Here is my submission concerning the development of an International Gender Equality Strategy. Oh, and DFAT = the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This version was completed on 13 September 2023.
Dear Sir/Madam
DFAT advises that it has invited public submissions in order to hear from people and organisations, and to inform the priorities for the proposed Gender Equality Strategy. Thank you for providing this opportunity for me to do just that.
DFAT suggests that four main questions to be considered when preparing a submission are:
What are international gender equality priorities?
What are the most effective approaches for achieving gender equality globally?
How can Australia best support efforts to achieve gender equality internationally?
What should the government/ DFAT consider when developing the new international gender equality strategy?
I think I’ll focus on point 4. I note too your assertion that the Government is committed to being a global leader on gender equality, and that the new International Strategy is intended to recognise gender equality as being central to Australia’s foreign policy, international development, humanitarian action, trade and security efforts.
To support this commitment, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises that it intends to develop a new International Gender Equality Strategy, in order to:
guide Australia’s actions to protect and promote the human rights of all women and girls*.
align with the commitments to gender equality made in the region by the Pacific Islands Forum, ASEAN and APEC. It will reflect global commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals, for example, on gender equality, climate change and human rights.
identify the opportunities for Australia, our region and our world for stability, security, prosperity and safety in achieving gender equality and the full and equal participation of all in our societies.
And as for the human rights of ‘all men and boys’*? Are they not human or simply not important? This seems rather reminiscent of another federal agency I wrote to recently. Now who were they? (Reference: https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/inquiry-into-australias-human-rights-framework-2023/)
“The new International Strategy will reflect the Government’s commitment to achieve gender equality in Australia’s forthcoming first National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children* 2022-2032, and Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2021-31” … “DFAT will also draw on the views and priorities shared in public submissions provided to inform Australia’s International Development Policy and Southeast Asia Economic Strategy.”
And as for a national plan to end violence against men and boys*? Sound of crickets (Reference: https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/)
Just by way of background, the latest DFAT annual report that is available online is 2021-22. This shows that the percentage of ongoing staff in that department who are female is approx. 60%, which is consistent with the Australian federal public service overall. And no need to stress, some agencies have been further out of balance. Take WGEA for example (Reference: https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/weve-set-a-target-of-having-10-of-our-senior-management-team-female-by-2017/)
I shall begin by considering a central facet of this exercise, this being the notion of ‘gender equality’.
“Gender equality is when people of all genders have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. Everyone is affected by gender inequality – women, men, trans and gender diverse people, children and families. It impacts people of all ages and backgrounds.” (Source: https://www.vic.gov.au/gender-equality-what-it-and-why-do-we-need-it)
This definition of the term, as with most others, implies that an equivalent amount of attention might be expected to be given to, for example, men and boys in the community. And yet one thing that quickly strikes a reader of related reports and media releases is the almost complete lack of attention given to men and boys and the issues faced by them. DFAT’s reports are no exception.
To consider an example of this, let’s look at one particular item within the DFAT website. It’s entitled ‘Australia’s international support for gender equality’. The term ‘man’ features once in this report, and ‘boy’ not at all. In stark contrast ‘woman’ features 121 times and ‘girl’ 19 times. Thus men and boys, and their myriad issues and perspectives appear to be ‘missing in action’.
It is consequently quite farcical to suggest that this, or the plethora of documents like it, demonstrate genuine commitment to gender equality. What it does do, is to reflect a prevailing reality of a marked gender preference towards women. This preference is actively sought after by followers and devotees of feminist ideology. And they do not tolerate alternative views.
Some source material regarding feminism and its propensity to stifle debate regarding alternative perspectives on gender now follows:
Unfortunately this marked gender imbalance in favour of women/girls is also reflected in the amount of funding support provided for gender-related issues and initiatives in both the Australian domestic and international arenas. This issue is discussed in the following items compiled by me:
Is the pronounced influence of feminist doctrine appropriate in Australia’s dealings with other countries?
I would suggest that ‘no’, it is certainly not. Regardless of how one feels about the validity and usefulness of feminist beliefs in Australia, foreign countries are different places. Feminism has never been raised as an issue within the Australian political system – and subsequently adopted as a matter of policy. It is merely something that a small minority of Australians believe to have merit, and who push strongly for greater and greater female privilege to occur.
Other countries have different histories and different cultures and deserve respect, and to be allowed to make their own choices with regard to gender issues in the absence of carrots or sticks applied by the Australian government acting on behalf of the feminist lobby.
The current situation is, at best, an embarrassment. And yet another printed report from the government, even one laden with woke buzzwords and abundant pictures of assertive women, won’t get us there.
Have you ever seen a feminist online advocating that those promoting the welfare of men and boys should spend less time criticizing feminism, and more time doing things to help men & boys? Yes? Well let’s take a look at an example of what happens when you seek to provide a positive input …
In early June 2023 I emailed a submission to the Inquiry into Human Rights now being conducted by the Australian Government. Note that the deadline for submissions was 1 July 2023, so I had gotten in well before time. I then sat back waiting for my submission to be accepted by the Inquiry and published on their website. Once this occurs I’m able to also provide a copy here in my website, this being in accordance with the Inquiry’s guidelines:
“After a submission is received by a committee, you cannot publish or disclose it to any other person unless or until the committee has authorised its publication. You cannot share your document until you hear from the committee that it can be published” (Source)
My submission remained unpublished as of 2 August 2023, and so I sent the following email:
Attn: Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
“My submission to the current Inquiry has been with the Secretariat for two months now.
I appreciate the earlier advice from them regarding the large number of submissions that had been received, and the time taken to process them.
Indeed I note that 185 submissions are now listed on your website. Most of these submissions were, however, presumably lodged subsequent to my own. I am somewhat puzzled by this as it would seem that processing the submissions in the order in which they were received, would be the fairest and most impartial approach to take.
Would you kindly confirm when I might anticipate my submission appearing online? Would you also please advise when further details regarding the proposed Brisbane forum will be made available?
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
On 4 August 2023 I was advised as follows:
“Thanks for your email. As my colleague mentioned, the processing of submissions is a manual one and each submission is considered individually. Publication of submission is ongoing, and will continue in the coming weeks.
Arrangements are also underway in relation to the Brisbane hearing, and further details will be published on the committee’s webpage prior to the hearing.”
That’s right, zero mention of the issue of the method of ordering re: the processing of submissions, nor was a date provided as to when my submission would appear online.
Why don’t they remove all doubt and simply state that if people choose to be critical of the current priorities of the Australian Human Rights Commission, then they shouldn’t even hope to have input into future policy formulation.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong. I hope I am. Let’s see shall we?
On 15 March 2023, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the Attorney-General referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the following matters for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:
to consider whether the Framework should be re-established, as well as the components of the Framework, and any improvements that should be made;
to consider developments since 2010 in Australian human rights laws (both at the Commonwealth and State and Territory levels) and relevant case law; and
to consider any other relevant matters.
The committee invited submissions up to 1 July 2023 in relation to these matters.
A submission to the Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework
Dear members of the Committee
Thank you for extending this opportunity to offer my thoughts in relation to the work of the Inquiry.
That item within the Terms of Reference that my submission primarily addresses is:
“Whether existing mechanisms to protect human rights in the federal context are adequate and if improvements should be made, including:
to the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights;
the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
the process of how federal institutions engage with human rights, including requirements for statements of compatibility”
It is my impression that the Australian Human Rights Commission exercises some, if not most, of its responsibilities through a lens of fashionable ‘woke’ assumptions, beliefs and ideologies, including those associated with gender feminism. I do not believe that this should be the case. I believe that the rights and the welfare of all substantial demographic groups within the Australian community should be equally and accurately acknowledged, valued and supported.
The online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.
Gender matters are most likely touched upon by all Commissioners, but the focus in this regard centres upon the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. All those staff appointed to this position have, to date, been female – which I believe to have been inappropriate.
I think I am correct in stating that at least the last two incumbents declared themselves to be determined and committed followers of feminist ideology. I would suggest that partly as a consequence of this, during that time no significant programs were undertaken by the Commission in which the primary focus was on the rights and welfare of men and boys. I have sought to clarify this belief via requests for confirmation addressed to the Commission, an example of which is provided on the final page of this submission.
I discuss this perceived gender bias at the commission in the following blog posts:
I note also the Commission’s submission to this current Inquiry wherein readers undertaking a word search on the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ will find 0 instances of the former, and yet 22 instances of the latter.
If my observation is correct then the question must be asked as to why such a marked imbalance – a clear example of actual sex discrimination – is considered to be acceptable. Feminists appear inclined to excuse double-standards like this on the basis of an assertion that women are substantially worse off than men, and have been for much of history. I reject such a view entirely, and if the relevant government agencies were willing to undertake the appropriate reporting then the actual situation regarding the genders might finally be made clearer for all. Instead, and for the time being, the widespread occurrence of Gamma Bias and of heads deeply buried in the sand shall continue to prevail.
I further believe that those groups and individuals consulted by the Commission should not be filtered or excluded on the basis of the degree to which their beliefs happen to align with those of the Commissioners and their staff.
I would note that for several years now I have been blocked from accessing a social media account of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, although not the Twitter account operated by the Commission as a corporate entity. This blocking of information sources and alternative perspectives has become a common occurrence in pro-feminist web sites and/or news outlets. I believe this behaviour to be unhelpful and inappropriate, and doubly so in the case of publicly-funded organisations. This subject, and my associated dealings with the Human Rights Commission, are addressed in the following two blog posts:
“There’s a lot of men suffering the same Abraham, men are less likely to report it though. Its a two way street. I found it degrading after having my bipolar partner restrained by police to be put in an ambulance, that the literature given to me and having called the help line, that it was all geared towards women. Even the men’s help line, when called and told of being involved in domestic abuse, being questioned about what I’d done to abuse her.
You know when she’s off tap and I’m being pushed to the limits, I could just knock her block off, I can handle myself, if it was a bloke doing it, it wouldn’t even be an issue, but its a woman and mother of my children, I’m better than that. My kids have had to witness it for years, they even ask how i endure it without retaliating. But its my job to be their role model, not sport stars or entertainers. I stay composed, controlled. I was safer in Afghanistan or Iraq. It’s time for men to stand up and be more vocal. I’ll start it off.”
“Its not the violence although she has slashed my car tyres to stop me from leaving and has threatened me with a knife on many occasions. It’s the threats to kill herself, or ringing my work, or on many occasions showing up at work because I won’t do exactly what she asks. Several suicide attempts, what am i to tell my kids if I stay at work and she rings and tells me she’s taken an overdose and i keep working. The ambulance wont come on their own anymore when she loses it, the police have to come, because she is violent to the ambulance driver. I’d post videos, but I don’t want her identified on the internet. My kids have been embarrassed enough, they don’t need all their friends knowing.
I said I would start this off, all my friends on here know now, but no-ones going to use it to try get to me, most are smart enough to know better. Like I said if it was a male that was threatening me it wouldn’t be an issue, I did my time in conflict zones, I can handle myself. My pay goes into an account she controls, I get an allowance. I got my pay put into my own account awhile back and she went to our head office and made a scene, nearly got me sacked. So I changed it back to stop her going back. My boss has said to me how I manage to be early every day, get through my day and churn out a high standard work is beyond him. Never late, never take a day off, always try to be upbeat. I do what i do because i am my kids role model, not some sports star or celebrity, I set a standard, I tell them not to react, stay calm and I practice what I preach. (Source)
“I have encountered similar violence by a wife towards her husband and I can promise you, it’s no laughing matter. Especially when men are often brought up to never lift a hand up against a woman. Thankfully, they are no longer together, but she still has most custody of their beautiful little boy. She has gone out of her way to use the son to hurt him, but thankfully family, friends and even a judge has seen through her and have provided him with much needed support. He is a lovely dad who was snared by a vicious, vindictive woman” (Source)
Man stabbed in the neck in alleged domestic attack (15 April 2019) As others have pointed out, none of the articles about this incident used the term ‘domestic violence’ (as is now typically the case when men are injured or killed by their partners)
“Predictably the top comment is from a woman ridiculing the incident. He doesn’t sound a particularly great husband but would you have found it as amusing if a man had ripped off his wife’s breast because she wasn’t a good wife? Nope, didn’t think so. The comments here just show the gulf in society’s attitudes towards violence to men and women from the opposite sex.”
“The number of women convicted for domestic violence rose by 30% in the year to April 2015, from 3,735 to 4,866. It marks an upward trend – the number of convictions involving female perpetrators is now six times higher than it was ten years ago”
In a comment he contributed to this article, Chad Tindale wrote:
“Police were once called because my girlfriend, at the time, was stabbing the bathroom door (behind which I was locked) with a knife. When the police arrived, she was still drunk, and still holding the knife. They told us to keep it down so that they didn’t have to come back… then they left me there… with her… with the knife. You’re not a hero when you rescue a man from a woman, so it’s often just easier to leave them there… leave them with her… with the knife.”
I received an email on 21 June 2022 advising me of the following. No mention of any opportunities for men – I guess that will follow later …
“The first Women’s Opportunity Statement was published today alongside the NSW Budget 2022-23. The Statement sets out the NSW Government’s plans to make New South Wales the best place in Australia for women to live, work and raise a family, and commits $5.6 billion towards outcomes for women and $10.9 billion towards children’s education and development outcomes over the next 10 years. The Statement draws on the findings of the Women’s Economic Opportunities Review, and the advice of the Expert Reference Panel, chaired by Sam Mostyn. A letter from the Review’s Expert Panel to the NSW Treasurer was also published today.
The Statement sets out the following five strategic priority areas of reform:
Increase women’s workforce participation
Improve the experience of women in the workforce
Support women in small business and entrepreneurs
Support and raise awareness of women’s health needs
Respect for women and women’s financial security
Alongside the Statement, we have also released the NSW Treasury Technical Research Paper Women’s economic opportunities in the NSW labour market and the impact of early childhood education and care, which sets out NSW Treasury research on the key drivers of unequal outcomes between women and men in the labour market, as well as the modelling approach used to assess the package of early childhood education and care reforms announced by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments.
I first heard about this UK Home Office ‘initiative’ via a Tweet this morning (31 March 2022). Merely the title alone is an outrageous affront to men and boys. They should remove the ridiculous gendered approach to crime and justice, not double-down and build on it. I find it hard to believe that even a marginally competent senior bureaucrats allowed it to slip through.
The Home Office advised us that “This document updates and replaces the first Male Victims Position Statement, published in 2019, and reiterates the government’s commitment to ensuring that male victims of crimes which disproportionately affect women and girls are supported.
Australian telecom behemoth ‘Telstra’ runs a program they’ve entitled the “Best of Business Awards”, within which there are eight categories. One of these categories specifically relates to gender, and it’s called ‘Accelerating Women’.
It’s said to be for “businesses actively challenging exclusion and inequality to create meaningful and lasting equity for women” (Source).
There is no award category specifically for men and/or boys. Why? Because males are doing so well in society that they don’t need (let alone deserve) any encouragement?
I’m not sure, so let’s ask them. (Done)
If and when they choose to respond then rest assured that I will post details here. Alternately should this post remain unchanged from this day forth, then you may confidently assume this organisation to be little more than a biased virtue-signaling joke.
This is a job description that appeared in the Queensland Government’s website for vacant employment positions in December 2021.
You might well ask, ‘are there any equivalent positions available in relation to the prevention of violence against men and boys?’. Dream on!
Principal Program Officer, Justice and Attorney-General, Office for Women and Violence Prevention
The Office for Women and Violence Prevention support women and girls to participate fully in the social, economic and cultural opportunities that Queensland offers; and to achieve their full potential.
We deliver services and supports that victims and their children need to be free of violence, and that ensure perpetrators are held to account for their actions and given opportunity to change their behaviour.
We also drive reform to strengthen community and whole of government responses to gendered violence by changing community attitudes and behaviours, integrating service responses and strengthening justice system responses.
“The team leads and delivers the Investing in Queensland Women grant program, utilizing tools such as Smartygrants and P2i. We lead and support Queensland Government sponsorship agreements with high profile partners such as the Women of the World Festivals and the Australian Women in Music Awards to ensure benefits are delivered for Queensland women and girls. We also liaise with community groups and organisations across Queensland to engage the community on a range of initiatives that promote and protect the rights, interests, leadership and well-being of women and girls.”
What finally prompted me to write this post was a tweet issued by the Australian Human Rights Commission yesterday about ‘Scam Awareness Week’, with an associated forum apparently being run by a group called the eSafety office.
I mean to say, imagine an agency heavily funded by tax-payers (predominantly male) to support and protect all Australians, but which devotes the overwhelming majority of its efforts on services for women/girls … sounds like a potentially scam-rich environment to me. And who better qualified to champion such a model than the #AHRC?
The Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner was opened on the 1 July 2015, with an initial budget allocation of $2.4 million per annum. My, my, how it has grown since. They described themselves in the following manner:
“The Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner is a one-stop-shop for online safety. The Office provides Australians a range of up-to-date information and resources, coupled with a comprehensive complaints system to assist children who experience serious cyberbullying.” Sounds good so far.
“The eSafety Commissioner (eSafety) is Australia’s national independent regulator for online safety” (Source). Their mission is to “safeguard Australians at risk from online harms“. Not ‘women’ mind you, but ‘Australians’. The key legislation that it operates under is the Enhancing Online Safety Act, 2015, but in its Plan it’s noted that its “remit has been broadened since our establishment four years ago” (p3). I’d suggest that perhaps it’s narrowed, in fact.
eSafety is an independent statutory office supported by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). It’s budget, courtesy of Australian tax-payers, is considerable. This year, for example, their allocation includes $21 million for “a women’s online package” (Source).
ACMA/eSafety currently reports to the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts.
The e-Safety Strategy doesn’t seem to hammer home a strong bias towards barracking for women/girls versus men and boys – just a few mentions re: gender – in fact. Under ‘Programs’ for example it mentions the provision of support for “those who are most susceptible to online harm. These include women experiencing domestic violence …” (p8). And men experiencing domestic violence aren’t harassed online? Oh, sorry, I digress. The Plan also notes that “in 2017 parliament expanded our remit to all Australians” (p12).
Now let’s briefly look, mainly with reference to their web site and primary Twitter account (@eSafetyOffice), at what the Commission actually does nowadays. And how it interprets the term “all Australians“. A good place to start is the e-Safety women’s page … because “all women have a right to be safe online“. And no, there isn’t an e-Safety men’s page. I’d suggest browsing the women’s page now, before continuing with this post.
See, for example, the paper entitled ‘Lifeline or weapon? How technology is used to control and silence women‘ (7 September 2021) which is one of the listed papers and media releases with a gender focus. Nowhere is mention made of women as perpetrators and/or males as victims, and that’s not because such folk constitute rare aberrations. It’s essentially because of the pervasive , and largely unchallenged, influence of feminist ideology. Minister, are you awake?
Next you might perhaps take a look at ‘Understanding the attitudes and motivations of adults who engage in image-based abuse‘ (12 September 2019). More than 50 mentions of the term ‘men’ here, but all such references relate to portraying men as perpetrators of abusive behaviour and/or as attendees of behaviour change programs. No women are presented in this manner – not one. And yet – reverting to real life now – look at the significant number of court appearances of women for ‘revenge porn’ – targeting both men and other women (examples here).
The word ‘women’ appears 62 times in the report whilst ‘men’ appears 0 times.
The gender ratio of Authority members who are male/female is 2:7, and the gender ratio of Executive Management members who are male/female is 1:6.
The annual base salary of the (female) CEO = $344,631, and the annual base salary for nominated ‘Key Management Personnel’ = $2,656,056 (this group includes seven females and one male).
The budgeted revenue from government for ACMA/eSafety in 2020/21 was $100,615,000 (p161 of Annual Report)
In the ‘Commissioner’s Foreword’, the number of references to men/boys was 0 (p201 of Annual Report), whereas in ‘Our year at a glance’, the number of references to men/boys was 0 (p204 of Annual Report)
Finally, I’ll now run through the corresponding programs and consultancies that the Office thoughtfully provided specifically for the assistance of men and boys …
<the sound of crickets chirping>
Oh, and news just to hand, the eSafety Commissioner’s contract has just been extended for a further five years.
Thank goodness, presumably that means there’ll be more time to reach out and help women like this:
