of people who are harassed are female.” No, what this actually says is that 95% of people who lodged complaints were female – not the same thing.

Such a degree of unashamed bias is completely unacceptable. This is the ‘Human Rights Commission’ we are talking about, not a private lobby group or women’s studies centre. Australian men, and the women who care about their welfare, deserve an advocate who is willing and able to competently and energetically champion the interests of both women/girls and men/boys. The Australian community as a whole deserves better.

Given Ms Broderick’s failure to maintain even a modicum of impartiality, one hopes that the termination of her contract in September 2015 will see the appointment of someone better qualified to fulfil the responsibilities of this important role.

‘Gender equality‘ does not imply that women and men are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment (Source). Is the approach taken by the AHRC in accord with that definition? Or alternatively, is it more consistent with this one?

Scroll through the Commissioner’s Twitter stream and look for tweets in which she champions the interests of men and boys … are there any? Even one?

This raises the issue of whether members of the public are able to lodge a complaint regarding discrimination with the Commission, against the Commission itself. If any readers can answer that then please leave a comment below. An alternative course of action might be via the federal Attorney-General’s Department.

Developments at the AHRC subsequent to the departure of Ms Broderick, and which are related to gender issues, are discussed in this blog post. For those of you wondering about the next step in Ms. Broderick’s career, read this article by Miranda Devine.

Readers might find the references listed below to be of interest … Where applicable I would suggest that it’s worthwhile to also review readers comments appended to each source

Equal Rights of Men and Women, from the AHRC website. No mention of any specific rights for men and boys (undated)

Wikipedia entry on domestic violence against men

Elizabeth Broderick nets $10k per speaking gig (4 February 2016)

Government seeks advice on new sex discrimination commissioner (11 December 2015)

Finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award announced (9 November 2015) See how many of the finalists work to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. Apparently none!? The winner, by the way, was Ludo McFerran

Who will replace Elizabeth Broderick as Sex Discrimination Commissioner? by Jenna Price (6 November 2015) “We must all call on the government to do the right thing and appoint the best woman to the job”

Men are not regarded as ‘Human’ thanks to Feminist legislation in Australia (17 September 2015)

Ms. Broderick’s swansong … true to type right to the end … no support for men/boys, just criticism (2 September 2015) More of the same here and here. I predict that her next gig will be a well-remunerated slot within the Domestic Violence Industry, helping to spend Malcolm Turnbull’s recent generous hand-out.

Men and women must work as partners to defeat domestic violence, outgoing Sex Discrimination Commissioner says (2 September 2015)

Profile of the work of Elizabeth Broderick over the past eight years, by Anne Summers (May 2015) Word search on ‘women’ = 61 hits Word search on ‘men’ = 6 hits (two of which were negative, one neutral and four about the ‘Champions of Change’ program)

To attain gender equality, we need to focus on men (13 May 2015) But this “focus on men”, is wholly limited to their potential utility to help women. Features a reader’s comment by J.D.Troughton:

“I still see a total focus on women here. We need to also incorporate respect and protection for men, and elevating them in instances of their being discriminated against. It’s a judgement call, a subjective assessment, but women look to have it better than men, to me. A feminist will say the opposite. We can’t honour one over the other on sexist grounds (eg. gynocentrism, our culture’s inherent tendency to give more weight to female suffering of the same burdens, etc.), so we need to hear both out and help both sexes. And not just make jokes about penis size, or accuse someone of bitterness and personal issues when they say that dominant gender discussion is very skewed and prejudiced. I mean, you can do that, but you just add to my case. And look like a heartless curmudgeon. And perpetuate the pain that ends up hurting the women you hold solely so dear.”

‘Let’s talk: The shocking new tricks that men use to control wives’ (31 March 2015) Ms. Broderick is interviewed by the Australian Womens Weekly magazine

Gary Johns and Judith Sloane won’t limit Broderick’s plans (11 August 2014)

Calls to change laws to fix women’s superannuation (13 November 2014) Not content to ignore men’s welfare and overstate the culpability of men for social issues like domestic violence, the Discrimination Commissioner now seeks to grant exceptions to discrimination laws to favour women at a time when traditional gender roles (with regards to parenting for example) are disappearing:

“Rice Warner got an exemption from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to contribute an extra two per cent of salary in superannuation contributions for their female employees over and above what they contribute for their male employees.”

Elizabeth Broderick on men’s violence towards women (3 December 2014) More of the same one-eyed assessment of the nature of domestic violence. And women never smash their partners phones? And as is so typically the case, my response to this blog post was not published

Bravehearts: The women bruised and battered in the name of ‘love’ (28 December 2014) Here Ms Broderick provides debunked statistics in her quest to demonise men and misrepresent the nature of domestic violence.

On 8 December 2014 Ms Broderick tweeted about the alarming suicide rate for “young people” but no mention of the situation with men. I imagine it slipped her mind. And isn’t it interesting how gender is specified when doing so supports the feminist narrative, but not when it doesn’t?

Does the Human Rights Commission treat some groups more equally than others? (9 July 2013)

Superiority in the name of equality (29 June 2013)

Open Letter to Elizabeth Broderick Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner (10 April 2012)

Sex discrimination commissioner ignores men and boys (3 May 2012)

The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the AHRC provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Four years later there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. It is a disgrace for the AHRC to suggest that it is committed to “true gender equality”.

It’s hard to be a trailblazing woman (11 August 2012)

Elizabeth Broderick Sex Discrimination Commissioner, 50 (4 February 2012) Again, men as perpetrators and enablers of the victimisation of women, and otherwise only notable for their potential utility in assisting in the continued advancement of women

Discrimination is fine, says Commissioner Two-Legs-Good, by Andrew Bolt (23 June 2010)

“We need to put in place what some might call affirmative action strategies, where we treat men and women differently for the purpose of achieving better gender balance at a senior level.”

Elsewhere within this blog readers might find the following post to be of interest:

Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem – Prawn of the Patriarchy (fighting4fair.com)

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