“Apanel that includes strong critics of current government strategies to prevent violence against women and children will meet for the first time today” (28 May 2024). The panel will hand down its findings between July and September 2024.
Apparently “the federal government has faced significant criticism from the violence response sector following the federal budget” which promised, amongst other things, a rapid review of what’s currently being undertaken to combat DV.
“The rapid review will cost $1.3 million over two years and will be led by Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin, director of the Commonwealth Office for Women Padma Raman, and secretary of the Department of Social Services Ray Griggs.”
“And also making it not a women’s issue but an issue where we focus on the perpetrators of that violence.” Because all perpetrators are male, right?
“The group will consult with the states and territories, the national violence prevention organisation Our Watch, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) and the National Women’s Safety Alliance.”
Two of these groups have blocked me from accessing their social media accounts – that’s a positive sign, right? (#sarcasm). So the group will be consulting widely – just not with any men’s or father’s groups, for example. Oh, but of course they’ll have a couple of token male feminists on board to present that winning sparkle of #inclusion and #diversity.
Nothing in the ABC article provides even a coy hint about the existence of ‘elephant in the room’ things like female perpetrators, male victims and/or bi-directional violence.
Nothing in the ABC article demonstrates that things have been learnt as a result of the umpteen earlier domestic violence enquiries? (Click here then scroll down to public inquiries)
Nothing in the ABC article suggests that the new approach will involve anything other than throwing more money at feminist NGO’s, who will – as sure as God made little green apples – come back the following year to demand that the government “gets serious” and “provides real funding support”? Nothing
#Sigh #FacePalm
Update:“On 23 August 2024, the Australian Government received the final report from the expert panel appointed to undertake a rapid review of evidence-based approaches to prevent gender-based violence. The report provides specific and practical advice to strengthen prevention approaches, and builds on considerable work currently underway in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. The report makes 21 recommendations across 6 key areas for action by federal, state and territory governments. The recommendations will be taken forward as a priority for discussion by National Cabinet.” (Source)
An extract from the final report, re: the “manosphere”:
“Further, the Review has been deeply cognisant of the rising threat of online misogyny and powerful algorithms that threaten to mobilise men against gender equality, including in the so-called ‘manosphere’. This has also been recognised as contributing to a rise in broader radicalisation. Online content remains increasingly unchecked and unmoderated, with young men becoming more isolated the longer that they spend time in these environments. Health experts are therefore advocating for the attitudes held up by the ‘manosphere’ to be considered criminogenic in nature, given that misogynistic beliefs are a significant predictor of most forms of violent extremism and violence against women.”
In contrast, no mention was made of the surfeit of misandric material available to women/girls online. And not surprisingly, word-searches on ‘female perpetrator’, ‘male victim’ and ‘bi-directional violence’ came up empty.
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 where we need to be.
What now follows is a copy of an email I sent on 15 August 2023 to Josh Burns MP, the Chairman of the Australian Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights.
“Dear Josh
I was able to attend the Committee’s meeting in Brisbane today, albeit all too briefly due to various other commitments, and the very short notice provided.
On 7 June I lodged a three page submission to the Inquiry. I have since been in touch with the Secretariat on a couple of occasions to confirm that it would be accepted, speaking again with Geoffrey F. this morning. Meanwhile 269 submissions have been processed and published. I suggested that the fairest approach would be to process submissions in order of their receipt.
Geoffrey did not respond to that suggestion but today advised (again) that they would try to process my submission in the next few weeks. This, assuming it occurs, would take the time frame re: processing my submission out to three months.
Today’s meeting raised another query. On what basis were some people/organisations able to present to the Inquiry in person?
Did they volunteer or were they selected by your committee? If the former then why was this not mentioned in your website or advice given directly to those who had tendered submissions? If the latter, then obviously those submissions that had yet to be processed (e.g. mine) were ruled out of contention.
In each of the cases mentioned above I consider the Inquiry has handled the relevant matter oddly, if not completely inappropriately.
All in all, a disappointing effort thus far.”
(Should a response ever be received from Josh Burns then I will post a copy here)
On 18 August 2023 my submission was finally published online (#309) and I was advised as follows:
“I am writing to advise that your submission has been accepted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The submission has been published with your name withheld on the committee’s webpage as Submission Number 309. You are now free to circulate your submission to other parties, should you wish to do so. We will also be providing your submission to anyone on request.
Your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament or its members and others necessary for the discharge of the parliamentary functions without obstruction and fear of prosecution. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything that you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence.”
In my original submission I noted that “the online sources listed in this document, drafted by me unless indicated otherwise, form the bulk of my submission to the Inquiry.” The next development was my discovery that the hyperlinks to supporting information contained in my submission were no longer functional.
On 21 August I was advised that “Committees generally deactivate links to personal websites in submissions. If you would like to provide an addendum with the URLs spelled out in full, we can append it to your submission.” I provided a proposed addendum and was advised that this would be uploaded. I checked the Inquiry website on 23 August, clicking on my submission only to learn that “There seems to be a problem with the page. If the problem persists please contact us.” As I did. And as of the evening of 23 August my submission was available online. <Party-popper duly popped>
In closing, upon my last checking, 318 submissions had been published by the Inquiry’s Secretariat. My initial impression was one of apprehension in the face of what seems to be a surfeit of formulaic ‘woke’ and/or pro-feminist rambling. Where’s all that diversity and inclusion when it’s needed? Where’s the support for men & boys?
Ah, but things could have been so much worse! Read about the experience endured by esteemed lobby group ‘One in Three’, in their dealings with another federal inquiry.
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?
Thus Crikey didn’t simply grovel, it took the somewhat unusual step of also deleting the article in question from their website. So if you’d like to read the article and form your own view of the matter, well tough, as you’ll need to search high and low to find yourself a copy. You might also wish to read various papers on the topic that have been prepared by Bettina Arndt (example).
I’ve read the Crikey article and I can’t fathom the amount of venom it’s attracted. The author doesn’t accuse anyone of anything, he simply nominates and briefly discusses a number of possible scenarios. I could point to many pro-feminist/woke-authored papers that should have sparked greater outrage, and were far more worthy of removal. Anyway, I’ll study Guy’s article again in coming days and perhaps my view will alter. But I doubt it.
Considering the following points:
the rather large question marks still posed by the Higgins matter
the corresponding manner in which our feminist-saturated media deals with (or fails to deal with) stories about men and boys, and
that we seemed to be making progress in terms of the media tackling issues with their eyes a little more widely opened.
I’m more inclined to #FacePalm #sigh. Oh, I dunno. Surely I’m not alone in finding this episode to be both very disappointing and worrisome regarding where-ever it is that the media, government and sundry woke cohorts are heading?
And the silence that now surrounds the issue suggests that those who might otherwise demand answers, have gone to ground in the expectation that woke screamers will bay for the blood of anyone who dares lift their heads from the trench.
One point that has been raised, and understandably so, is the figure of AUD$3mill that was earlier suggested as the sum that Brittany received from the government. Brittany has stated that she didn’t receive anything close to this amount. So how much and why?
Surely you would think that someone would lodge an FOI request to clarify at least this point. But nope – silence.
Anyway we’ll see what, if anything, emerges in coming days.
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:
Queensland’s discrimination law is thirty years old. In May 2021, the Attorney-General asked the Queensland Human Rights Commission to undertake a review of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The review presented a valuable opportunity to make sure the law is keeping up to date with the changing needs of our society.
The Commission was asked to look at whether our anti-discrimination law protects and promotes equality and non-discrimination to the greatest extent possible.
‘One in Three‘ is a diverse group of male and female professionals – academics, researchers, social workers, psychologists, counsellors, lawyers, health promotion workers, trainers and survivor/advocates.
One in Three aims to raise public awareness of the existence and needs of male victims of family violence and abuse; to work with government and non-government services alike to provide assistance to everyone affected by family violence; and to reduce the incidence and impacts of family violence on Australian men, women and children. One in Three believes our society has the capacity to support all victims of family violence, whether male or female, young or old, gay or straight, rich or poor, wherever they live.
In their submission, the One in Three Campaign identifies five different ways in which male victims of family violence are discriminated against in Queensland:
Discrimination in service provision – not available to male victims or female perpetrators
Discrimination in service provision – access allowed, but service provided is harmful or poor
Discrimination in funding
Discrimination within research
Discrimination in public health campaigns.
One in Three’s proposed solution would be to establish a competent triage system based upon severity of violence, risk and need (not sex/gender), that would ensure the limited services available would go to those who need them the most. In order to do this, Section 104 of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (“The Act”) would require amendments to remove the Example, “It is not unlawful to restrict special accommodation to women who have been victims of domestic violence.”
Here is a link to One in Three’s submission to the Queensland Government (March 2022)
“The Review will consider how to improve women’s economic security through increased economic participation over the next 5-10 years.
Your ideas will help inform and refine the next steps taken towards improving women’s economic opportunities. This is an important occasion to have a direct voice about the changes you want to see in your community and our society.” (Source)
More details are provided in the media release here.
The deadline for public submissions for this enquiry is 6 March 2022.
If you’re content to see the economic welfare of men and boys now routinely disregarded then there’s no need to bother having your say.
A copy of my submission now follows:
Submission to the Women’s Economic Opportunities Review (New South Wales)
I note that “The Women’s Economic Opportunities Review will consider how to improve women’s economic security over the next 5 – 10 years, including through increased participation in the workforce.
The review will identify barriers to women’s participation in work and propose reform opportunities to address structural and non-structural barriers to support women to enter, re-enter and stay in the workforce.” (Source)
Elsewhere I note that “The next NSW budget will splash cash on fixing women’s inequality in the economy as a way of lifting the state out of the financial shock of the pandemic and the recent omicron surge.
Improving access to childcare and reworking school hours – something flagged by the government last year – are among the items that may be addressed in June’s budget.
Premier Dominic Perrottet has not promised a blank cheque but says the government will implement what it can of recommendations of a state review into boosting economic opportunity for women in NSW.” (Source)
I thought that one quick and easy, albeit imperfect, gauge of the NSW’s Government position regarding gender would be to look at what posts I have created in my blog in relation to gender issues. A relevant listing is available at https://www.fighting4fair.com/?s=nsw. The tone of the matters I discuss in those posts seems to paint the NSW Government as being overtly pro-feminist, and with little or no interest in recognition and support for men and boys and the issues they face. Have a look and see what you think, but the balance seems to lean rather heavily towards gynocracy rather than gender equality to me.
As a consequence I am assuming that the NSW Government has no intention of pursuing a corresponding and similar process in relation to men’s economic opportunities. I hope that one day it will pay more than mere lip service to the notion of gender equality, and do so.
The information that I would like to present in relation to each of your designated outcome areas (for women) now follows.
On the basis that your agency has chosen to completely disregard the interests and the welfare of one half of the community (in this case, men and boys) then I anticipate that you would support my right – in the context of this submission – to do likewise. Looking towards the future … I suggest losing the unfortunate ideological bias and trying to do better. For all our sakes.
And finally, a few parting words and diagrams regarding the male perspective:
The Australian Government is developing a National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 to replace the existing National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022.
The deadline for public submissions was 25 February 2022.
“The draft National Plan has been developed through consultation with victim-survivors, specialist services, representatives from the health, law and justice sectors, business, and community groups, all levels of government and other experts. This consultation opportunity builds upon previous consultations including:
The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence
Two national advisory bodies: the National Plan Advisory Group and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence.” (Source)
I prepared a brief submission using the online questionnaire format which was relatively quick and painless, however I couldn’t easily save a copy to reproduce on this page.
Below are just some notes that I made earlier on in the process:
Let’s start nice and simple with a word search of the draft Plan looking for the terms ‘male victim’ and/or ‘female perpetrator’ and/or ‘abusive women’. How about a reference to the best known/established Australian organisation that represent male victims of domestic violence, the One in Three group? And what about the important term ‘bilateral violence’? Ok, surprise, surprise, no hits anywhere there.
Normally these sort of documents begin with a section entitled ‘What is domestic violence?’, and then trot out the tired claim that ‘whilst sometimes men may be victims of domestic violence, the overwhelming majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women’ (and then aim to use this as justification for ignoring male victims for the remainder of the document). The draft Plan gets around that believability problem by entitling the relevant section as ‘What is violence against women and children?’, creating the impression that domestic violence is limited to that one form of action or behaviour. (Page 10)
The first modification of the Plan that I requested was a change in its name to the ‘National Plan to Reduce Domestic Violence in the Community’ (or similar). The current name of the plan is a ridiculous, outdated affront to the victims of abusive women/girls and their families.
Next, the draft Plan features a section identified as “Drivers of violence against women and children” (Page 12), wherein the authors note:
Violence against women is not caused by any single factor. However, Australia’s national guide to prevent violence against women, Change the Story, sets out that violence against women has distinct gendered drivers. Evidence points to four factors that most consistently predict or drive violence against women and explain its gendered patterns.
Driver 1: Condoning of violence against women.
Driver 2: Men’s control of decision-making and limits to women’s independence in public and private life.
Driver 3: Rigid gender stereotyping and dominant forms of masculinity.
Driver 4: Male peer relations and cultures of masculinity that emphasise aggression, dominance and control.
The primary driver of violence against women is gender inequality, however this also intersects with other forms of discrimination and disadvantage that can marginalise people and make it more likely that some groups of women and children will experience greater levels of violence than others.
But what of two factors that studies have shown to be absolutely seminal – although not in feminist-conducted research – in their influence with regards to fostering domestic violence? These are the initiation and routine use of violence by the female partner, and the childhood experiences of parental neglect and abuse of those people who become adult male abusers?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
