On 25th November 2014 the White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) celebrated its annual ‘White Ribbon Day’, whereupon they beat their chests about the wonderful job they (say they) are doing, and sought to fill their coffers via donations and merchandise sales.
I visited their Facebook page at that time and noticed quite a number of dissenters posting comments there. In true feminist fashion these were slyly removed during the course of the day (as discussed in this blog post). WRC representatives responded to the nay-sayers by castigating them for complaining about WRC’s focus on female victims, and/or by telling them to go and start their own organisation to address violence towards men.
Without doubt there would be many people out there who would say, how could anyone be so mean-spirited as to criticise the White Ribbon Campaign? So what if they focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, at least they are still helping someone? Surely any publicity that raises awareness of the problem of domestic violence is a good thing? Lots of celebrities support WRC so they must be doing something useful otherwise those people wouldn’t risk their reputations, right? Right?
The WRC believes, or at least tries to make others believe, that those opposing it are misogynists who are angry about its sole focus on female victims. In actual fact, in most cases, that is not the root cause of disquiet about their operation.
So, if this issue isn’t the main issue of concern, then what is?
1. WRC’s lack of honesty and transparency, and their censorship, shaming and attacks on others holding alternative views
Publicly, the WRC’s rationale for focusing solely on female victims is based on their claim that the “overwhelming” majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by males upon females. Privately, the driving force behind WRC is its rigid adherence to feminist ideology.
These false assertions have the effect of denying male victims of domestic violence appropriate recognition or support, and of unfairly demonising men in general. Another outcome is the lack of attention given to abusive women through, for example, the provision of behaviour modification programs for female offenders.
Thus the problem is not that the WRC focuses on male violence towards women, but that – for strategic reasons – they fail to acknowledge other significant elements of domestic violence. No, in fact they do more than that. They argue that those whose priorities differ from their own are (at best) ignorant and misguided, and at worst that they are abusers themselves.
The message disseminated by WRC seeks to make a complex social issue appear simple. This is useful in attracting and maintaining the interest, and subsequently the financial support, of the public. Part of this involves inventing a single easily-identifiable bogey-man – the heterosexual male.
WRC’s approach also handily puts the onus for addressing the problem onto men and absolves women of any responsibility in relation to either causing the problem or fixing it.
2. The fact that WRC diverts, both strategically and inadvertently, public and private funds away from programs where they might be used more effectively in the fight against domestic violence and/or in assisting victims of DV
The effects of misrepresentations by WRC, when combined with substantial marketing efforts, political acumen, and a social environment highly supportive of feminism, sees WRC exert a significant influence on government policies and decisions regarding resource allocation to DV.
WRC compromise efforts to reduce domestic violence and assist male victims because they misrepresent both the nature of the problem and the nature of potential solutions. In so doing they side-track us from identifying and implementing more effective solutions. This skews the nature of research undertaken, in turn skewing the nature of support services provided.
WRC are not satisfied for a reasonable share of funds to be directed towards feminist groups like their own, they want all available funds so directed.
Questions have also been raised as to WRC’s ability to competently manage public funds, and the extent to which its operations are financially self-serving. Ironically this is happening at the expense of men, given that men contribute the majority of tax revenue.
According to White Ribbon Australia’s corporate annual report for 2013, they gambled their donations in the stock market and lost one fourth of their current assets! In other words, they lost almost $500,000 AUS playing the stock market with the public’s donations! Here is what their corporate annual report states:
“Total equity declined from $1,193,398 to $751,611 as a result of the trading loss.”
Society’s current predilection for placing feminism and feminist organisations on a pedestal, goes hand in hand with inadequate government oversight and serious lapses in accountability. History has shown us that this type of situation usually ends badly. It is quite simply a scandal waiting to happen. (I talk about this problem in my post on the Domestic Violence Industry)
WRC’s involvement in running programs in schools
White Ribbon’s involvement in running what are essentially feminist indoctrination programs in schools has been a source of considerable concern for many. This is the subject of the sources listed below, and is discussed further in this blog post.
Why does the White Ribbon Campaign make these errors of judgement, and why will it continue to do so?
WRC will continue down its current path because doing so supports feminist ideology and helps grow the influence of that movement, a goal that is of paramount importance to them. As a consequence, targeting anything or anyone that threatens the feminist narrative in relation to domestic violence is accorded a high priority (see my posts on Tanveer Ahmed and Sallee McLaren for example).
Secondly, it is financially lucrative for WRC to continue their current operating model. Misrepresenting the nature of domestic violence, and exaggerating its scale, stimulates further public support and government funding. This then channels additional funds towards themselves, other feminist enterprises and individual feminists (as per my post on the Domestic Violence Industry).
Firstly, what do I mean by the term “fudging” in the context of this blog post?
to present or deal with (something) in a vague or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead and/or
to adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.
So how do feminists and their allies, go about fudging statistics? Well the most common technique used, so prevalent that it’s virtually a hallmark of feminist literature, is to report statistics in relation to female victimhood in the absence of comparative figures for men and boys. Such information is (or at least, was) generated in surveys but usually went unreported, unless doing so would support the feminist perspective.
Thus subsequently, and in a worrying trend, more and more research projects undertaken by pro-feminist organisations don’t include male subjects in surveys. Nor do they investigate impacts on males or attitudes towards men (examples here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Clearly with corresponding data in relation to males unavailable then rapporteurs can easily deflect requests for contextual information. Information which would, in many cases, otherwise weaken their claims of gendered victimhood.
Thus biased researchers can represent a social problem as being gendered when it is not. And so the next researcher builds on existing incomplete research and concludes and/or implies in their report … this problem rarely affects men, or affects men in different & lesser ways, etc (but we can’t be sure because no data). And the cycle of gender bias in research, and subsequently in policy formulation, rolls on.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation believe the reverse to be true, and that there is a ‘gender data gap’ with “male-biased surveys that fail to capture women’s perspectives, their needs and their economic value”. They provide a 3rd world example upon which I am not qualified to comment, but with regards to 1st world countries their proposition is laughable. This Australian feminist writer, Kristine Ziwica, is pushing the same line (12 March 2019).
A paper by Dr. Murray Straus addressed the issue of feminists distorting domestic violence data. He identified the seven primary methods they used as being:
To suppress Evidence
To avoid obtaining data inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
To cite only studies that show Male Perpetration
To conclude that results support Feminist beliefs when they do not
To create “evidence” by citation
To obstruct publication of articles and obstruct funding research that might contradict the idea that male dominance is the cause of PV (see this post)
To harass, threaten, and penalize researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs (see this post)
I was studying the readers comments in relation to a rather biased article about domestic violence. One comment was from a respected spokesperson on men’s health issues, Adam Blanch. Adam was talking about the latest ‘Personal Safety Survey‘ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is what Adam had to say:
“Domestic violence is about people who are angry, jealous, distressed and mentally ill acting out their frustration. The motive for ‘control’ and ‘power’ is only present in a very small percentage of DV, and both sexes do it to the same extent.
The entire Duluth model, which assets that domestic violence is about ‘Gender power relations’, has been so extensively disproven by legitimate researchers that no fair minded person without a ‘gender agenda’ could possibly subscribe to it.
PS. the ABS personal safety survey has some serious methodological issues that appear to have been built in, twice, to bias the outcome in favour of a ‘Gendered’ view of DV.
The 2012 report sampled less than 20% the number of women than men, down from 25% in the 2005 survey. though overall they increased the numbers for both genders for 2012, the male sample size is so small that many of the findings are unreliable again.
They were criticised for only using female interviewers in 2005, so in 2012 they trained a few male interviewers to be available on request. However, they don’t appear to have told the interviewees that they were available. This was based don ‘expert advice’ that both men and women would be more comfortable with female interviewers, these experts are unnamed. Who are they. Are they male? have they worked with male victims of abuse? What qualifies them as experts. I’ve worked with thousands of men, and I can assure you that most men will not reveal the same information to a woman that they will to a man.
This lack of transparency and sample balance is unacceptable for research conducted at this level.”
The Bureau shrugged-off this criticism and in September 2016 successfully obtained AHRC approval to only employ female interviewers in relation to a survey that encompasses the issue of domestic violence.
“Professor Triggs granted the ABS the exemption, accepting their submission, which included studies from not-for-profit groups, stating men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women” And so disregarding the flipside … that male victims would be more likely to tell THEIR story to other men.
This is hardly the first time I have encountered concerns raised by authoritative sources regarding the credibility of domestic violence research, and in fact it appears to be an ongoing issue.
Australia’s ABC has a reputation for pushing the feminist agenda, with one example being the article ‘Domestic violence of epidemic proportions a ‘national emergency’: campaign groups‘ by Ursula Malone and Juanita Phillips. Nothing like turning up the rhetoric to keep that government funding flowing through to feminists and their organisations during these difficult economic times. And all based on fudged statistics, in particular that “Domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45“.
“The vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Given for example that only 17 percent of women who experienced sexual assault by a male perpetrator (in their most recent incident of violence) reported it to the police (ABS 2012), the actual percentage of false cases is likely to be tiny. By one estimate, the actual percentage of false cases as a proportion of all rapes (reported and unreported) may be closer to 0.005 percent.” (Flood, M, 2014)
An Australian MRA by the name of Paul Rogers brought this error to their attention stating (in part) that:
“Even Wikipedia doesn’t suggest that false rape allegations are as low as you claim, which is saying something. I have provided an excerpt below from Wikipedia to highlight that your claim is many orders of magnitude lower than even the lowest value claimed by most authorities … I urge you to state the truth rather than continue to cherry-pick outlier claims because they support your misandry.”
I should also point out that it’s not only feminist groups that engage is this sort of misrepresentation. In this media release, the advocacy group SAVE denounces the use of misleading information on domestic violence by none other than (then) President Obama himself.
Demonstrating the remarkably one-sided manner in which feminists view the world, in the following article a feminist journo criticizes a men’s rights group on their use of statistics:
The references listed below alternately discuss or exemplify bias against men, as perpetrated by journalists and others (often working in the sphere of domestic violence, sexual violence and related fields):
Elite journal under fire over racism (13 April 2021) Article by Stephen Rice which is currently behind a paywall at ‘The Australian’. I’ll try to provide a link as soon as one is available. Not directly related to misandry, but an example of how social problems are massaged to satisfy the fears or preferences of woke folk.
Not the full story (30 March 2021) Media Watch video. Yet another example of what happen when you start with a pre-determined narrative and then have to make everything fit around it.
Domestic violence on the rise during pandemic (13 July 2020) “The survey of 15,000 Australian women in May provides the most detailed information in the world about the prevalence and nature of domestic violence experienced by women during the pandemic.” How many men did they say were surveyed? That would be *none*. Here is a link to the web page of the agency that produced this research.
Domestic Abuse: The latest lie (19 July 2019) Most men who are victims of partner violence are in homosexual relationships, right? Wrong. But it doesn’t stop feminists from claiming it is true.
Whose research got us a picture of a ‘black hole’ in 2019? It was a girl right? See this tweet from Tom Golden with linked video that tells the story that the media didn’t.
Articles like the linked one now tell us how horrible the “trolls” are for “targeting” the female scientist, but funny how they don’t address the facts of the case – did she only produce 6% of the coding or not? See also this paper from ‘A Voice for Men’.
‘Blatant spin’: SBS accused of sifting data to show ‘sexist’ Australia, and SBS’s ‘sexism’ doco is just blatant propaganda (21 November 2018) Both of these articles appeared in The Australian newspaper, and are behind a ‘paywall’. Watch this Bettina Arndt video for some good background on this issue.
La Trobe bans my talk on the fake rape crisis, by Bettina Arndt (2 August 2018) This article concerns the exaggeration of the incidence of sexual assault in Australian universities by the Australian Human Rights Commission and others.
When care becomes control – financial abuse cuts across cultures (17 January 2017) As I state in this post, most papers on financial abuse ignore the reality of male victimisation, and this is yet another example. In the absence of conclusive proof that only women were victimised one would expect a researcher to survey men and women. Failure to do so, as in this and many other cases, is evidence of gender bias to support a particular ideological narrative.
Cutting to numb the pain of sex abuse: interviews with young women in drug treatment (12 August 2016) Australia. Although this article focuses on the needs of young women, the underlying research surveyed both genders. Whilst I have yet to review the findings in detail, my default position is one of disquiet regarding the merit of applying different fixes to men and women. Without a very thorough understanding of all contributing factors, esp. in relation to cause/effect, there is a real danger that we may misinterpret the true situation. Also, from what has happened in the field of domestic violence for example, there is a real danger of a monopolisation of all available resources for the treatment of women.
Anti-abuse campaign targets university students (22 February 2016) Australia. Typical of Our Watch research this survey appears designed to deliver a pre-determined finding of gendered female victimhood. The article reports one part of the picture, but where are the responses to (for example) how many boys were pressured “to do sexual things”? Whether girls respect the ability to consent in relation to boys who are drunk, etc.
(I believe there to be a question mark over the extent to which the Australian Research Council is itself free of gender bias. I say this not in terms of funds provided to male versus female researchers, but in terms of social research projects with a feminist orientation being strongly favoured. Consider the examples provided of feminist research mentioned in this other blog post, as well as this article which will be discussed in a future post. The author of this article presenting a feminist-concordant perspective on the gender pay gap was also ARC-funded. These spreadsheets look at the nature of projects funded by the ARC)
“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. This conveniently neglects to mention that as many Aussie kids have seen their mum hit their dad as vice versa (See footnote 7)
The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”
Are domestic violence figures bogus? (22 February 2014) Includes discussion of the notorious ‘intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45’ statistic myth
I spoke to hundreds of men about rape and domestic violence (24 September 2014) Note that this is a different survey to that discussed by Adam Blanch earlier. It is certainly feasible that interviewers might influence survey respondents. It hardly fills one with confidence about the reliability of the results when interviewers are prepared to go on record with such strong views on the matter being investigated.
If manipulating and misrepresenting statistics to suit an agenda was a crime then the feminist authors of this “fact-sheet” should be in jail. Many of these so-called facts are debunked in papers listed in this other post about domestic violence, whilst others demand the smallest measure of common-sense to confirm just how misleading they are.
“A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15% of killers, and in murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse murders, women represented 41% of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55% of killers” (Source)
The paragraph above was extracted from a 1994 publication, not because patterns of gender perpetration have changed greatly but because the feminist filter has been imposed so completely now, that we only see articles like this one that present statistics in a manner suggesting that women are the perpetual victims of oppressive male malevolence. (Refer to Reddit discussion thread here)
Regarding the table below … hardly an ‘epidemic’. The only increase is in male victimisation. It’s no wonder that, in pushing its ‘epidemic’ barrow, the Domestic Violence Industry increasingly relies on statistics generated by help-line call centres instead. And of course we can trust the integrity of those sources.
“Advocacy research consists of collating available evidence or producing new information to support a pre-determined policy position. Advocacy research is commonly carried out by pressure groups, lobby groups and interest groups (such as trade unions) and, occasionally, by political parties, journalists and academics – especially those working in the social policy field.”
“It is difﬁcult to criticize advocacy research without giving an impression of caring less about the problem under consideration than do those who are engaged in magnifying its size. But one may be deeply concerned about problems such as rape, child abuse, and homelessness yet still wish to see a rigorous and objective analysis of their dimensions. Advocacy research that uncovers a problem, measures it with reasonable accuracy, and brings it to public attention performs a valuable service by raising public consciousness. The current trend in advocacy research is to inﬂate problems and redeﬁne them in line with the advocates’ ideological preferences. The few impose their deﬁnition of social ills on the many – seeking to incite moral panics. This type of advocacy research invites social policies that are likely to be neither effective nor fair.”
With regards to the Latrobe Uni study noted above, why not include people of any gender who are concerned about any form of harassment or assault on public transport? In other words get the big picture of what’s occurring. Ditto for all the studies/article regarding workplace harassment that restrict themselves to considering ‘sexual harassment’, knowing full well that this is likely to focus attention on the female perspective.
My initial post about domestic violence within this blog can be found here, whilst other DV-related posts can be located by clicking on the ‘domestic violence’ tag at the bottom of this page. It is suggested that this post also be read in conjunction with:
Note the phrase, “the overwhelming majority of[domestic]violence in Australia is perpetrated by men against women“. You will see it again and again in literature produced by other pro-feminist organisations involved with the issue of domestic violence.
This is how the issue is presented to the Australian community, a single-minded focus on malevolent males justified by misrepresenting the extent to which men are responsible for perpetrating domestic violence. Presumably as a concession to professional integrity, authors sometimes reward tenacious readers with some passing acknowledgment of female perpetrators and male victims.
This occurs not just in Australia but also in other countries strongly influenced by feminism. Here is a recent example from the United Kingdom (see para 2 after ‘Lies, damn lies, and statistics).
The definition of overwhelming is “so great as to render resistance or opposition useless, and the definition of majority is “the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total“.
Whilst there is no precise definition of the term “overwhelming majority“, suffice to say most people would interpret the phrase as meaning in excess of a 75% majority.
Although some research findings are conflicting, one might assert that heterosexual men were responsible for perpetrating the ‘majority’ of domestic violence. But let there be no doubt that any statement that men are responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of acts of domestic violence is patently untrue, and that anyone advancing this position is either willfully ignorant and/or a misandrist.
I could ‘beat around the bush’, but it really is that simple. And it’s well past the time that this blatant falsehood was put to rest.
Links to numerous studies that found that men were NOT responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of acts of domestic violence can be found in this blog post. These studies were not undertaken by, nor funded by, men’s rights activists, or by organisations that had a demonstrably pro-mens rights focus. These studies are, by and large, objective academic endeavours. A highly significant point of difference.
The above statement was copied from a media release marking the launch of the Australian version of the ‘Painted Man’ campaign. In fact the overwhelming majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women. The same statement also originally appeared in the YGap web site but was later amended to read that men perpetrated approximately 90% of child sexual violence against children – a statistic yet to be substantiated by Australian statistics.
The ‘Misinformation‘ page within the web site of the ‘One in Three’ organisation is full of examples of feminists and feminist organisations bending the truth.
The false and inappropriate use of such statements is by no means restricted to Australia, for example within the UK Government’s ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls’ document (cited here) we find:
“The vast majority of the incidents of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking are perpetrated by men on women.”
A further irritation is the realisation that even if the majority of victims were men, then they would still be ignored by the feminist lobby. See this example in relation to homeless people.
Update as of 28 August 2020: The UK Office of Statistics Regulation was asked to review the use of the word ‘vast’ to describe the number of male perpetrators compared to female perpetrators of abuse in the draft statutory guidance framework for the Domestic Abuse Act (Source). Related Twitter thread
And yet when the ‘overwhelming majority’ of those afflicted with some form of disadvantage are male, as in the case of homelessness, the authorities simply ignore them to focus on the minority (see this discussion thread).
I spent some time the other day voicing my views in relation to an article that appeared in an Australian web site called ‘The Conversation‘. Their motto is ‘academic rigour, journalistic flair’. Their track-record, in my experience, is based upon pandering to progressive liberals – especially feminists. Naturally that has a big bearing on their failure to satisfy the “academic rigour” part of the equation. They include nothing from a men’s rights or egalitarian perspective and heavily moderate readers comments to make sure as little as possible of that nasty triggering sort of stuff makes it online.
Anyway the article was entitled ‘Out of the shadows: The rise of domestic violence in Australia‘ (4 August 2014). I’m going to let you read that article, which is fairly typical of its genre, i.e. domestic violence IS men’s violence towards women and their children, no mention of female perpetrators or male victims, etc. Last time I looked there were more than 50 readers comments tagged on the end, including those of yours truly.
A day or two later I stumbled upon the facebook page of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘, an organisation tasked with lobbying for and on behalf of female victims of DV. The Foundation receives several million dollars each year from the federal government plus further funding from the Victorian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments.
Anyway, scrolling down the Foundation’s page I quickly came upon posts by people complaining about some of the comments contributed to the article mentioned above. The comments in question identified substantial omissions and misrepresentations in the way that the issue of domestic violence had been portrayed.
White knight ‘Mike’ bemoaned the fact that men were “nit-picking” the stats about the victimisation of men. Hmm, alerting the public to the fact that a large slab of the victims and perpetrators of DV are being ignored … yes, how petty of us. A spokesperson for the Foundation subsequently commented: “Yes it’s pretty upsetting but let’s hope this kind of resistance is a sign a raw nerve has been struck and that once these men get over the shock they will reach some kind of realisation.”
And then a few days later (6 August 2014) the following exchange took place:
Denise H – What about domestic violence against men. It happens, it’s very real.
Kirstina B – ‘Denise’ is a guy, obviously.
Kirstina B –Oh, and ‘Denise’, I’m sure gay men suffer violence from men, too. That will be addressed when DV is addressed for women.
Kris C –I wonder why some people are quick to hijack any publicity of DV with trying to talk about male victims. Yes, they are real, but it’s rather rude to butt in with that when that’s not the specific focus at hand. Imagine hijacking any publicity on the victims of the airline crash with “what about burns victims? they are real”. [See Footnote 2]
These and other material contained within the Foundation’s page go beyond simply being callous and offhand, to being either breathtakingly deluded or just plain sick. In fact the Foundation’s Facebook page appears to be a veritable goldmine of misandry and gloating indifference to the plight of men.
Men are being battered at the same rate as women but this is rarely acknowledged by the media. Men dare to draw attention to this disparity and instead of empathy and support, the Foundation treats them as if they were ignorant, selfish or stupid.
“Let’s hope” the men “reach some kind of realisation”, huh?Oh you bet we will. The realisation that the Foundation, and the feminist ideology with which it is so richly imbued, is content to angrily wave away the welfare of half of the community.
I’d like to invite members of the Foundation to peruse the following comments attributed to men who approached shelters for emergency accommodation: (Source)
“One abused man said:
They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.
They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.
Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse. One abused man said:
They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.
They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.
Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.”
One abused man said: They just laughed and hung up the phone.
Another said: They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.
I call on the men and women of the ‘Foundation to prevent violence against women and their children‘ to park their sexist bigotry for 30 minutes and scan the dozens of studies that I either list or link to on my post about domestic violence that show that as many women are violent as are men. Then take a look at my blog post about male victims of domestic violence and the shameful lack of support that they receive.
Ask yourselves, are all of the studies faked? Are they all wrong? Fraudulent components of a global patriarchal conspiracy? Consider those findings in relation to the message you broadcast in your web site and facebook page. Do you feel smugly self-satisfied about the twisted version of reality you are painting, or is there some small sliver of guilt?
Do you not see that acknowledging the true reality of male victimhood, of female perpetration, and of bi-directional violence, does not undermine the validity of advocating for women? Do you understand that this is not some sort of ‘winner take all’ blame game? [see Footnote 3] And that it’s not necessary to step on the backs of men, and certainly not the backs of male victims, to help female victims?
It hardly even matters what the ratio of male/female abusers is, what is important is to address the whole problem and to discuss potential solutions in a free, open, constructive and non-judgemental manner. This is not what the main players in the DV advocacy sector are doing at the moment. This is what they should be doing. What they could be doing if they stopped wasting time deleting posts from others equally invested in finding a solution, but whose ideas and perspectives happen to differ from their own.
Please submit your response to this post and I will be sure to put it online. Oh, and be sure to include your postal address so I can send you your very own commemorative singlet (pictured).
The first of these two staunchly gynocentric articles contained gems of feminist wisdom like:
“Until recently, the media weren’t interested in reporting domestic violence. Journalists didn’t see “domestics” as a story. The reason for this seems to be that the media hold the same negative attitudes to women that have been globally recognised as contributing to violence against them in the first place.
This is of concern, since media play a key role in forming societal attitudes to gender and gender roles.”
Well if you look at my primary post in this blog dealing with domestic violence you will see that the media has published quite a bit about domestic violence. You only need to get busy with google to confirm that. And not only that, but most of the coverage has pushed the feminist line 100%. That being the case I find myself agreeing with the feminists that it really IS a worry that the media forms societal attitudes … which will now be saturated with feminist dogma and strongly biased against men and boys.
“Australian media have a balance of power tipped overwhelmingly towards men, according to the most recent study of who owns, runs, influences, reports, presents and creates the news.”
Isn’t it just amazing that seeing how the media is run by men for men, that it takes such a strongly pro-feminist view towards the issue of domestic violence. Quite remarkable really. That little old patriarchy sure can move in mysterious ways.
Footnote 1: Flagrant misrepresentations by feminist DV spokespeople are by no means uncommon. Mike Buchanan in the U.K has also written letters seeking the retraction of biased and misleading information, and as with Ms Stott Despoja, no responses were forthcoming:
But in past weeks the #womenagainst feminism hashtag has really taken off, so let’s celebrate this by launching a new post dedicated to the subject.
This is the blog that got people talking (and here it is on Facebook). And then came the feminist backlash, which ranged from bemused to concerned/pleading to (mostly) white hot anger:
“Feminist Bitches” Who Needs Them? (11 August 2014) Both the article and readers comments have to be read to be believed – stupid on steroids. But be sure to read the contribution by ‘Bowspearer’ in the readers comments section – most insightful and eloquent.
And here in Australia the feminists are really frothing at the mouth with rage (see also readers comments) (‘The Conversation’, 18 August 2014) Here nutty feminist ‘Jena’ responds to one of the few anti-feminists who bothered to post comments:
“I actually don’t need to answer to you Andrew and historical record is my proof of the fact that Lincoln, Wilberforce and other reformers have been lionised while your response to this article is singular proof (documented) that females are denigrated for the same work.
Now, it is left to me to also state that females are not compelled to answer to you and so, in future, your comments will be ignored by me at least.”
“These “don’t-rape” courses have no interest in teaching women to take proper ownership of the decision-making process that leads to a yes or no, let alone encouraging them to express those wishes clearly rather than keep men guessing.
Back in the 1990s I made a programme on sexual consent – Yes, No, Maybe – as a guest reporter on Four Corners. I had no trouble finding women who acknowledged they deliberately drink to avoid making decisions around consent. Women who admitted to playing games where they said no but wanted men to push through that resistance – a popular theme in hugely popular bodice ripper novels.
None of these complexities are addressed in the sexual consent programmes”
“There is no such thing as consent because patriarchy. Some girls require years of reeducation before they realize that while they were screaming, “Yeeeeeeeeha! Ride that cowboy!” they were being raped. Because patriarchy is just that awesomely powerful” (Source)
This post mainly deals with false accusations or allegations by women in relation to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence.
False allegations in relation to online harassment are dealt with in this post. False allegations in relation to paternity fraud are dealt with in this post.
One of the common false claims made by feminists is that men’s rights activists assert that most women who claim to have been raped are lying. Personally I have never seen or heard this statement made by any MHRA. What is often stated however is that there are substantial and unacceptably high numbers of women making false rape accusations, and that this problem should be acknowledged and treated seriously (including charging the false accuser where appropriate).
Being the subject of a false accusation of sexual assault can be, and often is, a traumatic and life-changing experience for anyone. False rape allegations also minimise and demean the suffering and the credibility of victims of actual rape.
Let’s start with the Wikipedia entry for false rape allegations, which extracts data from many different studies. This highlights the practical difficulty in differentiating between false rape allegations, unproven allegations, and ‘not guilty’ verdicts for example. It does however refute the suggestion made by many feminists that false allegations are either non-existent or absolutely negligible.
Here in Australia I came across the following information:
“A Victorian study, which analysed 850 rapes reported to the police over the period 2000–03, found that only 2.1% of reports were designated as false by the police. In these cases, the alleged victim was either charged or told that she would be charged unless she dropped the complaint. While this only represents a fraction of the sample, there was a much larger proportion of cases where police were confident, or reasonably confident, that the allegations were false, but there was no attempt to institute charges against the alleged victim.” (Source here and related reddit discussion thread here)
This article ‘How often do women falsely cry rape?’ gives quite a fair and balanced intro to the issue and can be read in conjunction with the Wiki entry cited above. Further recommended reading:
I would also draw readers attention to a Twitter thread entitled ‘False allegations kill – help us to make a change’ (@KathleenM__).
A further summary of the false abuse and rape allegation literature can be found in a 2013 book by Phillip Cook and Tammy Hodo titled ‘When Women Sexually Abuse Men‘. While statistics in this literature are problematic, Cook and Hodo report four studies that found false allegation rates of 62 percent, 41 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent.
How and why do women falsely claim to have been sexually assaulted? There are a number of factors underlying the false rape phenomenon, starting with the widespread and exaggerated picture of men as persistent and unrepentant aggressors.
This article mentions women who claimed to have been sexually assaulted after their drink was spiked, yet in almost all cases were not found to have any drugs in their system. (See also this discussion thread). This video provides a detailed analysis of the issue. I’s suggest that it’s highly likely however that there are in fact far more instances of drink-spiking by women – with the intention of theft (example here).
It might well be that many women are exercising bad judgement and then, rather than accepting accountability for what subsequently occurred, look about for someone or something to put the blame on. Were this be indicative of a broader trend re: women’s propensity to shift blame, clearly there is considerable potential for false rape allegations to occur.
The damage to young men who are falsely accused is further magnified via the growing number of university campuses that run kangaroo courts (quite separate from the judicial system) to punish those accused of rape.
Some of the wording used in this article caught my attention:
“We have concluded that we cannot go forward with prosecution because there is not a reasonable likelihood of conviction at trial,” said Senior Charging Attorney Jane Nicoletti-Jones. “In (this case), the statements of a witness other than the suspect or alleged victim were an important part of our decision.” Although officials declined to comment on this case specifically, it illustrates some of the hurdles that accusers and their advocates face when filing sexual assault complaints.” (my emphasis added)
In this case a witness or witnesses cast doubt on the accuracy of the rape accusation, but in this feminist journalists eyes such eyewitness statements are merely “hurdles”. Who cares about the truth or justice anyway … we just need to get those rapists men in jail.
Whilst false accusations are only one of several factors contributing to false imprisonment, it’s worth mentioning that 99% of the prisoners exonerated due to the efforts of the Innocence Project were male, and that more than half of them were initially found guilty of rape.
The list of links below concern specific cases involving false allegations against men by women (and in some cases by women against other women). Such reports appear in the media quite frequently. As a consequence many further cases can be readily sourced via online searches. Scroll down the page for sources providing a general discussion of this topic.
“This dishonest woman might exist – in fact, lots and lots of dishonest people exist – but there are thousands more victims for whom the stigma of reporting domestic violence, and not being believed, means they’ll never come forward.
When we see the front page story about a man falsely accused of rape, or framed for domestic violence, we’re allowed to feel sympathy for him. But we need to remember that his story is the exception, not the rule, and often the rule – in this case, countless honest victims – fades into obscurity.
Because when something is normal, it doesn’t make the news. And that’s the saddest part.”
“Pointon broke down in tears and asked if she could drop the charges when her account was challenged by police … Judge Christopher Batty told her: “Your malicious complaint has done a huge disservice to those seeking justice through the police and courts.”
Why do judges never make the point that false rape allegations are very damaging to men, in part due to their lack of anonymity, and offer them some sympathy?” (Source)
“… the court agreed with Joy’s arguments that the lender’s investigation was handled differently because he’s a man.
“The whole factual matrix on which the decision to dismiss was based was, in itself, infused with, and tainted by, discrimination,” Judge Graeme Hodgson said in the ruling. “The conclusions on the claimant’s behavior are founded on stereotyped assumptions of how a man behaves.””
“I’m sorry Kelly but 3 days is rubbish. My ex partner went straight to the Courts and just filled out a form 5 days before Christmas and alleged that I had stalked her, threatened her and abused her and our son. I had to wait three MONTHS before I had my day in court.
I went to court armed to the gills with evidence of her lies and after waiting 6hrs in the court rooms I had 5 mins in court where no body asked me anything, not a word. Her lawyer changed the story at the last minute and then the lovely magistrate decided to postpone the next determination hearing 6 weeks down the track.
I went close to 5 months without seeing my son all because of my ex partners lies. No evidence. Nothing. Never touched her, never threatened her. Ever.
But I was determined to be guilty until proven innocent, and all on the say so of one bitter, twisted person. No one cared about me or my side of the story. The only ones who cared were the lawyers (a prominient law firm) who asked for $10K up front before they would even represent me.
In the end she dropped her accusations after we had to go to court the second time. Her penalty for perjuring herself twice? Nothing. Her penalty for slandering me for 6 months? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my family access to their grandson over Christmas? Nothing. Her penalty for denying my son access to his father? None.
I came so close to topping myself on several occasions during those long dark months that I had to endure being treated like a criminal, like the worst of the worst, the dregs of society.
But I kept on saying to myself that I had to fight for the most important person in the world; my son. I am glad that I had immense support from my family and friends otherwise I probably wouldn’t be here to write you this note.
I am all for very harsh penalties for any person who assaults another but the changes to DV that were made several years ago make basically every possible argument or disagreement in a domestic environment grounds for DV, and all it takes is one person to accuse you and you’re nicked. Well you are if you are a bloke.
There were penalties for perjury in the DV legislation but they were removed. Penalties for knowingly making false statements to police and the courts should be treated just as harshly in my mind. If there are no penalties for lying in court then who can believe what people say in court?” (Source – See reader’s comments from Brett)
Albury sex assault: Investigation finalised (1 May 2015). Notice how no-one actually comes out and says the girl made a false allegation, presumably all too scared that the feminists would get even angrier. No repercussion for the girl making the claim because that would be ‘victim’ blaming. In this article the police even state that they “were adamant they didn’t want the outcome to dissuade people reporting similar incidents. “We encourage anyone who has been the victim of a crime to come forward,” police said. It appears unlikely the teenager who reported the incident will be charged.” Hello! The only crime here was the false allegation. Idiotic PC. Related reddit mensrights discussion thread here
Two girls on a bus in India start beating some young men with their belts. The claim the men groped them. They became internet heros for defending themselves (and womanhood generally). Then the truth gradually leaked out (4 December 2014) And more videos surfaced of them beating men on other occasions.
Feminist Lara Witt advises that “on a weekly basis, cisgender men ask me how they can be (better) allies. I don’t usually respond because I’m forever tired of teaching for free. So because I’m super generous I decided to put together this primer on … How men can be slightly less trash” (4 March 2019)
Ryerson’s independent student newspaper the Eyeopener reports the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) has “rejected the last appeal” to have the school sanction the Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS).
According to the group’s president, Kevin Arriola, the point of the group is to raise “issues that have never been [talked] about or usually disregarded.”
MIAS has received its major opposition from the school’s Feminist Collective.
In November, Ryerson Feminist Collective organizer Arezoo Najibzadeh called the idea of the group “horrifying.” Najibzadeh said, “I think it’s just horrifying. I don’t see the benefit of having them on campus.”
““We have a women’s ministry which is to escalate and ensure women’s issues issues are brought to the forefront and to the centre of government policy because at this time there’s clearly serious gender inequality in society…It is almost like nullifying the efforts of the women’s ministry, having a Men’s Affairs Department,” Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) executive director Sumitra Visvanathan said in a phone interview with Malay Mail Online”
“I’m just going to say it: Sometimes I feel sorry for men” (July 2015) This is a fairly typical NAFALT ‘look, feminists understand’ piece – the closest thing to genuine sympathy that any feminist will put her name to. But nowhere will you see any form of acknowledgement that women are partially responsible for the pressure that men face. Instead it is always “people” or “society” that force men to adopt/maintain assigned gender roles. And of course no examples are provided as to where women have actively assisted with any problematic issues affecting men/boys.
Both feminist literature and articles in the mainstream media (which is heavily biased towards the feminist perspective) make common use of various ‘facts’ to support their arguments. Some of these include:
That 1 in 4 women will be raped.
Women are paid 77% of what men are paid for equal work
1 in 3 women suffer from domestic violence
90% of the world’s poorest people are women
The conviction rate for rape is 6%
These are not facts. They are examples of what is a sustained effort to mislead the public, with the aim of building public (read: political) support for the feminist cause.
Some of the common ‘red flags’ in relation to pro-feminist statistics include:
lack of citation of the original source, with countless instances of incorrect and debunked statistics being used again and again
no context being provided for statistics used, and in particular the comparable figure for males is very rarely provided
“While most men don’t perpetrate violence, approximately 90% of all violence committed against children is perpetrated by men.” So states the ‘Polished Man‘ web site. A complete lie that they subsequently amended after adverse feedback. Here is the related reddit discussion thread.
Fear: The terrible feeling every woman experiences by Melissa Hoyer (6 November 2014) and Pray for Clementine (4 December 2014) Two similar articles by Australian feminist journalists concerning their sickening level of paranoia regarding men. In the second article Clementine Ford is freaking out because a stranger in the street, a man, tried to talk to her.
Every year both men and women and girls and boys are raped. Rape is never OK. There is also a very significant and growing incidence of people falsely accusing others of rape. To knowingly falsely accuse someone of rape is also never OK.
Such false claims can destroy the lives of the accused, and more importantly diminish and demean the validity of those who have actually been victims of rape. To make matters worse, the US Government is now requiring university campuses to undertake hearings and pass judgement on those accused of sexual assault even before the police become involved. This matter is discussed here and in many other recent articles.
The coverage, by feminists, of the issue of rape is often both exaggerated and distorted, for example through the use of ridiculously broad definitions of what actions constitute ‘sexual assault’. The discussion of rape, by feminists, is also incredibly one-sided … addressing the rape of females is of paramount importance whilst the rape of males (by both men and women) is inconsequential.
The linked resources below explore a number of aspects of this important issue: