Yes it’s a bold plan but we think we can do it. We’re a cool little organisation and, I tell you, we are 100% into gender equality.
Only 10% women by 2017? Feminists would be collectively choking on their breakfast cereal at this point, and reaching towards their IPads ready to unleash a storm on social media. Well, they can relax and busy themselves attending to their cats’ litter tray instead.
That’s because the statement in this particular organisation’s web site actually specifies having 10% of the senior management team *male* by 2017. I’ve seen this objective noted in their web site for quite a while now. Three years? Clearly progress has been slow. Perhaps they’re having trouble finding men whose judgement is sufficiently impaired to sign off on media releases asserting that the gender wage gap is proof-positive of an oppressive male hegemony across corporate Australia.
The organisation I’m talking about is the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The WGEA is an Australian Government statutory agency created by the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. The Agency is charged with promoting and improving gender equality in Australian workplaces. The relevant minister is Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Minister for Women, etc.
We taxpayers support WGEA to the tune of $5 million each year, and in return they tell us about stuff that’s really important to feminists like the ‘gender pay gap’. They even have a separate website in which to bang that particular drum.
There are currently no men in the senior management team at WGEA. I don’t think that there ever has been. The last annual report (refer page 100) tells us that only two out of twenty-nine staff were men (see the lovely staff pic). (Postscript September 2016: According to this article, WGEA now employ five men … break out the party pies, they achieved their quota!)
I don’t understand why they only shot for 10% men though. Because if 10% is the feminist version of equality, then that certainly changes a few things. And what’s with waiting until now (2017)? Surely if members of the current management team were real feminists they would jump at the opportunity to facilitate greater diversity at WGEA by resigning to make way for new blood. And then imagine the challenge of subsequently breaking new ground in a field dominated by men, like fishing or mining for example. But then if it’s just about the money I guess I could understand …
Now back to where I started, with the genders reversed. If it was 95% men working in this particular agency, don’t you think that the feminist lobby would scream their heads off? That it wouldn’t be on, or close to, the front page of the paper? Maybe even have its own hashtag? And that the government wouldn’t find a way to immediately address the serious gender imbalance?
Don’t bother answering. I think none of us are in any doubt about the answer to that hypothetical.
If any further proof were needed about the extent of power wielded by the feminist lobby in Australia then consider the fact that gender issues are rarely mentioned by politicians unless their views are in lockstep with the feminist position on the relevant matter. As for direct criticism of feminists or feminism … well that’s as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.
That this is the case speaks far more about the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and infiltration of the media and public service, than about the actual number of adherents to feminist ideology out in the broader community.
Yet despite this our elected representatives, from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to take a stand. Thus they would rather please a screeching minority group than represent the best interests of the majority of their constituents.
“The recurring theme is the number of MPs in different parties who tell me, privately and in a whisper, “Of course you are absolutely right about this, it is all ridiculous” but – with very few but notable exceptions – will not dare to say so publicly.
This highlights two things. Firstly, most MPs lack courage – even to say things which are just plain common sense.
Secondly, it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.”
The sitting politicians’ concerns are, unfortunately, understandable when one considers the harsh criticism meted out to those rare individuals who do dare to speak out (related article) and another entitled ‘Goodbye Spectator’.
In January 2016 Mark again found himself the target of furious feminist and ‘white knight‘ scorn after he commented upon the rampant gender bias and misrepresentation within the domestic violence debate:
Senator Leyonhjelm has also kicked some solid goals, but is unfortunately now in the process of moving from the federal to the (NSW) state arena (see video).
Beyond these few courageous individuals the picture is bleak indeed. So much for living in a parliamentary democracy. So much for freedom of speech. So much for teasing apart a problematic issue and discussing new and/or alternative solutions to achieve positive change.
Now shut-up and prostrate yourselves before the wonder and wisdom of 3rd wave feminism.
The nature of criticism put forward in relation to the men’s rights movement says a lot about both the MRM and it’s critics – but mostly not in the way these authors intended.
This blog post remains a ‘work in progress’ … I have many relevant papers in other pre-existing blog posts that I need to move here when I get some free time (particularly the one about the men’s rights movement and this one)
The Privilege Discussions We Need To Have (21 June 2017) If I get time I would love to write a rebuttal of this post. A classic example of someone who clearly thinks they know a great deal about the men’s rights movement but whose understanding is in fact deeply flawed.
New Hampshire State Rep Who Created Reddit’s ‘Red Pill’ Resigns (17 May 2017) Feminists can be as hateful and biased as they like but has one ever been forced to resign from public office? This selective and media-endorsed persecution of anti-feminists and MRA’s is why so many opt for anonymity in the first place.
On International Women’s Day, don’t forget men, by Ben Pobjie (8 March 2017) Australia. The secret to witty caricaturization is knowing your subject, and this guy is clearly clueless about MRA’s and the men’s rights movement. Then again, if he understood the movement, he’d be less inclined to mock it.
David Futrelle is a high-profile critic of the Men’s Rights movement. “Futrelle is considered the go-to expert on the Men’s Rights Movement by many mainstream journalists”. This web site discusses his work.
“In response to Sonia Kruger’s comments, radio personality Meshel Laurie stated the bare facts: “The most dangerous people in Australia are Australian men who kill Australian women at a rate of one a week.”
“That’s more than any terrorist has ever done,’ pointed out her co-host, Matt Tilley. Following One Nation’s logic, is the solution to domestic violence to ban all men from entering Australia?”
Men’s Rights Agency – Feminism (undated) Australia. Includes reference to comments by Judge Alistair Nicholson, who “publicly accused those who disagreed with the practices of the Family Court (mostly men), as being “discontented litigants, sometimes obviously dysfunctional“. Nicholson, the Chief Justice of the Family Court further abused his advantaged position, (i.e. protected from rebuttal under the secrecy provisions within the Family Law Act), by claiming “most persistent critics behaved in a way which cannot stand up to public scrutiny, particularly in relation to issues of violence against women and children“.”
“There is much fudging of stats by the Father’s Rights movement and IMO many (not all) of the men in those groups are [domestic violence] perpetrators posing as victims.” Reader’s comment by Barbara Roberts, Author of “Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion.” Co-leader of A Cry For Justice (Source) 21 March 2015
One of the pillars of feminism is that all women are in a state of perpetual victimhood, with one of the key reasons for this being the alleged violent and controlling nature of men. Feminists support this bias, in part, by pointing at the far greater percentage of jail inmates that are male. They assert that this is indicative that most crimes, especially serious crimes, are committed by men.
The situation is not that simple however given that there is clear evidence of substantial and widespread gender bias at every step of the law & order process within the justice systems of western democracies.
Yet feminists, who claim to be motivated by a desire for greater gender equality, have no interest in reducing this disparity. Instead they are lobbying to make this justice gap even broader (see this article, with further examples amongst the various linked articles listed below).
Instagram model jailed for bizarre masked robberies (22 September 2020) In news.com.au this article was entitled ‘Model sent to brutal women’s prison‘. Can you imagine an article entitled ‘Architect sent to brutal man’s prison’? It doesn’t have have quite the same heart-string tugging effect now does it?
What happens when an abused women fights back? (30 July 2019) So when a woman breaks a court DV order it’s wrong when they get sent to jail? Zero mention of men, of course, who are also victims and who fight back and get sent to jail.
Why doesn’t prison work for women? (29 September 2018) UK I’ll have to read this again to see if it suggested one single thing that was the fault of women, rather than men or some aspect of society at large. Whereas men, well, they can suck it up can’t they?
“On Tuesday, judge John Cook sentenced her to 10 years in prison on each of four felony counts, relating to the inappropriate relationship, but suspended all but 12 months, including time served– so that means she has about 6 months left to serve”. Pussy-pass? SUCCESS
International Men’s Day (IMD) is upon us again – it’s on 19 November in case you weren’t aware. Last year, as is usual, it passed with barely a blip on the media’s radar screen. At least, that was the case here in Australia.
Some government agencies, such as Australian Human Rights Commission, pointedly ignore IMD. You can read in this post how they refused to make mention of Men’s Day in their web site, whilst celebrating International Women’s Day with much vigor. I contacted the Commission a few weeks back to see if they had anything planned for this year, but received no response. I also did a search of their web site and turned up nothing.
I have yet to read any announcements regarding how Australian Federal and/or State/Territory governments plan to mark IMD2016, so I sent out a series of tweets seeking that information. I planned to include responses onto this page, but there were none. I also did google-searching but didn’t manage to identify a single IMD2016 event taking place in Australia. If you know of one then please contribute a comment.
The United Nations demonstrates its pervasive gynocentric bias in part through its failure to list International Men’s Day in its online calendar of events. If you disagree with this omission then contact your country’s UN representative and let them know how you feel. Details concerning Australia’s representative to the UN are provided here.
And I doubt you would be surprised to learn that feminists hugely enjoy mocking IMD. Yes indeed, and now repeat after me, “yeah, but everyday is men’s day!”
Glen Poole (UK) does a great job discussing the various issues commonly raised in relation to IMD in a series of articles entitled ‘Dumb reasons why we don’t need an International Men’s Day’ … refer Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5
The most recent development seems to be feminist spokespeople acknowledging International Men’s Day, but in a very back-handed way, see for example.
The following items concerning International Men’s Day may also be of interest:
Whilst IMD is routinely ignored by govt’s and corporates alike, one company (Citi) uses the event to tell men that they should lift their game via the hashtag #ChallengeAllMenToDoBetter (17 November 2017) Pathetic
Women’s Network tries to hijack International Men’s Day! (22 September 2017) Video. You couldn’t make this stuff up … IMD2017 event organised by women’s group behind shield of a seemingly non-existent men’s group, with proceeds to pro-feminist group that ignores male victims of domestic violence. The organiser was asked to provide details of the ‘Australian Men’s Network’ but instead chose to lock her Twitter account (@Awn001Fran). You can watch a Paul Elam video regarding this event here, and here is another quality video from The Independant Man.
The issues that really matter on #InternationalMensDay (19 November 2016) So let me get this right, feminists insist that the sole focus of the domestic violence debate should be on female victims because they constitute the majority. Here however the author fem-splains that the “issues that really matter” on IMD are issues affecting male minority groups not all of the nasty unwashed white CIS-HET majority.
The Commissioner for discrimination against men (21 July 2012) It was suggested that the Australian Human Rights Commission provide some information in their web site to mark International Men’s Day (as they do every year for International Women’s Day). The response was this was not possible due to resourcing constraints. Now, many years later, there is still no mention of International Men’s Day within the AHRC web site. A truly pathetic effort from a very gender-biased organisation.
Feminist Fathers Day 2014 (I’m including this ghastly anti-male diatribe here sarcastically. It shows just how far some feminists want to shame men and feminise boys. As usual there are some great insights and colourful retorts amongst the readers comments).
There was also the massive internet prank that was #endfathersday and which highlighted both the sociopathic nature and herd mentality of many feminists – as discussed here, here and here
This view of the current situation in relation to addressing mens issues in Australia has been compiled by one who is relatively new to the field. As such it may contain some errors or omissions, so please feel free to contribute further information or correct any inadvertent mistakes.
Australian men’s issues have both a physical and online footprint that is vastly smaller than is the case for women’s issues. There are a number of reasons for this, but the primary one is the enormous disparity in government support in relation to the two. Pro-feminist media bias in combination with feminist tactics of shaming and censorship has also proved quite effective in stifling male activism and lobbying up to this point in time.
Of those Australian organisations and sites dealing with mens issues that do have some public profile, almost all have a health focus. Most of these organisations/sites appear to be rather introspective and self-effacing in nature, i.e. essentially to keep under the feminist radar and to avoid jeopardising whatever pitiable amount of funding or government support they might receive.
Those few mens programs that do attract funding, for example the men’s shed movement, only manage to do so as they are seen as somewhat twee and posing no threat to the achievement of feminist objectives.
Government agencies: I am not aware of any federal or state government agency that deals specifically with mens and boys issues, nor even a dedicated section within a government agency. This is a huge point of difference in comparison with the situation with women’s and girls issues.
Of those government agencies that do address specific men’s issues, the most prominent are agencies dealing with mental health and with domestic violence. With regards to the latter at least, the primary emphasis is on ‘educating’ and ‘treating’ male perpetrators of acts of violence and abuse. Whilst some claim to offer services to male victims, any mention of such services is virtually confined to the ‘fine print’ within relevant web sites.
The way that domestic violence web sites are worded gives the impression of a distinct pro-female and anti-male bias (example). Given that men are already less likely to reports acts of abuse against them, one could suggest with confidence that the character of domestic violence web sites acts as a significant disincentive to come forward.
I deal with the issue of government agencies and ‘not-for-profit’ organisations that ignore or downplay men’s welfare in this other blog post.
Mens studies: As you can see in this thread, an attempt was recently made to establish a men’s studies course in Australia. This was met with a furious feminist backlash and was shelved. One of those who spoke against the initiative was Michael Flood, a staunch feminist who misrepresents himself as a spokesperson for the Australian men’s rights movement. The only remaining part of that initiative was, I think, one or two subjects on men’s health being made available.
Mens health: Men’s health advocates comprise a mix of individual counselors, universities, and non-government organisations. Their stance towards men’s rights varies between one of neutrality to a ‘deer in the headlights’ stance brought about through their concern that any perceived association with MRA could threaten their political acceptability and hence access to government funding. The latter position is demonstrated by the charity discussed in this other blog post. There are, however some virulently anti-MRA outliers such as Michael Salter, Michael Flood, and more recently some character by the name of Joshua Roose (an example of his unfortunate mindset).
The level of government funding for Australian mens health issues/organisations (as with men’s issues/organisations generally) is miniscule in comparison to that allocated to women. I recently also became aware that funding for The Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre had been slashed.
This is certainly the case here in Australia, where most of our politicians, from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to contemplate representing the interests of 50% of their constituents. You can see some of Malcolm Turnbull’s unfortunate early comments on gender matters here, here and here. One ray of hope, however, might be foreign minister Julie Bishop.
I can’t help wondering what could be achieved if only we had an Australian politician with the tenacity and courage of Philip Davies in the UK (see this example of his efforts). Philip’s pioneering efforts with gender equality are also discussed in this article.
See also my posts in relation to the views of both the major parties and minor parties in relation to feminism and gender-related issues.
By and large the only Australia politicians with the courage to challenge the feminist orthodoxy are ex-politicians, as discussed in this other blog post.
One person to keep an eye on going forward is Augusto Zimmermann, who is Law Reform Commissioner at the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Dr Zimmermann has been proposed as a possible replacement for Gillian Triggs at the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Australian media:
The MSM in Australia is a lost cause for the time being, with very few journalists willing to be seen to question feminist orthodoxy. Those that do, know full-well what they can expect. Some examples would include Andrew Bolt, Corrine Barraclough, Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi.
Where are things up to in Australia at the moment amongst the general population? Well I would liken the situation with most men to frogs being boiled in a pot. The temperature is going up slowly and steadily and guys just aren’t noticing how hot things are. The temperature in this case being the increasing anti-male bias in the media, in the law, in politics, etc.
Further, and contrary to the notion of patriarchy, men’s own innate behaviour is such that they lend themselves to being taken advantage of. For example, the default setting for most men is to help and protect women rather than criticise them. Men are also very reluctant to been seen to portray themselves as victims, and would prefer to internalise problems and deal with them on their own (rather than for example join a men’s group).
Most men (and women) have little knowledge of the men’s rights movement, and consequently the views of many reflect the deeply biased picture painted in the mainstream media, i.e. MRA as being violent, as being ‘rednecks’, as being ultra-conservative, and as being ‘woman-haters’. By the same token, most men (and women) are equally ill-informed about the true nature of feminism and so accept the benign ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism as portrayed in the media.
Nevertheless, however, many men are reaching the inescapable conclusion that the pendulum has swayed far beyond the mid-way point with regards to the rights of women vis a vis the rights of men. They also recognise that there is also a widening gap between the respective rights and obligations of men and women.
Many men are increasingly unhappy and dissatisfied in their interaction with women. Many men have also either suffered considerable psychological and financial trauma as a result of divorce, or know friends who have been shattered in this manner. (And coincidentally or otherwise, women have also become increasingly unhappy.)
As a consequence whilst the majority of Aussie guys remain unwilling to take collective action, or to identify as an MRA, I am seeing many more men and women expressing their views in the online world in response to media articles that have an anti-male bias (example 1 / example 2 / example 3).
Another telling indicator is the huge number of visitors to MHRA sites like ‘A Voice for Men’ versus the relatively small number who are actually registered members. This suggests to me that there are a lot of people ‘sitting on the fence’ at the moment awaiting a tipping-point, whereupon we will see far greater and more organised expressions of assertive (yet assiduously non-violent) activism.
Domestic violence (DV), also referred to as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) or Family & Domestic Violence (FDV), is a shocking blight on the community. This is a scourge that inflicts substantial negative impacts on the lives of countless men, women and children. Whilst definitions have evolved and broadened, DV is loosely defined as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse“.
It is important to acknowledge that DV encompasses man on man, women on women, man on woman, and woman on man violence (both cis- and transgender). Further, in many instances violence is perpetrated by both partners as shown in the accompanying diagram. There is also a strong nexus between the incidence of child abuse/neglect and subsequent perpetration of domestic violence by affected individuals upon reaching adulthood.
The Wikipedia entry for ‘Epidemiology of domestic violence‘ provides readers with useful background information on this topic. For those willing to read something a little meatier, I would recommend this paper by esteemed DV researcher Malcolm George. Malcolm walks the reader through the historical context to the current debate about gender differences in violent behaviour and the way that society responds to the issue.
Many of those working within the DV sector, particularly here in Australia, only choose to acknowledge one element of the problem – that part involving male perpetrators and female victims. It is no coincidence that most staff within these government agencies, universities and NGO’s are strongly influenced by, and biased towards, feminist ideology. The feminist position is unequivocal, and it is that domestic violence = men’s violence towards women. Here is an example of that mindset, and here are many others.
This routine failure by feminists to recognise and discuss male victims, female perpetrators and bi-directional violence is no accident or coincidence. It is a deliberate strategy to build their brand, and in so doing demonise the overwhelming majority of men who have never, and would never, hurt or abuse their partner.
As a result, and in order to support the feminist narrative, a great deal of ‘cherry-picking’ and misrepresentation occurs in relation to the statistics provided in DV literature. In addition, the design and implementation of survey instruments is too often tainted with bias. This issue, that of feminist efforts to hide or discredit legitimate research and/or generate false or misleading statistics, is explored in this further blog post.
You will note, as you scroll down this page, that there are a multitude of sources of DV statistics, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States. Here in Australia, much less research has been undertaken – particularly in relation to male victimisation. One of the more significant sources is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012, which found that one in three victims of domestic abuse were male. The results of overseas studies generally found levels of male and female victimisation that were closer to parity, and in some instances even higher rates of victimisation for men that women.
Unfortunately many journalists display remarkable tunnel-vision when addressing the topic of IPV. Indeed some have suggested that the media is complicit in the same sort of systemic gender bias against males noted earlier amongst those working in the field of DV.
Turning to my first example, an article called ‘Til death do us part’ which appeared in The Australian newspaper. It consisted of five pages of heart-wrenching coverage of men’s violence towards female partners, but made no mention of any other form of domestic violence, i.e. m-m, f-f, or women on men. Similarly this February 2014 article from The Mail newspaper also neglected to mention that men can be victims too.
Fiona McCormack also ignores male victims and female abusers this item on Australian ABC TV … except in an aside where she implies that anyone who raises the issue of women abusers is only seeking to “excuse” the behaviour of male abusers. This is very much akin to the feminist predilection of labelling anyone who questions various aspects of sexual assault (e.g. false rape allegations) as being “rape apologists” “victim blamers” etc.
Now let’s turn to this article by Charlie Pickering (more about Charlie here). Charlie is concerned that more attention is paid to the issue of random one-punch attacks on men, than on the violence visited nightly on women people in their homes. He goes on to state:
“For a long time, the termdomestic violence has softened and normalised what is really going on. A more accurate term is ‘men’s violence against women’. Not ‘violence against women’, because that takes the responsibility for it away from those who need to be made responsible.”
This belief, that by acknowledging male victims and female perpetrators, we are somehow ignoring the validity and the pain of female victims is absurd, yet unfortunately commonplace in public discourse. The fact that there may be somewhat fewer male victims does not, nor should not, make domestic violence a gendered issue.
A precious few writers, like this one, suggest a more practical and unbiased approach to the issue:
“When it comes to the statistics about domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter to me how many men to how many women experience domestic violence. Domestic violence is a power issue more than a gender issue. Intimate Partner Violence affects men and women, and I really do not care in what proportion …
Within anti-domestic violence advocacy, there seems to be a trend to pit female victims against male victims and vice-versa. I do not know who is behind it, nor do I know if there is a “who” to blame. I do know that blame has no place in this fight against domestic abuse, especially when victim blames victim for any reason …
In a perfect society, men and women are equally protected under the law not because more laws were made to protect one sex but because in each mind and heart of all people, women and men are respected equally, and the individual contributions or crimes are our only measures of judgment. However, this ideal is as far away from our current reality as the idea that no person would seek power over another.”
Many others within the wider community have, however, embraced a biased and incomplete representation of DV, liberally salted with misinformation, at face value. Who could blame them, given that so many sources are bellowing out the same relentless message about male perpetrators and female victims, whilst studiously ignoring other elements of the issue.
Here in Australia, let’s look at this page within the web site of the Department of Social Services entitled ‘Women’s safety’, and the linked 28 page literature review prepared by ‘Urbis’ consultants at a cost of $220,000. One would have assumed, especially given the enormous cost, that the review would have encompassed all forms of abuse and perpetration. But, unfortunately, it did not.
In fact the review states that “Male perpetrators of domestic violence or sexual assault against men and female perpetrators of either offence against men have not been considered in this literature review. It is acknowledged that in practice the great majority of programs will be targeted towards men who commit domestic violence or sexual assault against women.”
Yes, that makes perfect sense … there are no programs for female offenders so let’s pretend they don’t exist. Such circular logic is (almost) unbelievable. And no, there is no corresponding ‘Mens Safety’ page within the DSS web site.
To be fair, the authors of some studies do admit that there are many female perpetrators and male victims, and that little research has been directed towards these groups. They also admit that there are probably many similarities between male and female perpetrators of IPV. They then invariably proceed, however, to offer a variety of justifications to continue their focus on the ‘domestic violence = Mens violence towards women’ model (example).
When misleading statistics are repeatedly exposed the feminist reaction is to move the goalposts by expanding the reach of the definition of domestic violence to encompass sexual violence, and less tangible forms of non-physical ‘violence’. This serves to both maximise the perceived magnitude of the problem, as well as support the anti-male narrative.
Naturally those areas where female perpetration is substantial, such as child abuse and elder abuse, are totally ‘out of bounds’. This theme is explored in this separate blog post. The same approach has been taken by feminists to prop up the notion of the existence of a ‘rape culture‘ in western societies.
Those of us concerned about men’s rights seek to have all aspects of domestic violence considered, as well as seeking remedies to specific issues such as:
the lack of resources to assist abused men and their children
laws and legal procedures that are based on the assumption that the male in the relationship is the abuser
negative and biased behaviour towards men who seek assistance, for example the screening of (only) male callers to abuse help-lines to determine if they are in fact perpetrators (example)
A selection of statistical sources that haven’t been doctored to support the feminist narrative
“Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”
More than 125,000 women homeless because of domestic violence (15 February 2016). The only figures for male victimisation that were mentioned – because they appeared to support the feminist perspective – were drawn from this media release from a government agency. What’s not mentioned though is that the relatively low numbers of men seeking assistance are indicative of factors other than simply lower rates of male victimisation, incl.:
the rampant genderbias of ‘help-lines’, advocacy groups and even government agencies
the (widely-known) lack of resources available to help male victims (with or without children, and
the much greater incidence of non-reporting of DV by men (compared to women)
“The proportion of male victims who told police about their domestic abuse increased from 10.4% in 2014-15 to 14.7% this year as charities said more men were shaking off the stigma of talking about their suffering.“
For Nelson Women’s Refuge manager Katie O’Donnell, the solution to New Zealand’s domestic violence problem is more straightforward. “People say it’s a really complex issue. Well, it is a complex issue but also it isn’t – guys just have to stop doing it”
Telstra introduces domestic violence leave (13 January 2015) Australia. Article implies only women are victims of domestic violence and leaves us guessing as to whether the company policy is sexist/discriminatory – or just the journalism
In this article a feminist writer, Amanda Hess, attempts to rationalise why domestic violence by a female sports star should be addressed differently than in the case of a male sports star (22 September 2014) Most of the 600+ readers comments that followed disagreed and told her so in no uncertain terms.
‘Lollies at a childrens party and other myths: Violence, protection orders and fathers rights groups’ by Miranda Kaye and Julia Tomie (1998). Another detailed but flawed paper in support of the feminist position on DV. Its main line of attack is that available statistics don’t support claims made by men’s rights advocates. It conveniently ignores the fact that most Australian DV research is undertaken by feminists and biased towards finding ‘evidence’ to support a pre-determined conclusion. Thus the accuracy and impartiality of the research is the real issue, rather than the credibility of the whistle-blowers.
The paper also misinterprets and/or takes out of context, many of the comments it attributes to fathers groups in an attempt to portray them as irrational or unreasonable. Finally the authors attack specific statements put forward by fathers groups despite the same arguments having been used (at other times) by feminists in support of their own (feminist) perspective. The authors of this paper, for example, want to jump from one camp to the other (and back again) in relation to the issue of whether behaviour other than physical violence should be included in the definition of domestic violence.
We need to show it’s just not manly to hit out (9 July 2014) Nonsense article dripping with white knight bias … “The idea that the woman may be equally to blame, even if she is also violent and even the initiator of the violence, is simply not acceptable”
A reddit discussion thread about the anti-male bias evident in the web site of an American domestic violence centre’s web site. Unfortunately such bias (i.e. stating or implying that all men accessing the site are abusers and that all women are victims) is also common in domestic violence centres in Australia.
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.
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.
“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”:
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”.