One surprising inclusion in the 2020 Australia Day honours list was a Member of the Order of Australia award for Bettina Arndt. It was surprising not because the recipient was undeserving (which she wasn’t), but because such public awards tend to favour those pushing politically palatable (and increasingly left of centre) causes.
You would probably be aware that Bettina is an active supporter of various issues affecting men and boys, and that this has put her in the cross-hairs of the feminist lobby on more than a few occasions.
And also true to form, although Bettina’s views have been described as “dangerous”, most of the media comment focused on her professional integrity rather than the specific issues she raises. Look for example at the Twitter stream for ‘New Matilda’ (@newmatilda) and you’ll see tweet after tweet after tweet concerning Bettina’s academic qualifications, but none addressing her views regarding (for example) an alleged campus rape culture.
Kindly read on for relevant details, including Bettina’s response to those launching the attacks on her.
One specific criticism that has been levelled at Bettina is in relation to her allegedly ‘going soft’ on paedophiles, particularly in relation to one specific interview she conducted. One of the odd things here though, is that I have yet to hear any feminist speak out about the burgeoning problem of female paedophiles. And thus more feminist hypocrisy.
“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”
Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.
Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:
Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.
Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.
Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle. And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.
This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.
Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.
But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:
“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”
Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.
Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …
Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!
And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:
Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.
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.
In an earlier post I mentioned how feminists routinely assert – or at the very least imply – that women are continually abused by men online. They consistently neglect to mention that many women perpetrate online abuse, and that many of them appear to be feminists/SJW. I have also previously written about the widespread feminist proclivity for silencing those advancing alternative perspectives and/or wilfully dishing-out retribution.
Clementine Ford is a feminist journalist known for the virulently anti-male commentary she disseminates by virtue of her position with Fairfax Media. Should you wish to lodge a complaint in relation to a Fairfax journalist, the first step is to go to the website of the publication that published the offending article. Find and click on the ‘Contact Us’ link, and then send your complaint to the editorial team. For example, with regards to The Age website click on http://www.theage.com.au/support/ and then click on ‘Editorial Feedback’. The next step is to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council.
In late November 2015 Clementine received a message from some fellow called Michael Nolan, who called her a “slut“. She lodged a complaint with his employer which resulted in Michael being fired. Clementine’s version of events is detailed in this article, with a related radio interview here. The incident was also picked up by the international MSM (and note the more than 1,750 readers comments it attracted).
Clementine asserts that there are no consequences for men who threaten women online. That’s demonstrably untrue given that there are laws in place to address such behaviour, as well as actions that can be (and are) taken by ISP’s or web site providers. To the extent that such measures prove ineffective, then any such deficiencies would apply to both male and female trolls. As a consequence it seems pointless to single out men as being immune from repercussions, unless of course the intention is simply to demonise men and build further support for the women-as-victims narrative.
The feminist response to Clementine’s action sought to have us believe that doxing and punishing people for making actual threats of violence was the focus of their fury. This is little more than a ‘red herring’ to win public support, as the true emphasis appears to be silencing those advancing opinions critical of the feminist narrative. We are talking here about comments that very rarely threaten violence, and whose impact is no more severe than one of hurting the feelings of the recipient feminist.
The feminist rage quickly grew and quickly manifested itself in the creation of an online blacklist of those people whom feminists consider to be trolls … essentially a vigilante response.
I don’t support people using foul or threatening language online under any circumstances. But neither do I champion those who respond to such messages by way of shrill over-reaction. Especially when they themselves have an established track-record of disseminating online abuse. And god knows, Clementine Ford falls well and truly into that category …
“Who among us hasn’t had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE?” (Source)
A sampling of some of Clementine’s other noisome literary offerings is provided below (with a few more listed in this post). I might also point out that Clementine recently saw fit to label another Aussie journalist, Miranda Devine, a f**ing c**t! This is mentioned part way through Miranda’s article about pro-feminist censorship entitled ‘So now banks are censoring columnists?’
Clementine Ford truly is a stunning hypocrite, and a potty-mouthed one at that. And if Michael deserved to lose his job then so too does Clementine. And given her prolific and protracted output of gender hate – far more so. So with that in mind, please consider signing this petition.
The response from the online community (to Clementine’s response to Michael Nolan’s comment) was certainly polarised.
Three examples of the anti-feminist response were:
“Australia’s most prominent feminist” Oh god, if that’s the best the movement can offer up. Someone at ABC clearly has been hitting the Kool-Aid fairly darn hard.
This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.
Opinion: Pricking the social and sexist conscience can sometimes hurt (7 December 2015) “… some commentators chose to remind readers that Ford had called people such as former PM Tony Abbott and columnist Miranda Devine crude names too. The huge difference is that Ford owns her words. She does not threaten violence.” Yoo hoo, Karen, Micheal Nolan didn’t threaten violence either.
Neither this article nor this one really say anything new, but do feature some interesting readers comments. This article, on the other hand, sees a male feminist author calling for compromise get shouted down by feminist readers (related discussion thread here).
Clementine with Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria prior to appearing together on ABC’s Q&A program. Politicians like Dan appear to care more about the number of followers that someone has on social media, than they do about what a person thinks, says, and stands for. His is an attitude that has no doubt played a big role in bringing about the abysmal and still declining state of politics in this country.
The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.
The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.
There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.
What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research. (see 2017 updated here)
Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?
Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?
The findings of a survey by Norton painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.
So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?
There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.
Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.
At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.
More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable or even noble when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.
Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.
It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.
One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.
Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.
I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:
“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants. The planning and management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”
I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?
As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.
I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:
“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”
Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.
As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.
What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:
* small sample size with 2/3 of respondents being women, and who were possibly self-selected
* incorrect assumptions (by survey respondents) regarding the gender of trolls
* differing and possibly gender-based judgments as to what constitutes trolling
The media dangerously misuses the word ‘trolling’ (3 July 2017) This article conveniently neglects to mention that this ‘problem’ has been primarily brought about through misusing the term ‘trolling’ to describe reasonable dissent against the prevailing leftist/feminist narrative.
Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?
Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.
Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)
I’d say it was no coincidence that it occurred the day after I had an encounter with a couple of aggressive/threatening women whilst I was commenting on an article in the Facebook page of The Guardian Australia. (Hi, Louise and Rebecca).
It’s not the first time this has happened to me, and I doubt it will be the last. But for the time being at least, I couldn’t be bothered persisting with Facebook.
I didn’t actually say or do anything hateful on that day, or on any other day. I didn’t upload porno. Or threaten anyone. Or even use profanity (unlike the two women in question). But those that reported me didn’t care about Facebook rules per se. They just wanted to stop me, and people like me, expressing our views online. And they sought to have all trace of that which had already been posted, removed.
You see, all of my posts using that Facebook account concerned gender-related issues. More specifically, my stance generally contrasts with the feminist position, and feminists don’t take kindly to dissenting views.
I could try to contact Facebook HQ (as I have attempted in the past) to discover what was alleged, and to rebut those allegations. But that would be difficult/impossible because whilst Facebook has streamlined the reporting process, they clearly don’t want to get involved in time-consuming dispute resolution. Read about another person’s experience with Facebook here.
Given previous feminist campaigns against Facebook, I suspect that Facebook is as wary of feminists as our politicians appear to be. And of course, those who made the allegations against me know this.
People reading this who have crossed swords with feminists online would be rolling their eyes at this point in time. They would be thinking “well what does this person expect? Everyone knows that feminists do that stuff all the time”.
The thing is though, I don’t think people in the broader community are fully awake to this. Not even those people sympathetic to what they understand to be feminist ideals.
So to those who don’t realise how real-world feminists behave, consider this post your very own ‘heads-up’. For I can assure you that many in the feminist movement make it their mission to consistently and persistently block the dissemination of messages that run contrary to the feminist narrative.
Feminists even discuss ways and means of getting people off-line – refer examples here and here. It’s always phrased in noble terms such as stopping “trolling” “online bullying”, etc. But the truth is that in the hard-done-by & perpetual-victim mindset of the fervent gender feminist, ANY dissent constitutes trolling, no matter how tactfully expressed.
And indeed I have seen this scenario played out more times than I care to remember. This blog post talks more about this issue, and indeed the theme is revisited in several other posts.
The various tactics that feminists utilise to try to deny their perceived enemies a voice, include:
Blocking specific people from posting on pro-feminist Facebook pages
Removing posts from pro-feminist Facebook pages when they disagree with the views being expressed
Blocking specific people from accessing/posting to pro-feminist Twitter accounts
Lodging exaggerated or false reports with Facebook or Twitter in order to have certain peoples’ accounts suspended/closed
Not uploading readers comments to blogs or web sites when they are seen as unsupportive of the feminist position on the matter
Removing readers comments from blogs or web sites (ditto)
Reporting posts to moderators when they are seen as negative towards the feminist position on the matter
Not allowing any readers comments to be posted
What does it say about the credibility of a social movement when its adherents devote so much time and energy to blocking debate and suppressing information, rather that doing the opposite?
The truth is that feminists of this ilk don’t want to engage in debate, and they don’t want to provide a ‘right of reply’ (even after they have attacked a specific organisation or individual). And they certainly don’t want information circulated that provides the contextual background the public needs to properly consider feminist claims/grievances, particularly when it serves as evidence of feminist double-standards or hypocrisy.
Why not? Well in part it’s because this unchecked element of the feminist movement carry such intense feelings of contempt and anger towards those who question their cause. And in part it’s because they realise that their position on many issues simply cannot be supported with facts and logic. Thus they far more to lose from enabling informed debate, than they have to gain.
So they stifle debate, censor, deflect and misrepresent. Because they can. Any way they can. And feel completely justified and exonerated in doing so. Like so many cockroaches scuttling about in dark places.
A comment contributed by one of their feminist readers struck a chord. It was pretty awful really.
And so I did something that I don’t recall having done before … I complained to the moderator:
“My main concern with Barbara’s comment was her unsubstantiated assertion that many of the people expressing concerns about the gender-bias in the debate surrounding domestic violence are perpetrators of abuse. This is an outrageous claim that is gender bigotry pure and simple. It is is like me saying that feminists are closet paedophiles because they remain silent about the now large numbers of female teachers who are caught having sexual relations with underage students. Hers was a completely inappropriate and inflammatory comment”
And lo and behold … Barbara’s post was consigned to the rubbish bin of history.
I can just imagine the gritted teeth of the resident white knight/SJW moderator as he pondered my request. But then, overcome with righteous fury, it appears he resolved to teach me a lesson. Something along the lines of “There’s no way I’m going to let this uppity MRA get away with this.”
And so it came to be that I was simultaneously advised:
Your comment on ‘Remove the burden of family violence from the victims, to the courts’ has been removed … For your reference, the removed comment was:
“Rob, I haven’t read your report yet (but will do so shortly), so the following comment is based on what I’ve read in the media. It appears that your report talks about the need for more & better intervention and behaviour modification programs for perpetrators, but that your recommendations in this regard are limited to male perpetrators.
Can I ask why you would not adopt a gender-neutral approach in this regard and have programs that catered for both male and female perpetrators. I mean, it’s not as though there are so few violent women that we can afford to just wave them away.
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 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
Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:
I found out this afternoon that I had been blocked from a Twitter account – one belonging to an Australian journalist. The journalist in question is indeed a feminist, but by no means in the ‘barking mad’ misandrist league of Clementine Ford or Caitlin Roper, for example. Which makes her action all the more disconcerting.
I’m not sure how many others have blocked me from their Twitter accounts (and/or Facebook pages, etc), but there must be a few by now. Two that spring to mind are White Ribbon Australia and Our Watch, both of which are feminist advocacy groups.
Anyway, so there I was, reading a newly-minted article about domestic violence. More accurately, an article about that component of domestic violence involving male perpetrators and female victims. I posted a reader’s comment which failed to appear (other reader’s comments were uploaded). As I had some issues with both the article and certain comments that followed it, I sallied forth looking for another outlet through which to express myself. I turned to Twitter only to be greeted with the following message:
Had I been bombarding the poor woman with dozens of tweets? Nope, just one actually. Well, it must have been particularly vicious! Judge for yourself (by the way, that tweet became the basis for this blog post)
I haven’t ever blocked anyone from Twitter, etc, but I can certainly understand others doing so in situations involving persistent unwanted messages/posts of a threatening or obscene nature. But what I am talking about here and now are situations that are far more benign. Situations where it is simply a matter of ‘I don’t like what you have to say so I am not going to share information or communicate with you in any way, shape or form. So there.’
I have never sent or posted a threatening, abusive or obscene message to anyone, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I choose not to, and I certainly don’t need to, in order to achieve what I am seeking to achieve.
Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”.
That blog post also noted that, despite the very different perception that feminists seek to portray as reality, more men than women are subject to online abuse and bullying, and substantial number of women/girls are responsible for this type of activity. I also noted the increasingly common tactic of feminists lodging false or exaggerated complaints with the intention of having other people’s Facebook or Twitter accounts suspended.
Whether feminists are blocking people from posting to their Facebook pages, from interacting with them via Twitter, or adding a comment to their article or blog post (that is, when they allow any reader’s comments at all). I’ve got to ask … what’s the point?
I guess it all comes back to the question of what are feminists trying to achieve via publishing material online. Sharing and persuading with/to the broader community, or simply seeking a platform to propagandise to the converted and to gullible ingenues.
What do feminists hope to achieve by blocking out alternative perspectives and information at variance with their own stated claims? Do they not see any value in facilitating dialogue about gender issues? In being inclusive with regards to people who hold perspectives other than their own? Are feminists now so infantilized and imbued with victim-mentality that they see any disagreement as an attack?
I know. Call me biased. But the feminist response seems so juvenile, pointless and counter-productive.
Just … lame
Snap#1: Another feminist – @misskylie77 – just blocked me from her Twitter stream after I replied to one of her tweets (26 February 2015)
Snap#2: The organisation Domestic Violence NSW blocked me from posting to their Facebook page the very first time I posted there – and then employed another common feminist tactic by lodging a complaint against me with Facebook (12 March 2015)
Update 15 April 2015: Care to guess which feminist journalist ‘spat the dummy’ this morning and deleted ALL the readers comments (about a dozen of them) because not one of them supported her convoluted sexist perspective on violence in the community.
Footnote in relation to the following comment from the author of the article
DV-deniers? Really? Readers raised concerns about the fact you had built your case on a series of crimes in which none of the alleged perpetrators had yet been convicted. That’s not denial, simply fact. Readers raised concerns that you based your article on events within a period of just a few weeks, which could greatly misrepresent the reality over (say) twelve months. Again, not denial, just conventional wisdom in the realm of statistical analysis.
Readers also raised concerns that you had not provided any statistics in relation to the number of men killed by their female partners (or alleged to be killed by partners) during this period. And indeed, you admit that you had not researched that topic. Surely both the actual nature of the problem, and the most appropriate remedial action, might be quite different were similar numbers of men being killed?
It looks a lot like you didn’t research the issue and then form an opinion, but cobbled together a somewhat dubious statistic that supported your pre-existing conclusion.
In fact the only denials about DV that I am seeing in this and in so many other articles, involve feminists denying men’s right to raise legitimate concerns about ongoing anti-male sexism and misrepresentation. Denials in particular about both the extent of male DV victimization and the substantial and growing level of female perpetration of violence.
Facing the challenge of online harassment (8 January 2015) Jacques Cuze, when discussing this article in the context of his concerns about feminist groups suppressing free speech, suggested that “Twitter (and other sites) should be transparent and specific about who is banned and why. Transparency in who is blocked or banned and why is a critical part of making sure anti-harassment strategies are not abused” (10 January 2015)
"Feminists" so quick to block/ attack any1 disagreeing with them on Twitter not surprised it's happened in real world #smurthgate@Cruella1
“I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I … am … a … man!” wailed Joseph Merrick in the film ‘The Elephant Man‘ when cornered by a heckling mob.
Times have changed and social progress means that the sick and disabled are no longer subject to torment such as this. No, nowadays such treatment is only meted out to high-profile women who have the temerity to say “I am not a feminist!”
I am aware of at least two examples in as many months, both senior politicians, namely Julie Bishop (Australia) and Louise Upston (NZ). Lots and lots of sneering comments in a multitude of articles, tweets, and Facebook comments. Only strong bad girls break ranks with the feminist sisterhood.