New South Wales – Page 2 – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Another government inquiry to tell us that domestic violence = men beating women because patriarchy

Yes, just when you thought we had seen (and paid for) the last federal or state government inquiry into domestic violence, at least for a couple of years, apparently we need another one. Well more specifically, the lawyers and feminist DV lobbyists need another one.

But of course we already know what the likely findings and recommendations will be. If I just told them then why couldn’t they save the time and just give me a million dollars now. Either way there would still be a lot of fat left for feminist groups by way of paying them to ‘help’ implement the ‘solution’.

This newer, brighter, better inquiry is being undertaken by the New South Wales Government in Australia. This exercise is called the ‘Blueprint for the domestic and family violence response in NSW’. Here is a web page that provides some details and has links to further information. From that page we learn:

“As part of the It Stops Here: the Domestic and Family Violence Framework for Reform, the NSW Government is developing a Blueprint to improve responses to victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence (DFV) in NSW (‘the DFV Blueprint’).”

More information at:

Baird government’s $60m package targets domestic violence (14 October 2015)

New $60 million Domestic and Family Violence Package

Domestic and Family Violence Package Fact Sheet (October 2015)

The deadline for submissions is 5 February 2016. Please prepare a submission if you are able. My submission now follows:

Submission in relation to the ‘Blueprint for the Domestic and family violence response in NSW’

Thank you for according me the opportunity to contribute my thoughts about the development of public policy in relation to domestic violence, as this is a topic I feel quite passionate about.

The current situation is one where we have had one particular approach adopted to tackle domestic violence for many years now. It is strongly influenced by feminist ideology and its theoretical underpinning is the ‘Duluth Model’. Countless millions of dollars have been directed towards pursuing this approach yet all would agree that the outcome has been disappointing.

Not only has the incidence of DV not been reduced, but there has been a system-wide failure to acknowledge (let alone seriously address) the incidence of both bi-lateral and female-perpetrated violence, as well as the extent of male victimisation.

In any other field of public policy there would be demands for a greater accountability in both the allocation and expenditure of funds. There would be demands for the uniform introduction of measures such as performance reviews and auditing. People would be encouraged to contribute new and different ideas, and there might well be demands to trial alternative approaches.

Instead, the response to this situation from those in the DV advocacy sphere has been simply to ask for more public funding. Further, those who question the validity or effectiveness of existing failed approaches and/or who propose alternative approaches – are widely attacked and labelled as being anti-women and as misogynists.

To my mind feminist ideology is not precious, but human life is. I would propose that we start a fresh chapter where we acknowledge DV in its entirety and address it in an objective and disciplined manner, unencumbered by myths, dogma, preconceptions or gender bias.

These myths I mention are encapsulated in statements such as:

· The overwhelming majority of victims of DV are women

· Women only commit acts of domestic violence in self-defence, and

· Women are more seriously affected by DV than men

I’ll turn my attention now to the contents of your consultation paper, and to those specific questions posed within it:

Page 5 ‘Preventing DFV by addressing its underlying causes’

People should be made aware that the true nature of the “underlying causes” of DV is subject to considerable debate. Feminists have one view, but there are other valid alternatives. You might also mention that the effectiveness of some of the strategies you list here (for e.g. awareness campaigns) is also hotly-debated, in part because of the lack of rigorous performance review and audit procedures.

It is critically important that, whilst formulating your policy, decision-makers retain an open mind about such issues and be open to hearing about, and discussing, alternative approaches free from any ideologically-motivated censorship.

The current feminist/Duluth Model approach has failed to reduce DV. The only success it can claim is that more women are reporting abuse, which may or may not mean the incidence of DV is increasing. Men are still far less likely to report abuse than women, the effect of which is to further mask the incidence of female abusers.

In any other (less politically polarised) field of public policy the current approach would have been discarded as ineffective many years ago. There must be a better way forward – even if feminists might initially be very much opposed to it.

The paragraph beginning with ‘Early intervention support services …’ already seems to suggest ideological blinkers are in place by implying that the victims of DV are female. Why for example is there no mention of ‘fathers groups’ or ‘support services for at-risk people/groups’?

More specifically, you seem to adopt a gender-neutral approach in relation to perpetrators, but not victims. Again I would urge you to adopt gender-neutral terminology throughout your paper, and in the policies that subsequently emerge from it.

Page 6. I believe that it would be desirable to clearly state here that both victims and perpetrators can be (and are) male, female and transgender, as well as being both heterosexual and homosexual.

You should also address the fact that to date, services for perpetrators such as intensive counselling are rarely if ever made available to female perpetrators.

This is in part due to the failure to acknowledge the incidence and seriousness of female-perpetrated violence, and the widely-held view that violence against women is inherently far more serious an issue than violence against men. This occurs despite that fact that men, overall, are far more likely to be the victims of violence.

Related issues are addressed at:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/differing-public-response-to-partner-violence-depending-on-gender-of-victim/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-recent-increase-in-violent-crime-carried-out-by-women-and-girls/

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

Page 7 Q1. I believe that the current shotgun approach to awareness campaigns (i.e. aiming the message at everyone in the community) is of a very dubious value, having been compromised by the lack of independent review and valuation as well as ideological bias.

I have discussed this in my post at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/two-awareness-campaigns-only-one-can-be-criticised-cowed-by-feminism/

I believe that respectful relationship programs in schools are likewise of dubious value in their current gender-biased format, and in fact may even prove to be counter-productive.

I have addressed this issue at http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/no-place-for-feminist-propaganda-in-our-schools/ and http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-government-announces-intention-to-reprogram-boys-to-reduce-domestic-violence/

To be believed and to be acted upon the message must be honest in acknowledging that DV is NOT a gendered issue, and that there are substantial numbers of both male and female perpetrators, and male and female victims.

Many people are now aware for example that domestic violence is most common in lesbian couples, then in heterosexual couples, and then male gay couples. To send out a message that says or implies otherwise is to lose ones credibility at the outset.

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

Q2. Early intervention. There is a need to provide help lines and counselling services that are gender neutral and do not presuppose guilt, or the nature of the situation, based on the gender of the person seeking advice. That this now occurs on a widespread basis is a disgrace. It needlessly demonises men (of which 98%+ are never violent), and greatly discourages people from seeking assistance. See the following posts on this issue:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/addressing-anti-male-bias-by-an-australian-state-government-department/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/dv-connect-is-non-judgemental-but-men-calling-their-helpline-are-sneaky-perpetrators/

Q3. Support the safety and recovery of victims

First and foremost there needs to be dedicated refuge/shelter accommodation for both men and women, including those men who flee with their children. These facilities should be professionally managed and subject to performance reviews and spot-checks.

Conflicts of interests should be avoided and, for example, an arms-length relationship should be enforced between those developing government policy, and the recipients of related funding. See

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

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/so-what-exactly-is-the-domestic-violence-industry/

Funding should also be provided to organisations, such as ‘One in Three’, that advocate for the welfare of men and boys victimised by DV and/or provide direct services to victimised men/boys. At the moment I am not aware of any funding directed towards such groups, and indeed both feminist spokespersons and feminist organisations actively oppose the allocation of funds for this purpose. They do so for example, by attacking/shaming relevant groups and individuals, and by misrepresenting relevant studies and statistics that identify the incidence of male victimisation:

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/fudging-the-figures-to-support-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/australian-feminist-attacks-integrity-of-advocacy-group-for-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/sallee-mclaren-must-write-on-the-blackboard-i-must-not-challenge-the-feminist-narrative-domestic-violence/

Q4. Perpetrator accountability

As you will see when reading through the articles and papers listed in the various blog posts I have mentioned here, female perpetrators are basically ‘let off the hook’ except in the most serious and violent of cases.

The literature in the web sites of advocacy groups implies that all perpetrators are male, men are usually the ones arrested/removed when police attend a domestic dispute, women are less likely to be charged, and if charged the punishment is likely to be less than in the case of a male.

This sends entirely the wrong message to abusive women and their victims. In the first instance they are less likely to see themselves as having a problem, and to seek help. In the latter case victims are less likely to report abuse and/or seek help thinking that they will not be believed (and even if they are no practical assistance will be forthcoming).

http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/on-the-punishment-of-women-and-the-notion-of-a-pussy-pass/

Gender equality, in which I am a firm believer, means that men’s and women’s lives are of equal value, and that men and women should be treated equally before the law, and elsewhere.

NSW feminist groups seek to roll back reform of domestic violence shelters

(NB: The following is a working draft only at this point in time – see **)

In 2014 the New South Wales government implemented a program to rationalise the operation of a large number of publicly-funded domestic violence refuges and homeless shelters.

It’s my understanding that the review process was primarily driven by a desire to improve the system of management both at the state level, and at the level of individual facilities. Many of these facilities were being run by feminists essentially as private clubhouses based on individual rules and operating procedures. The refusal by feminist groups to provide accommodation for males in refuges was one of a number of contentious issues in this regard. Not surprisingly, the government sought transparency and accountability, and to maximise use of the network of refuges/shelters within the context of an agreed set of uniform standards.

Central to this reform process was a new policy framework entitled ‘Going Home Staying Home‘ which is summarized in this fact-sheet, and with many further details available here.

The review of refuges and shelters culminated in a tender process based on a set of specifications designed to ensure that refuges operated lawfully, and that broader community expectations were met. Feminists groups made a tactical error in refusing to properly engage with this process and/or commit to meet the required standards. They consequently fared poorly, with non-feminist organisations winning most of the available tenders.

Rather than admitting their own culpability, feminists chose to misrepresent the revised arrangements as indicative of a heartless government “closing” refuges to save money, before setting about sabotaging the efforts of the incumbent management groups.

A similar situation occurred when the feminist lobby accused the Western Australian government of terminating its trial of specialist domestic violence courts for financial reasons, whereas in fact they did so because the operation of the courts was found to be “counter-productive“.

Any government contemplating standing up to the Domestic Violence Industry needs to be mindful of the feminist modus operandi. In the NSW situation there were many millions of dollars of public funds on the table, and the feminist lobby was never going to bow out without a bitter stoush. Political happenings at both the state and federal level played in their favour, however, undermining the courage and conviction previously displayed by the NSW Government.

During the election campaign the Premier of NSW, clearly desperate after the ALP landslide in Queensland, actively wooed the feminist lobby. He made a number of commitments before being re-elected, and as a result it now appears that we will witness a reversal of the reforms of 2014.

The following series of articles provides readers with a time-line, albeit mostly framed according to the feminist perspective, of what occurred in NSW from May 2014 to the present day:

Brief extract from a transcript of discussions in the NSW Parliament regarding the ‘Going Home Staying Home’ program (29 May 2014)

Concerns raised about the loss of experienced local homelessness services (20 June 2014)

Women’s refuges closing down after reform fails them (21 June 2014)

Anne Summers on the fight to save women-only refuges (28 June 2014)

Pru Goward’s tender touch brushes women aside, by Anne Summers (28 June 2014)

Domestic Violence Centres Under NSW Govt Assault, by Wendy Bacon (9 July 2014)

“In June, the NSW government released the results of a tender for three years of funding for Going Home Staying Home, its new policy for homelessness and domestic violence services. 27 women’s refuges, some of which had been open for decades, lost their funding …

Overall the NSW government has increased funding for homelessness to $515 million. But more significantly, it has dramatically changed the way it funds service.

336 funding agreements have been reduced to just 149 separate packages, which include anything from one to 13 organisations offering a range of services.

A new emphasis on local partnerships within 13 NSW regions meant that many tenders were hastily scrambled together to fit into the new funding requirement.

For women’s refuges, the news was bound to be bad, as 59 different women’s services were spread across different packages, often competing against each other.

Of 59 applications that included women’s refuges, only 32 were successful. To an outsider, this initially looks like 27 refuges will close, including Elsie’s which was one of the unsuccessful ones.

But the truth is more complicated. Some unsuccessful services are in the process of being taken over by winning tenderers, and some winning tenderers are looking rocky as the reality of making partnerships work hits home.”

The truth appears fairly simple to me … the NSW Government increased rather than decreased funding for shelters, the previous system of funding was extremely unwieldy, and in most cases shelters were not closed but rather placed under new management.

Community groups outraged by NSW refuge closures (17 July 2014)

UPDATED: The Gutting And Gagging Of Feminist Women’s Refuges, by Wendy Bacon (25 July 2014)

Domestic Violence specialists sacked as refuges shut their doors, by Rachel Browne (26 July 2014)

NSW Government closes doors to women fleeing violence, by Anne Summers (26 July 2014)

Domestic violence peak body in disarray as members make a vote of no confidence, by Rachel Browne (11 August 2014)

“Angry members of the state’s peak body for domestic violence have issued a vote of no confidence in the organisation, alleging mismanagement had resulted in the closure of a number of specialist women’s refuges.”

Letter from Gabrielle Upton MP, NSW Minister for Family and Community Services (22 October 2014)

The evidence supports specialist refuges for domestic violence (18 February 2015)

How funding changes in NSW locked women out of domestic violence refuges (9 March 2015)

In her March 2015 article ‘Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into changes at NSW women’s refuges‘, Wendy Bacon provides a long list of the management woes that she claims afflict DV refuges since the feminist hand-over.

After reading Wendy’s article one is left with the impression that facility management problems only emerged after the feminists were ejected. I’d suggest that was not the case, and that significant problems were likewise evident in the management of facilities pre-June 2014. It’s unfortunate that journalists chose to look the other way at the time, and it also tells us a great deal about the priorities of current-day feminists.

The picture presented in the media is that any management deficiencies exposed in feminist-controlled facilities can be sheeted home to inadequate government support. Similar problems occurring in non-feminist run facilities are, however, a different and much more serious matter. The key factors in those situations are more likely to be reported as, for example, a “lack of specialised skills”, a lack of understanding”, and insufficient female focus.

And now I suspect we shall see the funding faucet once again thrown open for feminist groups, that an inordinate amount of money will be wasted or otherwise mis-directed, and that we shall still not see the provision of spaces with refuges for male victims of domestic violence.

(**I’ve written to the relevant state agency seeking further any information concerning both the background to the tender process and the tender process itself. I also want to confirm the figures as to how many, if any, refuges were actually closed versus how many refuges were created or expanded in capacity. Once this information is received I will amend this blog post accordingly. I would also welcome any relevant information that might be volunteered by readers)

Some other papers concerning the mismanagement of Domestic Violence refuges and homeless shelters (outside Australia)

Accountability and Oversight of Federally-Funded Domestic Violence Programs: Analysis and Recommendations, by SAVE Services (2010)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/why-womens-shelters-are-hotbeds-of-misandry-2/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn3cHsHnUPM Youtube video about feminist-run DV shelters in Sweden

Reinvigorating the domestic violence sector: Systematically addressing conflict, power and practitioner turnover This doctorate thesis from December 2009 discusses mismanagement and bullying within the domestic violence industry with the laughable conclusion being that the solution is to “re-invigorate the feminist principles and philosophy that has traditionally guided the sector”. Isn’t that a bit like saying the molestation of children in orphanages is best addressed by ‘re-invigorating the Catholic principles and philosophy that has traditionally guided the sector’?

Indeed, in both cases we have a group within society that has been placed on a pedestal and absolved of the level of oversight and accountability that would otherwise be considered reasonable.

On that note, this paper argues that given the failure of the feminist-driven approach to DV, that it’s time to give others a chance.

Domestic violence organisations in the USA don’t provide adequate services to male victims as they are required to do by law, and no-one does anything about it – See the related reddit discussion thread

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

On recognising and supporting male victims of domestic violence This post includes links to some papers that specifically look at the lack of provision for men in available DV refuges

Let’s hope the new DV ministry in New South Wales achieves something more than a triumph of pandering to the feminist lobby

Now that Mike Baird has been re-elected he is moving forward with the first of his election promises. One such promise was the creation of a new ministry, and he has just appointed Pru Goward as the first ever ‘Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault‘.

Whilst some – most notably those on the payroll of the Domestic Violence Industry – are praising this is an appropriate response to the level of public concern about violent crime, others like myself are highly sceptical.

My take on this move is that it is motivated partly by the desire to be ‘seen to be doing something’, and partly as a sop to the feminist lobby. Surely only the most hard-line feminist could seriously believe that creating a new ministry will, in itself, make any significant difference in the ongoing quest to reduce the incidence of sexual/domestic violence?

So how about we take our foot off the ‘we spend because we care’ pedal, and pause a moment to ponder questions such as:

What more can be achieved with a new minister/ministry, than could be achieved in the absence of such changes? Is this administrative change really necessary in terms of delivering the sorts of tangible benefits that the community wants?

If there exists a sincere belief that a new ministry will expedite progress then, using the same logic, why not create a Minister for Reducing Traffic Accidents and/or Minister for Finding a Cure for Cancer?

Will this new initiative to anything to help break down the current substantial extent of gender bias which has seen both domestic violence and sexual assault portrayed as women’s problems with men as their root cause? Will, finally, serious attention be given to female perpetrators and their male victims?

How much will the creation of a new Ministry cost? Will it be cost-effective?

On that last point I can tell you that the costs of such a seemingly simple administrative change will far exceed what most people would imagine. I would guesstimate this to be in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I think I can safely state that, barring perhaps an FOI request, you will NOT subsequently read about this impost in the media.

What then are some of these additional costs that are about to be borne by the taxpayers of NSW?

Creation of new corporate logo
Design and printing of business cards for all employees
Design, production and installation of new building/office signage
Production of new stationary, brochures and other printed material
Production of new corporate gifts and products such as coffee mugs with logo, etc
The destruction/disposal of pre-existing stationary, corporate livery, etc
Updating of web site and any other online presence
Employment of new staff/redeployment of existing staff/redundancies

Bear in mind, please, that each dollar spent (wasted) to pay for the creation of a new ministry means one less dollar available to actually address the central issues of concern … reducing domestic violence, and treating/supporting its perpetrators and victims.

Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

I spent some time the other day browsing content within the ‘Facebook page of Domestic Violence NSW’. As a first-time visitor I was somewhat taken aback at the extent of anti-male and pro-feminist bias evident in the material posted there.

By way of background, Domestic Violence NSW is a Sydney-based charity that received over $6 million in government funding in the period August 2013 – August 2014.

During my visit I submitted a review of their site, noting that:

“When people google your organisation this is what they read: “Domestic Violence information site for Australian mothers seeking to leave abusive relationships, including contact details for various help services.” Yet when they arrive at your home page the message stated is that ‘domestic violence can happen to anyone, any gender, etc…’

My question is then, if you recognise male victims of domestic violence then why not amend the google summary to be consistent? ie. “information site for Australians seeking to leave abusive relationships…” The only reason to not do so would appear to be a desire to appease the feminists who seem to control the DV ‘debate’ in this country. Please consider and respect both sexes”.

At the same time I submitted that review, I contributed three comments in response to various items posted in the timeline. Whilst the review remained in place for a couple of days (I’m guessing they took a while to notice it), my comments disappeared within hours.

DV NSW then blocked me from making further posts on their Facebook page, and lodged a complaint with Facebook admin. Both of these moves are recognised as common feminist tactics used to try to silence those with whom they disagree.

I saw no evidence of dissenting views posted by others, and from that I assume that the timeline is regularly sanitised as is often the case with online feminist forums.

My crime? My crime was simply to put forward a view at odds with the material posted in the timeline. I can assure readers that my comments were quite cordial and offered free of malice, the most offensive terms included therein probably being “male victims” and “female perpetrators”.

Domestic Violence NSW forwarded this message:

“Hi Chris, All content DVNSW posts comes from credible media sources, using statistical information gathered by that source. We CLEARLY use descriptors when posting content that is an opinion or editorial. DVNSW does not prescribe to these opinions, we simply post the content. Our media monitors capture the daily media involving domestic and family violence and we share articles that meet our policy guidelines.

The issue with your post is that a) it comes from a source outside of Australia, which means it is not drawn from our ABS data collected here and b) it does not contain credible sources of information and references.

If you’d like to read about male victims of domestic violence, we would suggest looking into the work of Dr Michael Flood. He is well researched and knowledgable in this area and highly respected within our Australian context.”

I wrote back seeking clarification:

“I’m afraid I’m a little confused as to how I have infringed your posting guidelines. Your message refers to my post, but it would appear that you have removed several of my posts from your timeline. As far as I recall only one of my posts included a hyperlink, and that was linking to an Australian blog. That blog page did in turn include further links to a variety of sources, most if not all of which I would categorize as “credible”.

As I clearly have an interest in the subject and will no doubt visit your page again, I would like to better understand the nature of your concerns. Would you mind providing copies of the posts that you removed, in each case identifying the offending elements of each? Many thanks for your assistance. Chris

PS: I am aware of Mr Flood’s work and I regret to inform you that, outside of feminist circles, he is anything but “highly regarded”.

I’ll post their reply here should I receive one, but I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Postscript (later the same day): Oh (massive facepalm) this reaction is either juvenile beyond belief … or indicative of a generous measure of paranoia. Upon visiting the Twitter stream of Domestic Violence NSW I was alerted to the following announcement:

Dear followers,
Sadly we have become aware that our Facebook page is currently being targeted by troll groups who remain highly opposed to our exposure of latest boosts in media surrounding the current, credible statistics concerning the death rate of people (the majority women and children) from domestic and family violence this year and last. We are aware that these individuals are creating fake profiles and recruiting others to attack our page with spam from a particular mens rights website. As such, whilst we investigate this and proceed with a course of action, we are regrettably restricting all comments on our posts. We are incredibly disappointed by having to do this as we love your interaction and support of awareness and changing the culture that exists around Domestic and Family violence.
We have made this choice for several reasons, these are;
1. These individuals are posting links to websites and media that we believe could trigger and distress many of our audience who have had experience living with violence. We do not wish to risk the health and safety of any of our supporters.
2. Our media is unable to be monitored 24/7 and it is monitored by staff members, thus making it a work environment. As we would never allow our staff to work in an unsafe work environment, we feel that this content is inappropriate for staff members to have to work around.
3. We feel that whilst we investigate this behaviour, and possible breaches in legislation, we can actively end this continuing further and reach out to those who feel this behaviour is appropriate.
Please note: WE WILL STILL BE POSTING MEDIA AND THIS WILL BE ABLE TO BE SHARED BY YOU.
We can assure you we are still able to be contacted whenever necessary and you can contact us via the information on our website: www.dvnsw.org.au/html/contact.htm and we encourage you to do so.
We will aim to enable comments again ASAP and we thank you all for your continued support.
We all have a right to be heard and to present diverse opinions when this is done respectfully and with maturity.
Thank you and please be kind to one another.
The DVNSW Team

Assuming this is not droll humour, I’m embarrassed for these people.

Feminists reject the term ‘victim’ in favour of ‘survivor’. And yet dismissing those with alternative perspectives as trolls, and concealing or misrepresenting their message, embodies the very essence of perpetual victimhood. It is the behaviour one might expect from infantilized, narcissistic sissie-girls.

Those who are so invested in equality could begin by extending equality to others. You value inclusiveness? Then include others. You want to fashion meaningful reform directed towards achieving real social justice? Come back to the table when you’re ready to act like grown-ups.

Postscript 16 March 2015: A couple of days after DV NSW deleted my posts they inserted a statement in their timeline saying that they supported all victims of domestic violence (pictured). They also inserted a couple of posts about male victims and one about a girl bashed by her mum. In and of itself that’s a good thing, but I suspect it was done more ‘for show’ than to demonstrate real commitment to gender equality.

I also happened across an interesting post online which immediately struck a cord given that it mirrored my own experience with DV NSW:

“The fact is the people pushing this notion that Family Violence is a gendered issue know full well they are lying. I used to believe they were misguided or ill informed but I have had a couple of personal dealings with groups running online support and fundraising for the female victims of domestic violence. When I questioned them and presented some facts in a very polite, respectful manner, the same two things happened on three occasions. 1. My comments were deleted. 2. An article on male victims of DV was posted with a statement reminding everyone that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence. When I scrolled down their page I discovered this was the only mention anywhere on their page of male victims. They only put up that one because they want to cover their arses in case another informed reader questioned their bigotry.” (Source – See comment from Mark Mooroolbark)

I posted a brief response noting my experience with DV NSW, and then things got even more interesting when Mark replied to me in the following manner:

“That is one of the mobs I was referring to! Just this week I wrote a polite comment on their Facebook page and someone responded with that false statistic that DV is the leading cause of death and disability in women between the ages of 15 and 49. I responded by simply stating that this was not correct and listed the five leading causes of death and disability before adding a few more points-all reasonable and polite. I returned to find my comments deleted and a post explaining that due to trolling from a Men’s Right Group they are blocking all comments -they said the women monitoring the site may feel unsafe and that the comments posted were disrespectful, immature etc…

I was so angry that I immediately wrote to Moo Baulch the CEO of the Domestic Violence NSW organisation stating exactly what happened and asking for an explanation. She responded to my email and said she would ring me sometime this week. If the call ever takes place it will be interesting to hear her defence of this censorship”.

Could it be that DV NSW interpreted two individuals independently offering feedback on DV NSW’s priorities as constituting a targeted attack by “troll groups“? Could they really be that stupid or delusional? What do you think?

The vitriol against the Safe Schools program reflects state-sanctioned homophobia (26 February 2016) Moo Baulch equates parliamentary debate regarding the value and appropriateness of a feminist-supported program in schools to “state-sanctioned hate speech“.

Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates? (11 June 2015)

A most informative Powerpoint presentation on the nature and treatment of paranoia (Come on ladies, it can’t hurt you just to have a look at this)

The CEO of Domestic Violence NSW, Moo Baulch, is quoted in this article indicating her resistance to free and open discussion of domestic violence, and criticizing the nature of statistics provided by the Police.

As one reader subsequently observed:

“Interesting how bigots like Jenna Price bemoan the ‘lack of context’ and a ‘proper breakdown of the statistics’ when the greatest concern most non feminists have about feminists is their complete and utter disregard for context and the the proper representation of statistics. In fact, it is feminists who are the greatest abusers of ‘statistics’ through misrepresentation.”

Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy

Footnote: DV NSW Annual Report 2022/23

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

The Unbearable Lameness of Being

So what exactly is the ‘Domestic Violence Industry’?

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

Dubious public policy borne from the denial of female violence

Whilst browsing the daily news I came across an article entitled Domestic violence register to protect women who fear their partners’ past (6 March 2015)

(If you haven’t already read my blog post about violent behaviour by women, then now would be a good time to do so)

Mike Baird (Premier of New South Wales, Australia) has proposed the establishment of a register of violent men. The intention is that potential female partners can check to see if their ‘person of interest’ has a track-record of abuse.

Mike’s proposal is based on a system now operating in the United Kingdom, known as Clare’s Law. Thus far I have been unable to locate any serious analysis of the efficacy of the UK system. The Premier has promised to introduce the system if re-elected. Has his staff determined that the proposed system would be likely to be effective? To be cost-effective? Does he really care? Or is the perceived potential for electoral mileage sufficient to justify a scheme that will no doubt involve a considerable outlay of taxpayer dollars?

“It is understood the list will first be made up only of men convicted of a charge of domestic assault, but the government will consider extending this to men who are the subject of an ADVO after consultation with the Justice Department.

Safeguards will be put in place so that people asking if someone is on the register have to prove they are in a domestic relationship.”

At this stage the operational details are unclear and many questions remain unanswered. For example:

How would women prove that they are in a relationship with the man in question?

What measures would be taken to prevent men being listed on the basis of false allegations?

How much will the register cost to establish and maintain, and will such a service significantly affect the rates of perpetration of domestic violence? Or will it, in fact, make any difference at all?

It is of concern that a political leader would contemplate such a ‘service’ without thought being given to the fairness and desirability of including violent women. That this fellow has done so demonstrates just how far under the spell of feminism our leaders seem to have fallen. And unfortunately the NSW opposition party offers the community no better alternative in this regard.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it reinforces the negative and inaccurate stereotype that domestic violence consists entirely of men abusing women, and that women do not perpetrate violence.

The proposal is sexist and discriminatory in that it denies to men whatever limited protection the register might provide to women.

It may well be that after Mike’s proposal has been subject to proper analysis and consultation, it will be found to be non-viable. If it is to proceed, however, then the records of everyone with a history of violence must be made accessible.

“Premier Mike Baird and Minister for Women Pru Goward said the groundbreaking registry, announced on Friday, would be set up if they win the state election on March 28. “Quite frankly, I’m sick of excuses,” Mr Baird said“.

Well quite frankly I’m sick of politicians pandering to the feminist movement by diverting millions of dollars of public funds each year to feminist NGO’s like these. Feminists whose voices, by the way, now represent only a small minority of Australian women.

My concerns would be mitigated if, at the end of the day, there were clear benefits for the Australian community. More often than not, however, the outcome is one that sees the Government achieve very little with regard to the problem/s that they originally claimed they set out to address. Conversely, the collateral damage and the wasted opportunities that result from such a course of action are not inconsequential. No matter, the next news cycle will no doubt provide some convenient diversion.

Update 2 April 2015: Mike Baird was re-elected and has now appointed feminist Pru Goward as the first ever ‘Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault’

Update 22 May 2015: The NSW Government has released a discussion paper on the DV register concept. The receipt of public submissions in relation to this document ended on 19 June 2015. I provided a submission noting, amongst other things, my concern that the discussion paper did not explicitly state that both men and women were to be included in the register.

Update 15 February 2019: Violent offenders on GPS trackers to lower domestic violence in Australia (15 February 2019) A tech-ed up variation on the register concept – but will it make any difference in terms of decreasing the incidence of DV?

Update 23 January 2023: NSW women and men will be able to check partner’s violence history online with disclosure scheme. Video of news item here. Here we go again #FacePalm

Update 25 January 2023: New domestic violence scheme is a quick fix for a massive issue. Zero mention of female perpetrators or male victims, but they happily predict that there needs to be “resourcing the specialist domestic violence sector to provide critical referrals and support to victim-survivors engaging with the scheme”. You can almost hear all those feminist hands rubbing together.

See also:

Domestic Violence Disclosure Schemes: A National Review, by Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre (June 2023)

Writer named in controversial ‘media men’ list wins round in court (4 January 2022) Relates to USA feminist writer, Moira Donegan, who later featured in coverage of the Depp-Heard court case (example).

And now a dating app that allegedly screens out dangerous men (20 December 2021) with a further reference here.

250 South Australians use Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme to check on abusive partners (10 October 2019)

The secret Facebook groups where women shame their exes (22 August 2019) UK

Queensland ‘initiative’ referred to here as an ‘Alternative Reporting Option’ (June 2018) I would imagine that there would be plenty of scope for abuse here

UK experience of domestic violence disclosure schemes is a cautionary tale for Australia (12 October 2016)

Violent offenders registers sound good, but are a costly, unproven distraction (8 July 2015)

Police call for family violence offender register (1 July 2015)

Is Michigan’s sex offender registry actually protecting us? (26 May 2015)

Early warning scheme for domestic violence (21 May 2015)

NSW domestic violence register to expose potential abusers (20 May 2015)

Put DV abusers on national register (14 March 2015) Features some interesting readers comments. The author, Wendy Tuohy, claims that the register will include violent women but I have been unable to obtain official confirmation of this. Even Mike Baird’s original media release is quite ambiguous on this point.

NSW state election 2015: Mike Baird beefs up domestic violence and sexual assault laws (6 March 2015)

Domestic violence register could lead to increased not guilty pleas, privacy experts warn (6 March 2015)

Video item on the proposal as featured in the ‘Sunrise’ TV show which has generated a large number of viewer comments with a definite majority being supportive of the inclusion of violent women on the register

Domestic violence register won’t work: ALP (6 March 2015)

Sex offender registers often get raised in conversations about domestic violence registers – so here is an article on that topic: Sex Offender Registries (SOR’s): Time for a change (16 August 2014)

Clare’s Law: a violation of our private lives (28 November 2013)

Now people can be told of their partner’s violent past thanks to new law named after tragic murder victim (8 March 2014)

Clare’s Law: a simple solution, or more confusion? (25 November 2013)

Epidemic of Restraining / Protection Order Abuse by women against innocent men (31 July 2013) USA

Baird promises domestic violence minister (6 March 2015) Google ‘affectatious‘. How about a Minister for Road Safety? Minister for Prevention of Substance Abuse?

#SydneySiege reporting showcases further examples of feminist hypocrisy

Many readers would be aware of the tragedy that unfolded in central Sydney in mid-December 2014 whereby a lone gunman took hostages in a coffee shop, ultimately killing two and wounding several others.

Hypocrisy #1. Don’t blame this large diverse group, blame this other one instead

It was only a matter of time until one or more feminist journalists would link this sociopath’s actions to men, masculinity, hyper-masculinity, domestic violence or the mens rights movement (or all of the preceding). But even I wouldn’t have foreseen the glaring irony contained within ‘Sydney Siege: Confronting our anti-Islam backlash‘, penned by Ruby Hamad (818 readers comments and still going).

“While it is true that this gunman put Islam front and centre by utilising that flag, let’s put the emphasis where it belongs. He may have made it about religion, but the operative word here is “he”, and not “religion.” … But such is the marginalisation of Muslims that they are not given the benefit of being individuals … What this should tell us is that our global society has a problem with violence. More specifically, we have a problem with widespread male violence and an unwillingness to even recognise, let alone confront it.”

So the author admonishes us to not blame one large diverse social grouping for this crime (Muslims) because that is unfair and unreasonable, but instead to assign the blame to another large diverse group (men) because …

Hypocrisy #2. Reporting the heroism of Lindt Cafe Manager Mr. Tori Johnson

What follows is my best recollection of a post I submitted to the Facebook page of pro-feminist news outlet news.com.au, but which (cue look of feigned surprise) disappeared from their timeline almost immediately.

“You have reported the heroic actions of Tori Johnson, and rightly so, as he was clearly a very brave individual and by all accounts also a great guy. Yet only two days ago you saw fit to publish an article in which you labelled men as “idiots” on account of their propensity for risk-taking. Perhaps the next time the feminist journalists on your team feel the urge to mock or demonise men, they might pause to consider the individuals behind the genitalia. They might also reflect on the advances made as a result of men taking risks, including the very freedoms that they enjoy today.”