Accelerating Women (Telstra Business Awards)

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.

Jobs for the girls

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 proposed annual salary is $112,502 – $120,480

From the position description:

“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.”


Australia’s E-Safety Office: A potentially sound initiative now awash with feminist kool-aid

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).

eSafety

What follows now are some snippets of information drawn from the 2020/21 annual reports for the ACMA and eSafety:

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)

(Update 7 July 2022: A must-read article by Bettina Arndt)

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:

Influencer slams ‘jealous women’ for posting ‘hate comments’ (11 March 2022)

And I’m thinking ‘Wow, how one-sided is this?’ … Online misogynistic content and harmful algorithms drive new anti-domestic violence push (16 June 2024) Misandry? Effect on girls? Witness the feminist frenzy that’s happening here

Some other relevant posts in this blog:

Regarding online harassment

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

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

 

#GenderEqualityWhenItSuits: A submission to the Review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012

 

To suggest that the Australian Government is currently committed to achieving gender equality is an absolutely farcical proposition. Can an organisation be only half committed? I think not.

I say this as the extent to which the government acknowledges and supports men/boys, relative to the support it expresses for women/girls, overwhelmingly favours the latter. Further, not only is this bias not seen as a problem, it is considered by many to be fair and appropriate.

Neither politicians nor senior bureaucrats dare ask ‘why?’, let alone say ‘stop!’, to proposed developments that might further this imbalance. They know full well that any such gesture would result in immediate negative sanctions. And conversely, that few would be likely to publicly speak in their defence. Such is the overdone mood of the matriarchal moment.

One element of the problem is the lack of a government agency, or even a section within an agency, that is designated to gather or disseminate information, or develop policy, in support of men and boys.

Another is the issue of remnant chivalry, a factor that in an environment of true gender equality, would be recognised as nought but an outdated traditional gender stereotype.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/sadly-australian-politicians-only-find-the-courage-to-criticise-the-feminist-lobby-after-they-retire/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-blocking-out-non-feminist-perspectives-and-opinions/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/when-even-the-prime-ministers-office-imposes-pro-feminist-censorship/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/feminism-and-the-death-of-good-manners/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/regarding-the-term-gender-traitor/
 

Q: Is there a Minister for Men and/or an Office for Men?

A: No, there is neither, and none is proposed.

Q: Do government agencies provide as much public acknowledgment and support for men/boys as they do for women/girls? A simple example might be publicly acknowledging International Men’s Day versus their response to the multitude of recognised and supported days for women and girls.

A: No, they do not. International Men’s Day is ignored entirely by both state and federal agencies.

Ask the Australian Human Rights Commission, for example, if they have ever issued a tweet or social media notice to celebrate International Men’s Day.  Ask any state or federal agency.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/november-19-is-international-mens-day/
 

Q: Does the government invite representatives of men’s and/or father’s rights groups to participate in committees, in fora and/or (for example) regulatory reviews related to gender issues? For example, the One in Three organisation (http://www.oneinthree.com.au)

A: No, they do not. Nor do they support the establishment and operation of such organisations.

Q: Do women of high public profile (for e.g. female politicians) and/or women’s groups seek to support men/boys either generally or in relation to specific issues?

A: No, generally not. Contrast this to the actions of many high-profile men.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/heforshe-men-pressed-into-service-with-nary-a-hint-of-quid-pro-quo/
 

Q: Does the government fund research that explores aspects of the reality experienced by men/boys and/or encourage gender-related research to address or consider issues from both a male and female perspective (for example via the actions of the Australian Research Council)?

A: No, they do not. More and more often males are not surveyed in such studies, unless asked in relation to their views on women’s issues (and with zero reciprocity applying)

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/fudging-the-figures-to-support-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/achieving-personal-financial-security-is-important-for-everyone-but-dodgy-research-helps-no-one/
 

Q. Is there compatibility with regards to the extent of funds that the government assigns to groups/agencies and/or issues that primarily affect men/boys, versus what is provided for women/girls? Where relative advantage to a particular gender can be recognised, does the government assign approximately equal support for each gender?

And what about with regards to our foreign aid program?

A: No, they do not. There is a huge disparity in favour of women/girls. The government doesn’t even appear to keep track of how much is spent on men/boys (i.e. there is no Budget Statement produced for men/boys). And not only that, many of the groups that are funded often express views that are particularly negative towards men/boys.

Meanwhile, our foreign-aid program is now deliberately skewed towards providing support for women/girls.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/re-instatement-of-the-womens-budget-statement-in-australia-bring-it-on-but-consider-men-too/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-australian-federal-election-of-2019-men-boys-remain-invisible/
 

https://budget.gov.au/2021-22/content/womens-statement/index.htm

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/discrimination-against-males-in-the-context-of-humanitarian-agenciescauses/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-taxpayer-funded-organisations-that-do-littlenothing-for-men/
 

Q: Do government or government-funded agencies devote as much time and energy to acknowledging, supporting and remedying issues that affect men/boys as they do in the case of their representations for women/girls?

Some examples of organisation to consider might include WGEA, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, ANROWS, the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and the Australian Institute of Criminology.

A: No, they do not. There is a huge disparity in favour of acknowledging, celebrating and supporting the preferences and privileges of women/girls. This often appears to occur in association with a saturation of staff and management who are devotees of feminist ideology.

Ask the Australian Human Rights Commission (for example) if they have ever had a male appointed to the position of Sex Discrimination Commission. Ask them how many times, in (say) the past ten years, they have developed a program or policy that intended as being primarily supportive of men/boys (and was publicly identified as such)?

The AHRC is the ‘go-to’ agency for those seeking to act in a manner that may be seen as providing unequal benefits for one gender over another … an example being to offer a scholarship only to women, or to publicly recruit (only) women for a particular role. Ask the AHRC to state the percentage of times they have exercised this power in a manner that favoured women over men.

Ask the WGEA about how much they have looked at the costs (financial and otherwise) faced primarily or solely by men and boys. And about the growing number of segments in the labour market where women’s salaries exceed those of men. And about those organisations where the staff gender ratio for female representation well exceeds 50% (for example the federal public service), and what (if any) remedial action has been taken.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/weve-set-a-target-of-having-10-of-our-senior-management-team-female-by-2017/

We’ve all heard of the gender ‘income gap’, but what about the ‘expense gap’?

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/profound-gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission-part-2/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/regarding-the-granting-of-gender-specific-scholarships-in-australia/
 

Q: Domestic Violence is perhaps the highest profile issue in the whole gamut of gender-related topics now being addressed. Many studies support the notion that at least 1/3 of the victims of domestic violence are male (and up to 2/3 in certain contexts).

The Government spends hundreds of millions of dollars ostensibly trying to remedy this scourge. How much of this money is used (for example) to psychologically treat abusive and/or violent women? How much is spent to assist male victims of abuse?

What action is the government taking to ensure both fairness and effectiveness of expenditure? How many of those receiving taxpayer funds are driven by feminist ideology. Does this detrimentally affect their performance for example via prompting them to persist with ineffective principles and strategies, purely because doing otherwise could be seen to compromise their belief system?

A: Well under 1/10th of the money allocated to treating domestic violence finds its way to assist the male and female victims of violent and abusive women. This is a disgrace, and meanwhile the (seemingly allowable) response from the feminist lobby is to cry ‘epidemic!’ and demand that the government give them more money. Meanwhile more men suicide.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/has-there-been-a-surge-in-domestic-violence-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/major-sporting-events-domestic-violence-myth/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/domestic-violence-one-sided-media-coverage-and-bogus-statistics/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-experience-of-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/female-violence-now-increasingly-seen-as-appropriate-empowering/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-suicide/
 

Q: The so-called ‘Gender Wage Gap’ is another high-profile gender issue, and one in which the WGEA has been, and remains, closely involved. Has the manner in which this issue has been presented and addressed to date, been indicative of a commitment to gender equality?

A: No, anything but. The WGEA has even been criticised for the biased manner in which the issue has been approached. Depending on how one drills down into the data, there are several, and a growing number of, instances where female wages exceed male average salaries. This aspect is largely invisible in the public coverage of the topic. Somehow, I very much doubt that’s a coincidence.

Related online information:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/that-tired-old-feminist-chestnut-that-is-the-gender-wage-gap-resurrected-in-australia/
 

Q: With regards to the specific issue of workplace conditions and workplace safety, is as much emphasis placed on key issues as viewed from a male perspective, as from a female perspective?

A: No, very little emphasis is placed on the consideration of issues from a male perspective, with the exception of the multitude of situations where men’s welfare is ignored entirely.

Related online information:

https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-women-and-their-place-on-the-corporate-ladder/
https://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/recruitment-bias-by-female-hr-staff/
 

Conclusion

The Government’s commitment to ‘gender equality’ is largely limited to championing the legitimate and purported interests of women/girls, whilst doing little or nothing about the multitude of negative factors impinging on the health and happiness of boys/men.

Rather than continuing with the use of the feel-good term ‘gender equality’, the current situation can best be viewed through reference to the notion of ‘Gamma Bias’.

“Gamma bias occurs when one gender difference is minimised while simultaneously another is magnified.

The gamma bias phenomenon can be conceptualised as a symmetrical 2*2 matrix of cognitive distortions, the gender distortion matrix. The matrix below describes examples of gamma bias, where perceptions of men and women are differentially magnified (capital letters underlined) or minimised (lower case letters in italics).

  GOOD HARM
DO (active mode)  FEMALE male (celebration) MALE female (perpetration)
RECEIVE (passive mode) MALE female (privilege) FEMALE male (victimhood)

(Source)

If the Government really wants to be a champion of gender equality then it should begin to treat the genders equally.

And that means equal rights and equal responsibilities.

It also means putting professionalism and impartiality in front of the ideology du jour.

It’s that simple.

Other potential sources of interest

Grants and funding

The Grant Funding Deficit for Washington’s Boys and Men (15 September 2023)

A link to copies of submissions to the Inquiry

A link to the WGEA Review Report

Inflating campus sexual assault statistics, by Bettina Arndt (30 August 2023)

Grant awarded to boost gender equality and diversity in Australian politics (23 March 2023). Another generous ($5 million) hand-out to the feminist lobby with zero corresponding support provided for men’s groups.

Janet Albrechtsen article entitled ‘Closing gender pay gap about privilege not equality‘ (30 November 2021)

Bettina Arndt: The rape conviction rate – a scandalous deceit of parliament and the public (19 January 2022) This has nothing to do with the review, but just demonstrates the outrageous level of anti-male gender bias that’s now practiced and accepted.

Opinion: The data are clear: The boys are not all right (9 February 2022) An example of the USA situation

Women’s leadership and development program (8 September 2022) All about 76 projects set to receive $15.84 million in federal grant funding. Anything equivalent for men/boys? Dream on

The Australian 2021 Federal Budget through to the 2022 election

Firstly, and by way of background here are links to some of my earlier posts on related topics:

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

The Australian federal election of 2019: Men & boys remain invisible

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

Last night the Australian Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP presented his Budget speech 2021-22. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change in the near future. Women were handed substantial allocations of money, whilst men and boys essentially got nothing (in terms of dedicated gender-specific grants).

Sure enough, in his lengthy speech Josh mentioned the word ‘women’ 17 times. He mentioned the word ‘men’ once … and that being in condemnation:

On average women retire with less superannuation than men.

In addition there was an 80+ page ‘Women’s Budget Statement | Budget 2021-22‘, which was the first one produced since 2013.

According to various commentators the 2021 budget contained the following allocations for women & girls. Here are some excerpts:

“As Morrison seeks to repair his image with women, there is a range of measures on women’s safety, economic security, health and wellbeing totaling $3.4 billion.

This includes $1.7 billion for changes to child care, $351.6 million for women’s health, and $1.1 billion for women’s safety.

“We will help more women break into non-traditional trades, with training support for 5,000 places,” he said

There will be 2,700 places in Indigenous girls academies to help them finish school and enter the workforce.

More STEM scholarships will be provided for women. Another 5,000 places are being made available in higher education short courses.” (Source) See also this post in my blog.

Other related sources

Women stormed the 2022 election in numbers too big to ignore: what has Labor pledged on gender? (22 May 2022)

Hey, guess what, guys? Women vote too – and they may decide the outcome of this election (18 May 2022)

Women have been at the centre of political debate in the past two years. Will they decide the 2022 election? (10 April 2022) “In focusing so tightly on the male vote, Morrison has neglected women”. Oh please, TV shots of him shaking the hands of factory workers hardly equals “focusing so tightly on the male vote“.

Women’s Budget Statement 2022/23 (29 March 2022)

New research asked government insiders how to fix gender discrimination in Australia – this is what they said (7 March 2022) From the feminist perspective

What Australian women need from the next government, by Lucy Dean (23 February 2022) We need someone to write and publish an article like this for Australian men. And we need it now.

2021 Women’s Budget Statement 2021-labor-womens-budget-statement.pdf (alp.org.au)

Hold the celebrations — the budget’s supposed focus on women is no game-changer (theconversation.com) (13 May 2021)

Budget 2021: Women’s safety measures beefed up by $1.1b (afr.com) (11 May 2021)

Male victims of domestic violence – Do ‘help-lines’ actually help?

Some time ago I wrote a post about an Australian domestic violence organisation called ‘DV Connect’ and how they treated men who contacted them. I’d suggest taking a read of that now if you have the time. This other post may be of broader interest.

I haven’t written anything more about the topic. Yet at the same time, it is something which is put in our face every time the media (TV) runs an item on domestic violence and finishes with the advice to call (such and such agency) if “you are troubled by violent or abusive behaviour from your partner”. Which leaves everyone thinking that at least some help is available for (all) victims of domestic behaviour. But it’s not so.

Most agencies in the domestic violence sector will either turn male callers away or will (officially) cater for them, but on the (wink/nudge) understanding that they are either abusers trying to locate their partners, or are simply abusers in denial.

But now the topic of whether domestic violence help-lines actually do assist male callers has been raised again by an English researcher, Deborah Powney (Twitter id = @Firebird_psych). On 14 April 2020 Deborah began sending daily tweets as per the following:

“Can @RefugeCharity@ukhomeoffice be clear whether the 24 hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline directly supports male victims of domestic abuse or not? Can they clearly state what happens when a man calls? @ManKindInit@nicolejacobsST@10DowningStreet@patel4witham

Simple question. Shouldn’t take long to answer. And she waited. And while she did, she asked one or two further questions, for example:

“Could you provide the numbers of female perpetrators you have helped in the past 12 month? Could also provide the number of female perpetrator programmes that Respect have accredited in the same time period?” (To @RespectUK on 29 April 2020)

It took until 15 May 2020 before Deborah received an initial response.

“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”

Deborah responded the same day, as follows: “Thank you for your response. Just to clarify – you do not help male victims at all – other than ‘immediate’ referal to the @RespectUK men’s helpline. Is that correct?”

@RefugeCharity further responded (also 15 May 2020)

“Hi, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline is branded as a women’s helpline, however if we do receive calls from men the Helpline our staff will always listen, risk assess, address any safeguarding issues and validate the experience. The national domestic abuse helpline, which Refuge runs, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days week. If male callers contact us, we refer them immediately to the men’s advice line, which is a specialist service for male victims of domestic abuse. They will then refer them to the Men’s Advice Line which provides specialist support for men.”

On 15 May 2020 Deborah then asked:

“Can @RefugeCharity@ukhomeoffice be clear what support the 24 hour National DA Helpline gives to male victims of domestic abuse when the @RespectUK taxpayer- funded “Men’s Advice Line” is closed (from either 5pm or 8pm weekdays to 9am & weekends) @nicolejacobsST@pritipatel”

While waiting for a response to the above, on 17 May 2020 Deborah queried another troubling aspect of the UK Government’s current DV response:

@martintandc @RespectUK @JoTodd4 Could you clearly explain why you make specific reference to male terrorists in your Toolkit for working with Male Victims of domestic abuse for the Men’s Advice Line? @nicolejacobsST @pritipatel @ukhomeoffice @mankind @MartinDaubney @PhilipDaviesUK

“For instance, the biggest denominator in acts of terrorism and mass killings is that almost all of the perpetrators are men. Women suffer mental illness at roughly the same rate as men, but almost none commit large-scale violence. Similarly, the levels of suicide for men are much greater then for women, because of social pressure on men not to seek help to deal with their emotional problems”. (Source)

Response subsequently received from a reader (19 May 2020)

From reading this material it seems obvious to me that staff in the relevant agencies had not considered how male callers were being dealt with, let alone how they should be dealt with. The topic was not even ‘on the radar’ as it was seemingly seen to be unimportant, and offering to assist men at all was seen as merely a token gesture.

You might wish to now refer to Deborah’s Twitter account to see if any further responses have been received from government, domestic violence industry, or readers.

(Some information about Deborah’s current research project regarding the experience of male victims of domestic violence can be found here.)

Readers may also find these papers to be of interest:

NorthEast records equal male and female domestic abuse fatalities in three years (1 October 2023) UK

National domestic violence helpline wants only women (12 December 2022)

“The nation’s official anti-domestic violence and sexual harassment hotline (1800 Respect) is battling in SA to have only women answering telephone calls for help”

1IN3’s submission in response to the discussion paper: Implementation considerations should coercive control be criminalised in South Australia, by One in Three (12 April 2022)

How government-funded services in Australia discriminate against male victims of domestic and family violence by presuming they are perpetrators, by One in Three (6 March 2022)

ICMI20: Glass Blind Spot – “What Happens When Someone Calls the National Domestic Abuse Helpline?” – YouTube (15 November 2021) Video

Exploring the Experiences of Telephone Support Providers for Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse (29 July 2020)

Understanding the Profile and Needs of Abused Men: Exploring Call Data From a Male Domestic Violence Charity in the United Kingdom – Benjamin Hine, Sarah Wallace, Elizabeth A. Bates, 2021 (sagepub.com) (28 June 2021)

What happens when people call the Men’s Advice Line? (6 May 2020)

Regarding the granting of gender-specific scholarships in Australia

The other day I noted the following tweet issued by UN Women Australia:

Applications for our MBA scholarship with @Sydney_Business close this Monday 11 May. Don’t miss your chance. Apply today” (linked information)

Each of these scholarships is worth over $60,000 and is “to recognise outstanding leadership, with a commitment to enhancing women’s rights and opportunities”.

I then wrote to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW‘ using the survey facility on this page of their web site. Their response, dated 12 May 2020, is provided below. Curiously this communication was marked ‘Private and Confidential’, the significance of which which I am now seeking clarification. I also sent a query to the Uni of Sydney Business School and others earlier via Twitter, to which I am yet to receive a response.

“I refer to you enquiry received via the community response survey on our website on the 11 May 2020 concerning the University of Sydney offering a scholarship to women only.

Exemptions under the Anti-Discrimination Act NSW 1977 (ADA)

Under the ADA there is no general special measures provision, which applies to all grounds under the Act. Rather, under the sex provisions of the ADA it provides:

  • Exception—genuine occupational qualification (in employment only) s.31and,
  • the Attorney General may grant exemptions (s.126 and s.126A).

Exemptions are granted where the purpose of a particular program or service is to achieve equality between a disadvantaged group and those who are not disadvantaged by addressing past or present disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.

In this sense such measures are non-discriminatory, in that they aim to redress disadvantage. That is, the purpose of such measures is achieving substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, and these measures are critical to preventing and eliminating discrimination.

In July 2019 the University of Sydney was granted an exemption to offer, advertise, and facilitate scholarships for women only in the fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, and finance for a period of ten (10) years. Please refer to our website (under the tab ‘exemptions’) for more information.

Since an exemption has been granted, the program the University of Sydney is providing is exempt from all the provisions of the ADA, so that they cannot be the subject of a complaint because they are providing services or programs designed to achieve equality and redress disadvantage experienced by particular groups in our community.”

Their second last paragraph refers me to this section of the agency’s web site, where you can note that Sydney University has been granted exemptions to provide female-only scholarships in relation to science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, finance, and agriculture/environment. Looking through both this page (Section 126 exemptions) and the page for Section 126a exemptions, the most striking thing is that the overwhelming majority of exemptions granted have been in relation to female-only programs or services.

I wrote back to ‘Anti-Discrimination NSW’ to query aspects of their response:

“Thank you for your agency’s prompt and helpful response to my query to which I would now appreciate some further clarification.

1. Would you kindly advise, in relation to the exemptions granted to Sydney University, what factors you consider to confirm or verify proof of disadvantage for female students, relative to their male counterparts. 

2. I have noted the pages in your web site in relation to Section 126 and Section 126a exemptions. My immediate reaction is concern regarding the overwhelming number of exemptions granted in relation to programs or services that cater only for women.

In drafting your response to these queries you may wish to consider the information presented in the following sources:

Women-only scholarships website produced by the South Australian Government Office for Women (December 2021) And another similar site produced by ‘Australian Graduate Women’

James Cook University, Queensland, Australia (JCU have nil male-only scholarships)

http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/growing-debate-whether-title-ix-should-help-male-students-excluded-by-female-only-programs/

http://www.saveservices.org/2019/05/pr-widespread-sex-discrimination-found-in-college-scholarship-programs/

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11853

https://quillette.com/2019/03/02/lies-damned-lies-and-stem-statistics/

https://www.twincities.com/2018/11/02/anti-male-discrimination-complaint-gets-umn-to-change-scholarship-rules/

Thank you in anticipation of your further assistance with this matter.”

Image

With credit to them ‘Anti-discrimination NSW’ again responded promptly, and on 15 May 2020 they advised:

“In considering whether to grant an exemption under section 126, the President is required to consider the factors set out in the Anti-Discrimination Regulation 2014.

Section 126A certification is granted by the Attorney General. Section 126A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 provides that the Minister may certify a program or activity to be a special needs program or activity if satisfied that its purpose or primary purpose is the promotion of access, for members of a group of persons affected by any form of unlawful discrimination to which this Act applies in an area of discrimination to which this Act applies, to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs or the promotion of equal or improved access for them to facilities, services and opportunities.

Under section 124A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 it is an offence for the President or staff of Anti-Discrimination NSW to disclose information obtained during the exercise of functions under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.”

Image

Further links to background information relevant to this issue can be found in this earlier blog post (scroll down to ‘Cost of Education’), one example of which is this recent paper by John Murawski.

Finally, Mark J. Perry comments (25 February 2021) “The national obsession trying to coerce more girls to go into Computer Science isn’t working. Can we stop the failed social engineering costing hundreds of millions of dollars funding girls’ STEM camps, Girls Who Code, female STEM scholarships, etc.?

See also:

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

Queensland Women in STEM prize, by the Queensland Museum (June 2024)

Actuaries Institute Women Leaders in Data Science/AI Scholarship (8 May 2024)

Australia for ASEAN scholarships (January 2024) “Applications are strongly encouraged from women, people with disability and marginalised groups

Women leaders in sport program (21 August 2023) Australia. Post Matilda’s campaign kerfuffle, with feminist virtue-signaling galore 

Audrey Fagan Enrichment Grant (July 2023) Australia

Chemistry Australia CEW, Woman leader in STEM Scholarship (6 April 2023)

CEW & Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation Scholarships (December 2022)

Queensland University of Technology Women in Engineering Scholarship (October 2022) plus further support programs for female students at QUT is described here. I have written to QUT seeking their justification for running these programs.

Enhance your career with a leadership development scholarship (August 2022)

A scholarship for women working in Indonesian International Trade (2022)

@MediaDiverseAU is calling for expressions of interest from mid-career, women journalists of First Nations/CALD backgrounds to undertake a 12-month program to help pave a pathway for them into leadership roles (May 2022)

Resistance is rising to woke colleges’ race and sex discrimination (24 March 2022) And look what’s happening in America now. Bring it on.

Chief Executive Women scholarships for 2022

Women in STEM tackle barriers to senior management roles (theage.com.au) (13 August 2021)

CQC²T Women in STEM PhD and Honours Scholarships (2021)

Countering sex discrimination at UCF (8 February 2021) Meanwhile over in the USA

According this female MRA posting on Twitter, 92% of all sex-specific scholarships are reserved for women (December 2020) USA

Single-sex scholarships singled out (6 December 2020) USA

Australian government scholarships for women/girls available in November 2020 included: Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship Round 3 (GO4391), scholarships for women in finance & economics (GO4496), and Girls academies for indigenous secondary students. No grants were restricted to male applicants.

Eindhoven University loses sex discrimination case over women-only job ads (3 July 2020) Not scholarships here, but a related issue of university employment

145 universities under federal investigation for sex discrimination against male students (27 May 2020) USA

Women-only STEM college programs under attack for male discrimination (20 August 2019) USA

92 percent of sex-specific scholarships are reserved for women, study finds (21 May 2019) USA

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

“6 out of 10 college freshman are women, so there are more and more scholarship programs and grants available that cater exclusively to women needing funding for college.” Um, aren’t demographic based scholarships/grants supposed to help the underrepresented demographic group? (Tweet dated 4 February 2022)

Image

Grotesque hypocrisy by female politicians (re: domestic violence)

Last night I read an article by the MRA-related UK group HEqual.

It was regarding the response of three UK feminist politicians to the suicides of Caroline Flack and of Carl Sargeant. It disgusted me. I suggest you take a look now … you can read it here

That HEqual paper reminded me of some earlier similar events, and initially the case of Ms Layla Moran (Lib Dem MP for Oxford West & Abingdon and Spokesperson for Education, UK)

Read related information provided by Ally Fogg (a Twitter stream)

Calif Rep Katie Porter’s ex-husband stands by domestic abuse allegations against her, contradicting campaign (13 April 2023) USA

Layla Moran was wrong to hit her partner. But domestic violence by women is not the same as domestic violence by men (7 October 2020)

The next case that came to mind was that of Sarah Champion (more on that case below).

Read related information provided, again, by HEqual

Ex-husband of Labour’s domestic abuse Minister ‘still has nightmares about her’ after attack during divorce (26 September 2016) UK

British feminists including Cherie Blair and Jess Phillips rally behind Amber Heard amid Johnny Depp’s bombshell ‘wife-beater’ libel trial (20 July 2020)

Goodbye Spectator (21 November 2020) UK

MP Claudia Webbe handed suspended sentence for harassing partner’s female friend (5 November 2021)

Leaked Divorce Documents Allegedly Reveal Radical California Democrat Katie Porter’s Horrifying Abuse of Her Ex-Husband, Including Dumping Boiling Potatoes on His Head! (12 April 2023)

(Stay tuned – More to come)

Achieving personal financial security is important for everyone. Dodgy research helps no-one

Why slave away crafting a serious academic research paper when you can knock out an under-graduate quality effort that will still be published provided it pushes the appropriate PC buttons? One gets to bang the feminist drum to one’s heart’s content, virtue-signal across the chattering class, and pad out one’s resume all at the same time.

Anyway, accuracy, objectivity and academic rigor are so last century!

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey’ (14 February 2017)

This unexceptional article merits its own post only by virtue of the way it exemplifies several of my concerns regarding pro-feminist research:

  • presents a non-gendered issue as gendered
  • only surveys women yet uses the results to argue a case of relative female disadvantage
  • features lamentably weak research methodology
  • only identifies contributing factors consistent with a predetermined conclusion based on feminist dogma
  • infers that men are primarily responsible for both causing and resolving the alleged situation of female disadvantage

My comments are inserted within the body of the article, and shown in blue font.

The main premise of the article is that women are significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving financial security, and warrant special assistance in this regard. This disadvantage is said to stem mainly from a lack of awareness of investment options and strategies. In supporting this position the paper grasps at various feminist chestnuts such as the gender wage gap, the superannuation gap, and gender bias within schools and specific employment sectors.

“Our investigation into the financial literacy of young women finds they are confident in implementing budgeting and savings strategies, but lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies.”

The first thought that sprang to mind was ‘Why focus solely on young women?’, especially if the intention is to assert gender-based disadvantage. What exactly was the goal of this research project? Better understanding a problem that affects many PEOPLE with a view to identifying strategies to help those in need? Or simply opportunistically seizing on the issue of savings and investment in order to add to the chorus of ‘women have it tougher’?

The justification for excluding men from the study is hardly compelling:

  • the average level of retirement savings for men is greater than the average for women
  • men are claimed to be, again on average, more financially literate than women.

What of the fact that many men fall below the male average, and quite likely also the female average? There would certainly be no shortage of men who “lack the knowledge and confidence required to implement long-term financial strategies“. Consider too that some women would exceed male average savings, and that this segment is sure to increase in coming years.

Bear in mind too that men’s savings are not necessarily their own, and will more often be used to support dependents. For example, many women are financially supported in later life by current or previous male partners, whilst relatively few men are supported in such a manner. And indeed, far more men than women will have some or all of their savings confiscated via court-ordered settlements following separation or divorce.

“This is surprising given that financial literacy usually refers to not only an understanding of how money actually works and how to make and manage money for day-to-day affairs but also how to use this in preparation for the future.

While our results are preliminary, based on social media users and require more detailed research, our results begin to draw links between social, institutional and personal attitudes towards financial knowledge.

A survey we distributed across social media found that 91% of 175 respondents had confidence in their ability to implement savings strategies (varying from simple to complex), and 89% were confident in their ability to budget. Strategies included everything from planning for a holiday to managing credit cards. Participants also considered budgeting and saving to be the most important aspects of their finances.”

It appears that all the survey respondents were female – a major oversight – and were likely self-selected from within the ranks of the researchers’ friends/associates. What likely degree of survey bias did this entail? In other words, to what extent are the results meaningful even in a purely statistical sense?

However, our survey participants expressed a distinct lack of appreciation for longer-term financial goals. While 72% of respondents felt that savings were extremely relevant to them, only 38% said the same about superannuation, and they showed even less interest in other long-term investment (23%).

Knowledge and confidence in implementing long-term investment strategies were even more concerning. Only 17% of respondents said they had a “medium” knowledge of superannuation and only 1% (or two of 175 respondents) felt that they had an in-depth understanding. In contrast, 55% indicated having little or no knowledge whatsoever.

The numbers look even bleaker for responses about investments. A low 12% of survey participants had medium levels of knowledge in this area, while again only 1% felt their knowledge was in-depth.

When asked about why they lacked financial knowledge, the barrier most commonly acknowledged by participants was lack of financial information taught at school (91%). Also 55% of participants reported feeling discouraged from learning about finance because they were women. This is consistent with reports of female students being discouraged from studying subjects such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).”

Oh please! That’s a reach isn’t it? Did male students receive additional education regarding financial information at school? With no corresponding results for young men, the value of the stats provided above – in terms of supporting a gendered agenda – are dubious.

And as for the validity of measuring how people “feel” about things, I would refer you to this paper.

Why financial literacy matters for women

Women working full-time currently earn 84% of a man’s pay – at a 20 year average. The impact is this: women will earn around [A$650,000 less than men across their lifetimes].

While the pay gap is considerable, the “super gap” is even greater. On average women will accumulate 46.6% less in superannuation than men, and one in three women retire with no super at all. Superannuation is the second largest asset for most Australian households, (second only to housing) and contributes significantly to economic security and savings at retirement.

The pay gap is based on the average for all men and all women, and when analysed it becomes clear that there a significant variations in the extent of the gap (even with respect to which gender is favoured).

Insufficient superannuation and savings at retirement have also been linked to high rates of homelessness experience by older women – a point that has been emphasised by Homelessness Australia. While there are many factors that contribute to homelessness, from drug and alcohol abuse, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence, a 2013 study by Adam Steen and David MacKenzie suggests that the little research done is this area indicates poor financial literacy is also a contributing factor.

Difference in superannuation savings between women and men are driven by interrelated factors including: the gender pay gap, more frequent participation of women in lower paid industries and jobs, disproportionate participation of women in part-time and casual positions. Also influencing this trend are the fragmented work patterns as a result of time taken off for unpaid care and pregnancy related workplace discrimination. Women also typically retire earlier and live longer than men – up to 4.4 years longer for a female born today.

These are mainly issues of personal choice. Choose different options, for example taking a job in a higher paid sectors, and the situation changes regardless of gender – as stated in the following paper (and countless others).

“A Department of Labor study released in 2009, which reviewed upwards of 50 peer-reviewed papers, concluded the wage gap, “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”

“Women, more than men, show a demonstrated preference for lower risk occupations with greater workplace safety and comfort, and they are frequently willing to accept lower wages for the greater safety and reduced probability of work-related injury or death”” (Source)

In addition to these structural and social factors, our data suggests that women are ill-equipped to manage long-term financial investments.

That sounds almost sexist doesn’t it? … whilst readers can only speculate how much better-equipped men in the same cohort are, as the relevant information is omitted from the “data”.

And then there are the other factors that might have a bearing on women’s relative unwillingness or inability to commit to long-term financial plans. One of these is female hypergamy, and one of the authors responded to this suggestion in the following manner:

Do you, dear reader, consider the author’s response to be a) Objective b) Scholarly or c) Butthurt (Circle correct answer/s)

Some other possible factors are mentioned in the readers comments that follow the article, for example the relative confidence of men v women (as distinct from actual knowledge or skill). Willingness to take risk was also mentioned.

Reduced financial literacy amongst women in comparison to men was acknowledged by the Australian government in 2008 and again by the NSW Council of Social Services in 2016. Likewise it has been acknowledged in the United States and further afield. Our data suggests little has changed.

But the authors earlier asserted that homelessness was highly correlated with financial literacy, and yet there are far more homeless men than women. Would someone please explain?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that financial literacy is a significant factor, for both men and women, in achieving financial security later in life. And yes, this should be a major focus in terms of designing appropriate remedial action.

What I am not willing to accept however is:

  • Designing and providing educational programs for financial literacy that are not available to both men/boys and women/girls
  • Extending financial support or other incentives to women, but not men (as in the case, for example, of the ANZ staff Super payment mentioned in this blog post).

And more publicly-funded ‘research’ like this!

See also:

Women and wealth, by Bettina Arndt (19 August 2024)

Australian superannuation company (HESTA) plays straight from the feminist song-book (August 2024)

Labor MP mistaken on homelessness figures (10 May 2023)

The shameful secret behind this photo of a mum and her three kids (3 May 2022) and ‘Horrible’: Why we need to change this appalling reality (2 May 2022) Note that language

Calls for government to pay superannuation for women on parental leave | news.com.au (17 September 2021)

Inconvenient truths about impoverished women and privileged men, by Bettina Arndt (11 April 2021)

Women’s superannuation not so super: The $120,000 gender gap (27 October 2017)

Aussie retirement gender gap much larger than US, UK (17 October 2017)

Brisbane small business to pay female employees more superannuation than male co-workers (28 September 2017)

Superannuation is sexist (6 September 2017) Video

Claims super is ‘biased’ against women are nonsense (30 July 2017)

Image

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

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

dcadebate

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

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

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

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

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

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

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