One surprising inclusion in the 2020 Australia Day honours list was a Member of the Order of Australia award for Bettina Arndt. It was surprising not because the recipient wasn’t deserving of it (she was), but because such public awards tend to favour those pushing politically palatable (and increasingly left of centre) causes.
You would probably be aware that Bettina is an active supporter of various issues affecting men and boys, and that this has put her in the cross-hairs of the feminist lobby on more than a few occasions.
And also true to form, although Bettina’s views have been described as “dangerous”, most of the media comment focused on her professional integrity rather than the specific issues she raises. Look for example at the Twitter stream for ‘New Matilda’ (@newmatilda) and you’ll see tweet after tweet after tweet concerning Bettina’s academic qualifications, but none addressing her views regarding (for example) an alleged campus rape culture.
Kindly read on for relevant details, including Bettina’s response to those launching the attacks on her.
Women on top. A paper by Bettina that highlights the favour in which Australian women are now held generally (26 June 2024)
New Matilda Statement On Bettina Arndt’s Defamation Of Nina Funnell (26 February 2020) Bettina Arndt has previously suggested that Nina was conducting a long-running & concerted campaign against her. Readers might wish to scan social media and form their own view. The Twitter stream @CEOWomensSafety could be one place to start.
Episode of The Drum (ABC) shown on 24 February 2020 (video). One of the topics addressed was, what the panel perceived as, the desirability of stripping Bettina Arndt of her OAM. See The Drum’s Twitter feed for further discussion (@ABCthedrum)
One specific criticism that has been levelled at Bettina is in relation to her allegedly ‘going soft’ on paedophiles, particularly in relation to one specific interview she conducted. One of the odd things here though, is that I have yet to hear any feminist speak out about the burgeoning problem of female paedophiles. And thus more feminist hypocrisy.
I have been thinking of writing a post on this issue for some time, but was finally spurred into action after reading an article entitled ‘The financial abuse that affects 2 million Australian women‘, by Bianca Hartge-Hazelman. Bianca is the Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Financy, a finance publication for women. Bianca informs us that:
“Research indicates that financial abuse, at the hands of one partner over another in intimate relationships, is widespread and common in Australia.”
“Financial abuse is a form of domestic violence which each year costs the economy $15.6 billion, according to the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (NCRVWC).”
So how many men are also subject to financial abuse at the hands of their partners? We don’t know as Bianca says nothing whatsoever about *that* side of the equation. Bianca’s article is by no means unusual in this regard, given that most articles on financial abuse completely ignore financial abuse perpetrated by women and/or cases where men are targeted for abuse.
Further subtle (or not so subtle) examples of this form of anti-male gender bias include:
Surviving Economic Abuse Guide (UK 2023) “One in six women in the UK has experienced economic abuse by a current or former partner. The effects can last a lifetime, with some women never free of the abuser’s control”.
Here’s an article from the U.K., and whilst we are over there let’s take a quick look at the web site of ‘Surviving Economic Abuse‘ which starts by informing readers that “many women experience economic abuse”. Just women
I could spend hours hunting for relevant statistics, but what’s the point when feminists are invariably nonplussed when confronted with facts anyway. Instead I thought I would take a different tack and recount to you the experiences of a male friend of mine. Let’s call him ‘Len’, and let’s call his ex-wife ‘The Lamprey‘ (or TL for short).
Len is one of the countless men who have been – and still are being – subjected to financial abuse by women they love, or once loved. His financial exploitation remains ongoing, although the worst is certainly over. He loves his kids, and with a shared custody arrangement in place Len has no choice but to remain in fairly close contact with his ex.
And no, I can assure you that I am not Len, but I do know him well enough to guarantee the accuracy of this account.
Len worked hard and accumulated assets. Although only in his thirties at the time he met his future wife, he was on the way to securing the ability to retire in his 40’s. Anyway they met and fell in love, and moved in together. A little later they married and were subsequently blessed with two youngsters.
The Lamprey had already trained as a teacher and worked in that profession for about six months before latching onto Len. I think she had also done a very limited amount of modeling work. To my knowledge she hasn’t worked another day since the time she moved in with Len.
Whilst living with Len, TL *chose* not to work. AFAIK there was no pressure from Len either way. Len paid for domestic help (i.e. cleaner, nanny, etc), which was just as well given her aversion to grocery shopping and housework. She also sent the kids out to child care at the first opportunity. How lucky that TL had chosen a husband who didn’t mind cooking. So, you might be asking, what did she do with her time?
The Lamprey loved to spend Len’s money. She went out for long lunches with friends at expensive cafes, she went shopping for clothes, and sometimes she took herself to stay at (you guessed it) expensive health spa resorts.
One of TL’s less endearing habits was waiting for Len to come home from work and then – as he began cooking/helping kids with homework/etc, she would say “Oh, I might go and have a shower now“, not to be seen again until dinner was on the table.
All the time Len doted on his wife and kids. He didn’t fool around with other women despite having ample opportunity to do so. They occasionally quarrelled on the few occasions when Len raised the issue of TL’s selfishness and profligate spending, but he certainly was never abusive towards her. Mostly he just let it pass.
Len bought some land in a prestige location and set about building the house of his dreams. It was a long, tiring and costly process. When it was finally finished (after about 2 years) he then, with the now enthusiastic help of TL, set about furnishing it.
By some strange quirk or coincidence, soon after they moved into the new house, TL announced that she no longer loved Len and asked when he could move out. TL had already briefed a lawyer and went straight into ‘attack mode’ to get the most generous settlement achievable. Len was completely blind-sided. He refused to move out so TL rented an apartment – at Len’s expense of course.
As reality set in Len was heartbroken. He tried hard to get TL to attend counselling etc, but she was lukewarm on that idea. Upon realising she had little or no intention of continuing their marriage, and with the added stress of parenting, work and legal proceedings, Len descended into depression and required counselling and medication. His friends and family were worried about both his physical health and state of mind, and incredibly angry about TL’s behaviour.
Allow me to illustrate. On one occasion TL came to collect the children from Len’s house. Len was so ill that he had called an ambulance. TL could not even be bothered to wait with Len to ensure he was OK until the ambulance arrived.
Let’s halt at this point to consider what TL added and subtracted from their 6-7 years of marriage. On the plus side TL contributed two children and companionship for Len.
On the negative side, TL contributed not one dollar to the household budget, did the barest minimum of housework, and when-ever possible farmed the kids out to commercial childcare providers, or to the care of her husband or extended family.
The Lamprey extracted all her very considerable living expenses, 5 star holidays, her divorce-related legal expenses, a large proportion of Len’s assets, and spousal support for 12 months. Len asked TL if he could delay payment of her ‘share’ of the marital home (his dream house) as the real estate market had crashed, and he would have to sell it at a fire-sale price. No, she didn’t care, she wanted ‘her’ money immediately.
I wonder how much of Len’s money, obtained by TL thanks to our outdated and gynocentric legal system, will be preserved for their childrens’ future and how much has already been squandered?
And you know what? Just before her spousal support payments were due to terminate TL had the temerity to ask Len if he could keep the payments going for a while longer. She needed to finish her yoga course before she could earn an income – she said she planned to make a career as an instructor. Thank goodness Len trod on that fabulous idea.
Not long after that, TL moved in with another guy. She married him but wouldn’t give him the kids that he wanted so they divorced not long after. Then she moved in with some retired sugar-daddy type character. So from one sponsor to the next as the fun and/or funds started running out.
Since the divorce TL has failed to meet her responsibilities to provide for 50% child support with respect to both the time she devotes to the children, and to her financial contribution to their support. Len has let her off the hook for the sake of the children, in order to preserve some degree of harmony. He rationalises the situation by saying that if they were still married he would be paying 100% of the kids expenses anyway. Throughout the process Len has been patient and gracious to a fault.
Does TL feel in any way guilty about her behaviour? I haven’t asked her, but I don’t believe so. Hell no. Her attitude, which I suspect is quite common, is that she only took what she had a right to take under the law. So that’s gotta be fair, right? Of course, nil consideration given as to whether the law/family court itself is actually fair. Well, TL et al, it’s not.
Is this not financial abuse? Damn right it is. Am I saying that most divorces are like this? No, but Len’s situation is far from being a rare occurrence in my experience. In fact I don’t think I would know anyone in my network of friends/family/acquaintances who has not seen this pattern play out several times within their own circles. Can it be any wonder that more and more men are reconsidering the wisdom of getting married?
Anyway that’s what can happen when couples divorce (or simply separate in the case of de-facto couples). But the extent of financial abuse of men by women goes well beyond divorce. Consider:
‘Sperm-jacking’, where a woman impregnates herself with sperm recovered from a condom, etc, and then demands child support (refer for example to this item and/or this item)
Intentional pregnancy in the hope of trapping a man in marriage and/or having a child who is financially supported by another (thanks to mandatory child support till age 18) that occurs after a woman falsely tells a man that she is using contraception
False claims of pregnancy from women seeking ‘payment’ of claimed abortion expenses and/or alleged child support (where for example they live in another country and are less likely to be trapped in a lie).
Situations where a man or boy is raped by a woman, again resulting in mandatory child support (one legal precedent).
Paternity fraud where a man is falsely told he is the father and pays child support. There are many instances where men have become suspicious and arranged DNA testing, found they were not the parent, but the court still subsequently ordered that they continue paying child support nonetheless.
In a growing number of cases we shall also see men subject to the same type of financial abuse traditionally experienced by some women. This is the result of the growing number of couples where the man assumes the role of house-husband. This decision may be voluntary or it may result from his inability to secure employment in a work environment that is increasingly favouring women. In such cases the male partner may have either a much lower income than his wife, or no income at all.
I am not surprised that these issues were not addressed in an article on domestic financial abuse by a feminist, for none of them are even blips on the feminist radar screen. And this despite the fact that they can be life-changing events in a man’s life, and in some cases life-ending events. Let that sink in, and ponder on it the next time you hear a feminist crowing about how men should respect women and do more to support them and their causes.
As for me, I cannot and will not respect narcissistic scroungers of either gender.
‘I’m really concerned about money and my wife doesn’t understand why’ (7 August 2022) OK, it might not be financial abuse yet, but this article already sets up the justification for wife to err without being called to account. Meanwhile if husband loses financial status then you can be he’ll be judged – and harshly – including judgement and possible subsequent rejection by his wife.
A guide to financial abuse, from spotting the signs to getting help (23 June 2022) Cosmopolitan magazine advises “New data shows 35% of women in a relationship are financially dependent on their partner”. With regards to male victims of financial abuse we are treated to the sound of crickets chirping.
Though unattractive, you still need a pre-nup or cohabitation agreement (24 September 2019) When men were richer then they were lambasted for seeking a pre-nup, but now that women are better-off then pre-nups make good sense (for them). This mirrors a similar about-turn with regards to alimony.
Family trusts often cause more harm than good (26 July 2017) Author tut-tuts at men who establish legal structures to protect assets in the event of divorce, or in his words “to avoid the fair division of property after a relationship breakdown”. Because the law is always fair, right? And if someone has to be harmed then it might was well be the husband.
In May 2017 much media attention was given to a practice labelled as ‘stealthing’, whereby men remove their condom during sex without their partners consent (example). Few articles even made passing reference to the fact that women perpetrate a similar act when they falsely claim to be using contraceptives in order to ‘trap’ a man in a relationship and/or secure an income stream via child support payments. This issue was addressed in this article, and then in a follow-up article by Martin Daubney. See also this Reddit discussion thread.
Banks enhance support for family and domestic violence victims (22 November 2016) Australia. The guidelines seem to be reasonably gender-neutral, although I wonder to what extent they will be as applied in real-life. There is also no mention made of the reality of false accusations being made as a form of abuse.
Males Out of Work – NYT Does Not Get It (18 October 2016) It’s worth considering that whilst there exists this backdrop of financial abuse, the financial well-being of many men is declining considerably rendering them less able to rebound after losses are incurred.
Well at least this article acknowledges that some financial abuse of men does occur … only to minimise it by saying “While men are also affected by financial abuse, the majority of cases are women”. Hmm, sounds like so many domestic violence article doesn’t it?
“I pleaded with him to lend me the money and knew it would give me a new lease of life” … “I didn’t really have any desire to pay him back. If I had to choose between the boobs and him, it was an easy choice.”
“Financial abuse in a family violence context involves behaviours that ‘control a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency’” (p13)
Financial abuse of men not even recognised in the definition used for this research project, which subsequently surveyed only women and made recommendations that only applied to women. This despite the fact that most or even all of the specific forms of abuse discussed, such as being dragged into and out of family court, also clearly are also experiences that also apply to men.
In this post I address the topic of murder and suicide occurring within the context of intimate partner violence. There are also separate posts dealing with suicide, and with the DV-related deaths of children.
As readers might well be aware, significant numbers of men, women and children lose their lives each year by way of incidents related to domestic violence. As in the case of non-lethal injuries and mental anguish, feminists portray women’s deaths as constituting the “overwhelming majority“, and then use this as justification for ignoring the deaths of men.
In 2015 feminist activists operating under the banner ‘Destroy the Joint’, established an ongoing tally of the number of Australian women allegedly killed in DV situations. They then disseminated this data throughout the media, generating considerable publicity using the tagline “two women each week” (are being killed by their male partners). They claimed that there had been a doubling in the rate of men murdering their partners, and that domestic violence was twice as bad in 2015 as it was in 2014.
Even if their figures were drawn from official sources it would have been problematic to draw conclusions from statistics relating to short periods of time, as the results for the period in question may differ greatly from the long-term average.
We do know however that when averaged over the preceding twelve month period the corresponding figures were (approx.) one women killed every seven days versus one man killed every ten days. We also know that, at that time, 40% of homicide victims (occurring in a situation of domestic violence) were male.
(Postscript April 2016: The report of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence included the following statistic, “Data from the Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths shows that, of the 288 deaths of relevance to the review between 2000 and 2010, 138 were men and 150 were women (that is, 48 per cent male)”. (Volume 5, p207)
It is important to acknowledge that neither the ‘Destroy the Joint’ Facebook page, nor the various spin-off media stories, made mention of:
the corresponding number of men killed by their intimate partners or family members
the number of women killed by other women
the number of suicides linked to domestic violence (predominantly involving men)
On that last dot point, it’s worth reading this 2010 paper by Richard L Davis which addresses the relationship between domestic violence and suicide. (Postscript: This 2018 article concerns the suicide of a woman following the DV-related murder of her children. As is typically the case in MSM articles, the death of men in similar circumstances was overlooked.)
Another issue with the ‘Destroy the Joint’ tally is that (AFAIK) none of the cases it reported, at the time of writing this post, had been the subject of completed court proceedings. As a consequence it is not entirely certain that the deceased women were killed by a man, and/or that the deaths occurred within a context of domestic violence.
Furthermore, at some unspecified point in early 2015 (I suspect when deaths dropped below the previously claimed weekly average) the ‘Destroy the Joint’ tally was quietly expanded to include all women who were murdered (i.e. not just partner violence).
Jasmin Newman subsequently established the ‘Destroy the Narrative’ Facebook page to keep track of the corresponding number of male deaths at the hands of women. In December 2016 Jasmin published this paper regarding her work on this issue, which I strongly recommend you read now.
(Postscript: Sadly, Jasmin discontinued her online MRA efforts due to a concerted campaign of harassment by people opposed to her views. With regards to deaths related to DV, a new tally is being maintained by a group known as Domestic Violence Awareness Australia. Time will tell with regards to the longevity and reliability of this data source.)
Turning now to another issue. one of the statistical sources cited by ‘Destroy the Joint’ was this report by the NSW Coroner (Refer appendix C bar chart this is in the report on page 59 or 75 depending on how you read page numbers).
On first inspection it appears quite damning in relation to the culpability of men for DV-related deaths, but on further review there are a number of provisos that must be taken into consideration including:
the small sample size
the skewing of the results by the much higher incidence of DV-related deaths in the indigenous community
the fact that men are significantly less likely to report being subjected to domestic violence, and therefore many of the male perpetrators cited in the report may in fact have been victims of domestic violence (either as children, as adults, or both).
I’ll close this post with this comment contributed by ‘Phil’ in response to this article:
In order to provide solutions to any societal problem, the first step is having a complete understanding of the problem, all the relevant & accurate information, and an ability to see the bigger picture of the issue. It also requires a unified approach, appropriate systems in place to embrace & encourage change, and a shift in mindset that brings long-term & sustained behavioural change.
A great example of this is drink-driving, which is now seen as irresponsible, selfish, dangerous, disgraceful & a condemned behaviour after being culturally accepted for many years, until the effects of such actions, portrayed the destruction it was having on many lives. This change was brought about through the grief, heartache & suffering associated with losing a loved one and was driven by the love & compassion people felt for each other, their family & the broader community. Even though it was predominately men who were guilty of drink-driving, it wasn’t tackled as a gendered issue because society demanded a holistic approach to the problem, they wanted this senseless behaviour eradicated, no matter who was doing it and certainly wasn’t propelled by hatred or condemnation of one sex & not the other.
So, why has this approach not been taken when it comes to domestic violence? Why is one gender singled out as being the problem, when everyone with half a brain knows that both males & females are capable of being perpetrators of the vile acts of behaviour? How are we, as a society, meant to really eradicate this behaviour when blatant misrepresentation of the truth is communicated by groups hell-bent on only recognising some victims & perpetrators and not all? When did domestic violence become a political pawn used to generate votes & financial windfalls and one that promotes much debate & hatred, instead of a people focussed, behavioural problem that requires love & respect for fellow human beings to be solved?
It’s a figure quoted by media outlets, politicians & domestic violence advocates – 79 women killed due to domestic violence last year (2015) and the inference that these deaths occurred by their male partners. This is the figure devised by the Facebook page, Destroy the Joint {1}, who maintains a body count of women killed in Australia due to violence against them.
On September 24th 2015, newly appointed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced a new $100 million domestic violence package with former Australian of the Year & self-appointed expert of domestic violence, Rosie Batty, Turnbull stated in his press conference that 63 women had been killed to date in 2015. This gave the perception that all of these deaths had occurred due to domestic violence and at the hands of a current or former male partner of the deceased.
But when you look into these deaths in detail, you will find that the figure quoted is more propaganda by the “radical feminist” brigade who are insistent on only recognising female victims of domestic violence and ensure funding is siphoned through their sexist organisations. Of the 63, less than half were found to be killed by their current or former male partner (44%) and in total, 60% of these deaths were committed by male perpetrators known to the deceased.
I am in no way trying to minimize the impact of these tragedies as any life taken is a vile act of brutality towards another human being, what I am highlighting though is the gross misrepresentation of data that is being communicated to only further their own cause – not actually provide solutions to ending Australia’s domestic violence crisis other than to falsely propagate that it is a “gendered issue”.
Upon further analysis of the 79 women killed last year, here are my findings (based on information provided by ‘Destroy the Joint’):
43% killed by current or former male partner (34 in total) 16.5% killed by known male (13) 13.9% killed by a female (11) 11.4% killed by unknown male (9) 8.9% killed by either victims son, brother or father (7) 6.3% killed by an unknown perpetrator (5)
From the information provided & the perception of all these women being killed due to intimate partner violence being driven by various outlets, this represents an over inflation of the figures by a mammoth 132%! Destroy the Joint claims at least 75% {2} of these deaths are perpetrated by males known to the female victim but the figure actually equates to 68.4% and again their accuracy is found to be questionable. This is especially damaging when it is being used as “factual” information by government agencies, domestic violence groups, & prominent media outlets that inform the public, when analysis shows the information to be incorrect.
Paramount to solving any problem is having the correct details, being truthful in your communications and having a thorough understanding the issue at hand. With embellished & distorted information like this being used, clearly this is not about solving domestic violence holistically, merely being used as a catalyst to gain further funding.
{1} https://www.facebook.com/notes/934084536639291/ https://www.facebook.com/DestroyTheJoint/ {2} Destroy the Joint disclaimer – “Please note: We do not confine our count to only deaths attributed as domestic or family violence, as we believe all violent deaths targeted against women are the result of societal misogyny. Most of these cases are subject to court proceedings but we do know that in at least 75 per cent of the cases reported from 2012 to 2015, the victim knew her alleged killer. We include women killed by other women (lateral violence). Their relatively small but equally sad number confirms that most violence against women is perpetrated by men.”
Recently, I was viciously attacked for the post I made scrutinising the claims by Destroy the Joint about the women killed in violent circumstances last year. These attacks were cold, calculating, methodical, vile & extremely derogatory towards myself but worse still, my family & in particular, my children. It appears that I may have hit a nerve by revealing the truth about the misrepresentation of the information provided by them and the perception that there were 79 women killed in domestic violence scenarios last year.
Normally, I am not bothered by these types of attacks as they occur on such a regular basis and I have become desensitised to the constant taunts I receive. But, these were different, they were filled with so much hatred & vile language that I found myself a bit shaken by them and was appalled that some felt it warranted to continue this vitriol towards my children when I was not retaliating to their relentless abuse.
This type of toxic behaviour is quickly becoming normal, especially in the world of social media, with people spewing hatred towards one another purely because of a difference of opinion on a certain subject. Is this the type of behaviour, values & morals we want instilled in our next generation? Are we, as a society, truly considering the long-term impact this will have on future generations and teaching them to be accustomed with hatred instead of love? In order to overcome this problem of domestic violence, the solution cannot be based on hatred between the genders – it requires solutions based on love, respect, compassion, understanding & acceptance of every human being regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion.
I will leave you with a quote from the remarkable Nelson Mandela to ponder – “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin or his background or his religion. People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
(Postscript February 2020: Whilst most articles about DV-related domestic violence still don’t bother to provide corresponding statistics for male deaths, we are told that ‘Australia is a nation of dead women, and we’re becoming numb to it‘. The level of feminist hypocrisy and disconnect remains staggering.)
(Postscript May 2020: I just learnt today – not from the mainstream media – that the number of women killed, in the UK, by their partner was now at a 40 year low – Source)
Other related references, including DV-related murders that you are unlikely to read about in the ‘Destroy the Joint‘ page – or in overseas equivalents such as, for example, @CountDeadWomen in the UK:
*Anything that might be put down to illness (poison) *Or accident (car, fire in bed, pushing) *Proxy violence (hitmen, white knight, swatting) or *Drive him to suicide. Or failing that, stab him, say you were abused, & label it self-defense.
Outcast powderkeg men, by Bettina Arndt (22 April 2022) What factors drive men to commit murder after their marriage falls apart? Could changes to the police & justice system prevent such murders occurring?
Are all missing persons female? (17 March 2022) USA. This is not specifically related to DV murders, but rather to the prevailing practice of ignoring or minimising male victims.
Lethal lovers: National strategy needed to end domestic homicides (22 February 2022) The feminist perspective, which continues to be to ignore female perpetrators and their many male & female victims. A more detailed article in the Canberra Times, addressing the same topic can be found here.
The forgotten victims of Australia’s female killings epidemic (6 May 2021) Now, for balance, let’s throw in a feminist perspective from Candace Sutton. Can you spot the difference?
‘There are more male victims of domestic violence than we think‘ An article by Janet Fife-Yeomans in the Daily Telegraph (23 February 2021) Australia. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 61 of the 146 people killed in domestic-violence related homicides in New South Wales were men (i.e. 42%).
Spotlight on why men kill partners (21 April 2020) This research project represents a collaboration between the Australian Institute of Criminology and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS). Clearly women killing men is not that big a deal (?!)
Woman accused of stabbing partner to death claims self-defence (21 January 2020) We will see how this case concludes, but obviously when men are consistently portrayed as violent and abusive, then an argument of self-defence is more likely to be convincing.
The reckoning: One city, four murders (18 October 2019) By Richard Guilliatt. This is not specifically about DV-related murders, but addresses some interesting and related issues
“While it’s well-known women are at risk of being killed by an intimate male partner at separation or divorce, my analysis shows that some men are at risk of death at the hands of a current or former female partner in certain situations, like financial insecurity such as the drawing up of a new will,” she said.
Media double standards: Where are the panel discussions about vengeful ex-wives who kill their ex-husbands’ new girlfriends? Instead, a story about the ‘tragedy,’ and what a nice teacher the killer was (29 November 2018) Video
Dividing the Sexes: Critique of the Coroner’s Report on Domestic Violence Homicide (3 June 2018) Most DV-related homicides in Australia in the first half of 2018 were committed by women. A reality very much at odds with the misandric messages issued by the feminists who have adopted the Eurydice Dixon tragedy as their current cause celebre.
Joe Cinque’s Consolation: violence, delusion and the question of guilt (11 October 2016) Australia. Friends were told of the impending murder but did nothing – was this an inevitable outcome of community being conditioned to think that female-perpetrated violence is a rare and unlikely aberration.
A cycle of violence: when a woman’s murder is called ‘understandable’, by Laura Bates (27 July 2016) UK. Feminist perspective that ignores the fact that explanations/excuses are also routinely found when women kill their partners (in fact I would suggest that this is more common in such situations)
Domestic violence will flourish because of government funding cuts (2 May 2016) Australia. According to Jenna Price the pussy-pass works in reverse .. men do all the killing but the justice system lets them off the hook. Reality check please. All in all, an extremely misandric article. Reddit discussion thread here.
“The number of women convicted for domestic violence rose by 30% in the year to April 2015, from 3,735 to 4,866. It marks an upward trend – the number of convictions involving female perpetrators is now six times higher than it was ten years ago”
“The reality is 12 people have died in domestic violence [related incidents in 2016] and eight of them have been men. Men are dying at the rate of two to one, but we show only show one male victim out of half a dozen or eight females.” And yet at the same time ‘Destroy the Joint‘ tweeted that nine women had been killed in the same period. Someone’s maths skills are seriously impaired.
“Michelle Davies, domestic abuse strategy manager for Safer Cornwall, said it was “difficult to pinpoint” why more men than women have died in domestic situations in Cornwall over the past five years.”
“In 2015, statistics from the Ministry of Health recorded three women killed in the province of Seville at the hands of their partners or former partners. There is no official count for murdered men, but through the news published by the media know that this crime was the second in 2015 … (In the first case) a neighbor beheaded her husband and then cut the veins.Like the (recent) case, the woman had a mental disorder.” And in a related reddit discussion thread it was noted that:
“As expected, (the) “battered woman” and “mental issues” justifications appear in the news. And as expected, the case is treated as “domestic violence”, not “gender violence”. At least 29 men have been murdered by their partners (and in comparison, 48 women) in Spain this year, according to the press.”
Stop the tide of female blood (11 September 2015) More of the usual gender biased narrative from feminist journo Wendy Tuohy, but do take the time to scan the readers comments
Some other deaths you won’t read about in the ‘Destroy the Joint‘ page involve those men who paid the ultimate price for intervening to protect women who were being assaulted. Some of their stories can be found in this post.
News.com.au is a major online source of mainstream news in Australia, the CEO of which is David Penberthy who was mentioned in a reader’s post here. Some time ago a reader sent me a copy of an email that he had sent to the team at news.com.au after he had got fed-up with their ongoing sexist bias:
“As a frequent visitor to your site I am dismayed by the evident bias I see with regards to:
1. The types of articles that you choose to publish 2. The decision as to which articles you allow comments on and which you don’t 3. The decision of moderators as to whether comments are posted or excluded
In particular the type of bias that I find most annoying and which is particularly prevalent in your site is a stridently anti-male and pro-feminist bias.
I have read your FAQ page entries in relation to some of these points but I find that in practice your team makes decisions that are not necessarily in line with your guidelines. For example I myself on many occasions have sought to post comments that were in no way profane, etc etc but were not accepted.
Further some of the articles you publish, and also some of the comments, I (and I am sure many others) find to be in poor taste or offensive … it just seems that some positions are consistently deemed more acceptable than others … and lo and behold these seem to feature misandric themes that belittle and promote negative stereotypes concerning men. It’s tiresome and it’s wrong and you should improve your performance in this regard. If uncertain simply apply the test …. if this article or this comment was about women, would I publish it? If yes then go ahead. If not then don’t …”
News.com.au replied addressing a side-issue – but said nothing about the central issue of gender bias. This other blog post provides some examples of their biased journalism.
So how is sexist bias reflected in newspapers and web sites like news.com.au? It is done through a combination of the following measures:
Through the choice of which subjects are addressed in articles and which ones are ignored, and then whether the coverage of each subject is balanced or only provides a partial picture of the issue at hand
Through whether or not online public comments are enabled, and if so, for how long comments are accepted
Through the nature and degree of moderation of online public comments
Through the choice of loaded words within articles to reflect whether each particular view expressed, or person quoted is either good/valid or bad/invalid, as seen through the ideological filter imposed by the journalist or editor
Through the use of misleading or bogus statistics within articles to support a pro-feminist perspective
With regards to point 2 above, I have noted a recent trend towards not permitting readers comments in relation to topics for which there will likely be a reader backlash against the pro-feminist position being advanced by the author and/or editor. A ‘good’ example of this is an article entitled ‘Proof that men are bigger idiots than women‘. In this case not only were readers comments not permitted, but the article was also excluded from news.com.au’s Facebook page and Twitter feed. Thus those who objected to the obvious misandry of the article were effectively silenced, conveying an impression of reader acceptance.
With regards to point 4 above, this reddit discussion thread looks at the choice of words used by the media in reporting instances of sexual assault of underage boys by women (versus the words used when reporting underage girls assaulted by men). The headline of this article in news.com.au ‘Teachers accused of having threesome with student, 16, in Louisiana‘ would no doubt have been ‘Teachers gang-rape student’ were the student female instead of male. Anti-male bias was also evident in this 2009 academic report by Roland Landor.
This article is another example of how journalists change language depending on the gender of the victim. When a woman assaults a man (who doesn’t even try to defend himself) it is a “fight“, but if it was the other way around it would be reported as an “unprovoked attack“.
Ah, but news.com.au by no means has a monopoly on applying feminist bias and blocking material that portrays men and mens rights in a fair and balanced manner. No, Australia’s ABC is yet another citadel of femdom. This was amply demonstrated in the 2014 article entitled ‘A lesson for men’s rights activists on real oppression‘ by misandrist journalist Clementine Ford.
Despite the usual feminist moderator habit of binning the majority of posts contributed by those not supportive of feminism, there were still some interesting exchanges amongst the readers comments.
Still on the topic of Clementine Ford, perhaps have a look at this other paper. If you scroll through the readers comments, amongst the offerings of simpering sycophants you will note a contribution from another who stated:
“You lost any right to speak about equality when you attacked and demonise those who are attempting to act as a counterbalance to the feminist movement. The only thing this article resembles is propaganda. For every issue females suffer, and they were good points, you proceeded to ignore about a dozen which society is now suffering under because of feminism.
Like how masculinity is seen as a “problem to be removed” at the age of school children.
About how it is encouraged for females to become teachers now with no effort to do the same for males to balance the number of people from each gender tutoring students.
How abuse and sexual assault against males is often either ignored or used as a source of humour, especially in forms of media. To the point where the castration of a male is only laughed at and mocked by a female audience.
About how some laws in the US have changed for the worse. One in particular allowing females the right to charge a man with rape if they have consumed any amount of alcohol, even if it was consensual sex and she was the one who talked him into it.
About how university and college applications emphases upon getting more female students even long after they make up a considerable percentage of those entering each established teaching institute.
About how unemployment rates are far higher for males than they are for females; with “stay at home dads” being encouraged as a good thing while the very thought of a “housewife” staying at home and cleaning is regarded as offensive.
About how homeless the number of homeless men is staggeringly higher for males than it is for females, yet in many countries with this problem there are far more women’s shelters than there are those devoted to men.
About how divorce courts favour women over men, allowing them to leave with far more of their former husband’s possessions than the other way around. Similarly how unemployment is grounds for the divorce with a man while it is not for a woman.
About how any research which feminists deem “offensive” causes those who research it to be blacklisted. Such as one scientist who showed produced a paper showing findings and statistics which showed that for women, the hormone transfer from semen provides a number of health benefits, including anti-depressants.
Or how about how any attempts by masculinists to counterbalance and correct where feminism has gone too far and men’s rights are suffering is scorned as being “chauvinistic” or childish?
All that and far more you simply ignore and choose to portray MRA’s as acting irrationally and out of fear of equality? I’m not sure whether to laugh or weep.
Equality has not been achieved, that is something you got right, but it is not simply the female populations suffering. Some points you made were good, as I stated, but you seem blind to the idea that females might be dominating aspects to society and equality might come from them losing power as much as males.
Next time attempt to think about what you are talking about. Or better yet, why don’t you show some of that supposed interest in equality you kept mentioning and try to discuss the problems each gender is facing.”
And how did Ms. Ford respond to this thoughtful observation? By typing “TL;DR” (i.e. too long/didn’t read). Definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and clearly not the least bit interested in considering alternative perspectives.
“I think many feminists have unfortunately become as inflexible and unlistening as they say men are largely because of the media’s selective reporting.
When reporting on gender issues and the male-female dynamic, as on all other issues, the media are supposed to objectively reflect all views. But over the past four decades they have reflected ideological feminists’ views almost exclusively.
The effect of this long-running lack of objectivity is, I think, to create in our collective mind an entrenched and immutable perception that no other view is possible and that gender issues and the male-female dynamic as portrayed by these feminists are not foolhardy concepts but widely accepted fact that is completely beyond dispute.
Thus, the ordinary woman — even the woman who may disdain feminists — can hardly be blamed for believing she is taken advantage of by men and must endure such oppressions as poorer treatment by male doctors and lower pay than the men at her company doing the exact same work.
Many if not most women are subjected to these oppression stories virtually very day of the year in the still-unobjective (liberal) media. The stories are convincingly told by intelligent, sophisticated members of such groups as the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), which says in the very first sentence of its position statement on equal pay:
“American women who work full-time, year-round are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.”
If such educated, sophisticated groups as the NWLC — and the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the subject of the following commentary — believe women are unfairly paid less, it must be true. Why would they lie?
This article informs us of an “alarming” (11.7%) increase in the number of women over 55 facing homelessness. It was based on a study by the University of Queensland’s Institute of Social Science Research. There is no mention that this demographic is a small percentage of homeless people generally, who are predominantly male. In fact there is no mention of men at all. Funny thing that.
“It is fairly annoying to constantly hear men make up the majority of x, therefore we need to help the female minority, but when the roles are reversed, the answer is still to aid women. Men are the problem when they comprise a majority that women want to be a part of, and men are ignored when they’re the minority or the majority of something women want no part of”
See this article for an example of how feminists don’t acknowledge gender when the story doesn’t fit their victim narrative (i.e. in this case six boys rather than six “students”). In this October 2014 BBC story note how no mention was made of the gender of the murdered students, guess they must have all been male (they were). This article addresses the same issue.
See the diagram in this Guardian article entitled ‘Drowning Lower and Middle Income Countries‘. It says “Worldwide 33% were female”. Hmm, I guess that means two-thirds of those who drowned were men.
“Read the tone and language in this article about a man who threatens his female partner with a knife, then read the tone of these two articles one about a female stabbing her male partner the other of a female murdering her partner by stabbing him. Great examples of the sexism and bias in the media”:
It’s hard to believe that once decent papers like The Age and the Courier-Mail now deem this hateful and misleading rubbish as being somehow worthy of publication.
Domestic violence: Why does The Spectator relentlessly peddle feminist propaganda and lies about domestic violence, but not the truth? (30 March 2021) UK
Sometimes anti-male bias takes the form of simply omitting any reference to men (often in relation to male victimisation). This article, concerning homelessness, is one such example.
Everyday sexism at the Australian State Broadcaster: When airmen die in training and combat they are labelled “crew” and “people”. When two thirds of the workforce making the aeroplanes are men, the article notes that “one third were women” (19 September 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread
How many men are paedophiles? (29 July 2014) Coz everyone knows there’s no female paedophiles right? Now they couldn’t have written an article called “How many people are paedophiles?” could they? ah, because … misandry
Blogged down in polarities (7 July 2014) This article isn’t about pro-feminist bias, it is about a broader issue of media behaviour that see views deliberately (and irresponsibly) polarised to attract reader interest and involvement. This is sometimes known as “click-bait journalism”.
(Australian data – 
