Fostering discrimination through lies

NOTE: between the date of this article’s publication, and September of 2012, the Australian government either moved or deleted the PDF document of “The Plan”, formerly hosted at the address:

Fortunately, a copy of this document was saved by this article’s author, JtO, and the PDF version of The Plan is now hosted by AVfM at

In 2009, the Australian Civil Service, comprised of hundreds of careered bureaucrats and public academics, assembled a publicly funded organization called The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. This organization was formed along ideological lines, as is evident in the name. The phrase “women and their children” indicating a strong suggestion of a concept of family which excludes fathers as a part.

This council included a dozen members who authored a 204 page rationale and set of recommendations for sweeping changes to Australian domestic policy and law. These recommended changes, if passed into law, will transform Australian society from a Western, egalitarian society into a tiered, totalitarian state organized along lines of sexual legal segregation. The planned abrogation of male human and civil rights in Australian society represents a profound humanitarian crisis. That this is planned, and principally impacts men, means that humanitarian organizations worldwide are now ignoring, and will likely continue to totally ignore, the organized campaign of apartheid and its resulting human damage.

This campaign is being pursued and justified in a document called The Plan using a repetitive and internally inconsistent narrative built almost entirely on falsehood.

This plan’s justification includes repetitive use of the formal logical fallacies, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, purposeful exclusion of a known victim demographic, open self-referential contradiction within the document’s content, disregard of peer-reviewed statistics negating the implied assumptions, and a host of other deliberate falsehoods.

This discussion on AVfM examines the pervasive factual and rhetorical dishonesty used by ideologues within Australian government to promote and rationalize a program of human rights violations, child abuse and intentional social damage in Australian society. Further deception throughout the published plan is accomplished by selective citation, using only studies which show male perpetration and omitting others, fabricating conclusions in cited research which that research does not support.

The goal of The Plan, taken as a whole, is malevolent. It is sold through rhetorical construct fabricated in a grand deception built on falsehood, misdirection, logical fallacy and emotional appeal by the collective effort of its dozen authors on The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

Australia is gearing up to change the country’s system of laws; de-classifying men as human beings and re-classifying them as the owned possessions of women, or perhaps, as livestock.

That’s the short version. If it sounds absurd, or monstrous, or insane, that’s because it actually is absurd, monstrous and insane. But it’s also true.

The Australian government has a plan, which when taken in sum, amounts to a collection of brutal and broad reaching violations, no, revocation of the human rights of more than half the population of the country. And they’ll probably succeed, because they’re pursuing this agenda under the false and pious wrapper of protecting women and children. It is possible to inflict just about anything on anybody if pursued behind the claimed goal of protecting women and children.

Asserting that the Australian government is doing this is not an indictment of the elected government. Although that would be problematic, it would be less dangerous and destructive to human rights than the reality. It is the civil service and careered bureaucrats who, regardless of elected administration, actually run the apparatus of Australian public life. The Australian public sector is populated by ideologues with an agenda. This agenda has been published for private citizens to find. The document, produced by a public funded organization called The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is simply named “The Plan” [1].

Starting from false assertions

Before delving into that ugly, antihuman statement of intent, it’s worth commenting on the name of the authoring organization.

The phrase “to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children” is a clear statement of intent to ignore violence against men. Implied in this statement is the suggestion that women, the demographic named to be protected, suffer a rate of violent victimization higher than men or higher than the sexually heterogeneous population of the country. This suggestion embedded in the authoring organization’s name is false. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, men are overwhelmingly the majority of the victims of violent crime. In addition, in domestic violence, women are as violent or more violent than their male spouses or partners [3][4][5][6][7]. This is universally known within DV reporting and service agencies, as it clearly demonstrated in peer reviewed research on the topic. In fact, within the domain of academic and public specializations addressing the phenomenon of domestic violence, there is a culture of ideological bias, manifesting as systematic dishonesty. This was studied and documented by Dr. Murray Straus, Ph.D. Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire in his 2007 paper “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.”[2]

Strauss identified seven categories of deceptive practice utilized by writers and practitioners in the field of domestic violence, almost all of which are demonstrated in the body of the Australian government’s published plan. These include suppression of evidence, avoidance of nonconforming data, selective citation, and fabrication of conclusion – claiming that cited research makes conclusions it does not. The last method is identified by Strauss as Evidence by Citation.

The name of the organization authoring The Plan contains further implied falsehood. The phrase “Women and their Children” reveals a belief that apart from men as fathers, a “family” is a woman and her children, and that fathers are a mere disposable utility. Setting aside the hatred towards men innate in this idea, an overwhelming body of peer reviewed research demonstrates the developmental importance to children of the presence of their fathers [8][9][10][11]. This reveals the accepted falsehood used by family courts to sever fathers from their children. The phrase “in the best interest of the children” is revealed for the ideological dogma that it really is.

Fundamental Lies

These two fundamental lies are apparent in the name of the organization which authored the document hosted on the Australian government’s server, called The Plan. The document itself includes 204 pages of recommendations for ways to violate and discard the human rights of men in Australia, self through a pervasive campaign of lying and purposefully false advocacy research. To be fair to the document’s publishers, they’ve made this clear in the first page and distanced themselves from the lies and anti-humanist recommendations they’re publishing with the following disclaimer:

“The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in this publication.”

The prospect of reading and reporting on 204 pages of government-speak appears at first a daunting task. However, after reading the first dozen pages, it becomes clear that due to the repetitive nature of the content, it is likely that such documents are deliberately bloated to unwieldy length to discourage reading and public exposure. It is also obvious that the Australian National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’s plan is built from a sloppy rhetorical framework of lies.

The entire 204 pages of emotionally persuasive rhetoric is an edifice built from falsehood. It is a catalogue of factual falsehood, misdirection and of formal and informal logical fallacy.

A Framework of Deception

In the following paragraphs, we will be discussing a number of formal logical fallacies. Due of the flagrant and comprehensive dishonesty permeating the document produced by the Australian federal bureaucracy and state employees – these falsehoods are identified as we progress.

Mentioned informally in this article’s introduction, the Title page of The Plan contains the first falsehoods, embedded in the title itself.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

The logical fallacy, not already discussed is formally known as begging the question, also called a circular argument. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

In the case of The Plan this lie is committed several times within the title. The first offence being the implied conclusion that violence against women is the highest incidence of demographic-specific victimization. Reference to the Australian Institute of Criminology statistics or peer reviewed literature on DV show this to be a false assertion [2][3][4][5][6][7]. i.e.: A Lie.

The second occurrence of Begging the Question, also found in the title is the implied assertion that children are the engendered family of only women, exclusive of fathers; and that men, as fathers, are not a fundamental element of families, that basic unit of all human culture. By repetition throughout the document, it’s obvious that men are excluded from consideration as part of the families by practice of the propagandist’s maxim.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

Fallacy: Mention of one thing excludes all others.

While not a formal logical fallacy, another category of deceit is also found in the document’s title. The Latin dictum: Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius; meaning “the express mention of one thing excludes all others” is employed to dismiss consideration of the real violent victimization of men and boys, despite the documented fact that this victimization comprises a statistical majority of violence impacting the Australian public.

Alternatives to the interpretation presented here might render these complaints moot. One such not explicitly stated is that women and children comprise the only two significant subsets of humanity, and the men and boys victimized should be excluded on the basis of exclusion from consideration as “real” human beings. Obviously, this is a speculative understanding of “The Plan” which is not stated explicitly, but is presented only as illustration that alternative readings outside the scope of this discussion are not intentionally excluded.

Moving past the title, the next item of content is a copyright notice, and a legal disclaimer.

Found on page 2:

“The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in this publication. Information in this publication is made available on the understanding that FaHCSIA is not providing professional advice. Views expressed in this publication are those of third parties, and do not necessarily reflect the views of FaHCSIA or the Ministers responsible for the portfolios of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.”

On its face, this is a plain admission of the falsehood of the rest of this document’s 204 pages of lies.

This distancing from responsibility is also nullified by the frequent inclusion in The Plan of letters of explicit support for the plan by members of Australian parliament.

FaHCSIA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in this publication.

Looked at from an understanding of the established doctrines of ideological feminism – this can also be interpreted as an extension of the absurdist dogma that under “patriarchy”, personal volition and agency are illusions covering the omnipotent power of evil masculine oppression and control exerted through unknown means; the concept that all “choice” is merely cooperation with exploitive and vile masculine domination.

The second paragraph of this disclaimer, containing the statement: “…that FaHCSIA is not providing professional advice…” is a simple factual lie. This document is a formal recommendation to elected officials and legislators on matters of legal change and domestic policy. The document’s forward, found on page 6 makes the second major lie within the disclaimer apparent, by obviously contradicting the claim that FaHCSIA is not providing professional advice.

From page 6:

“The Plan of Action discusses the current situation in Australia and recommends sweeping changes between now and 2021. The Plan of Action identifies six core areas for improvement and identifies strategies and actions to achieve this.”

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Following the document’s disclaimer, on page 4 is an Acknowledgements section, and it’s here that the first instance of Appeal to Authority crops up. Formally, this is known as an Irrelevant Appeal.

Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the reader with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The veracity of an argument is independent from who utters or endorses it.

“It is important that we first acknowledge that the authority for this Plan of Action was derived from the Australian Government’s 2007 election platform to establish a national council of experts – the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (the Council) – to develop a plan that would reduce the incidence and the impact of violence against women and their children. “

This passage also contains a repetition of the falsehood that violence against women is the highest incidence of demographic-specific victimization.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent”
~ Joseph Goebbels

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

The Acknowledgements section of “The Plan” also establishes a framework for Appeal to Popularity, a logical fallacy suggesting that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This, like Appeal to Authority, is another specialized subset of the general category of Irrelevant Appeal.

“There are many people we must thank for their overwhelming generosity of spirit, for their willingness to share their life experiences and for their well-considered thoughts and ideas.”

Further distortion of the balance of who is actually in receipt of the majority of violence in Australian society is pursued in the Acknowledgements section. Piled on here are two overlapping formal fallacies, that of appeal to pity – or emotional appeal, and a reiteration of the previously stated Begging the Question. Women’s implied unique and imminent peril from abuse in a relationship is reinforced, despite the peer reviewed statistic’s failure to support this dogma, and a healthy heaping of phony heroism in the statement brave women standing up for themselves against this unsupportable unique female victimhood.

We recognize the courageous women in the history of the women’s movement who started this journey to set free and protect women from abusive relationships. They led the way and awoke our nation to the plight of women who have experienced sexual assault and to these women and children for whom domestic and family violence is a daily reality.

The peer reviewed literature on DV shows a sexually reciprocal violence as the norm, and not, as continuously implied in emotive rhetoric that domestic violence is sexually one-sided. The peer reviewed literature [2] hasn’t changed since we last looked, and continues to indicate males as the majority of victims of violent crime, and sexually symmetrical abuse in domestic violence [3][4][5][6][7].

This is bundle of lies, piled so thickly by unelected career bureaucrats in Australian public service. A continued list of brave, noble and credentialed individuals is effusively acknowledged, building an emotional appeal to Appeal to Popularity by the length of listing of contributing organizations and individuals, and Appeal to Authority by the portentous credentials and titles of that list’s members. All this emotional persuasion is pursued before the serious deception begins in The Plan.

The next section of the document is a forward written by an elected official, Tanya Plibersek, Member of Australian Parliament, Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women.
The minister’s forward is continues the focus on establishment of The Plan’s authority and populist appeal to emotion. However, in this piling-on, the parliamentarian stumbles, indirectly revealing repeated use of the formal fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. This is exemplified by a passage in the document and immediately admitted to in following descriptive narrative:

“The Council’s members have worked tirelessly to achieve this objective. We travelled extensively and consulted many different stakeholders. We listened to, and heard from, more than 2,000 people across the country. We received hundreds of submissions from all parts of Australia, and we held six expert round-table forums.”

Worked tirelessly and traveled extensively are characterizations, not measurable claims of fact. We have a suggestion of sample size with the vague mention of “more than 2,000 people” but this is an imprecise re-iteration of appeal to popularity.

In the next paragraph of the minister’s forward, on page 6 of 204 is a direct admission of magical thinking.

“During our investigations, we found a widespread belief that this issue was pressing and serious.”

If it’s widely believed, then surely it must be true. This document is written to convince an intellectually defective readership. We know the intended audience is a nation’s elected representatives, so this shouldn’t be surprising.

Later in this forward, on page 7 – a prediction of female victimization is tossed out for its shock value.

Without appropriate action to address violence against women and their children, an estimated 750,000 Australian women will experience and report violence in 2021-22, costing the Australian economy an estimated $15.6 billion

The mention of large number of victimized women with no citation of source is emotionally compelling, but fundamentally and factually uninformative. Whether this number is realistic or not, readers are provided no context and no comparison. How many men are predicted to “experience and report violence in 2021-22”?

Noting that men are presently the majority of the victims of violent crime, it’s logical to predict more male victims than female – more than 750,000. We aren’t told this number or any number for male victims, because the intent of the document is to manipulate, and not to inform. The consistent pattern of logical fallacy and emotional manipulation through The Plan should be apparent to readers of this discussion by now.

The provided Executive Summary continues to bludgeon readers with what after ten previous pages is now a monotonous repetition of the mythology that women and their children are endlessly threatened, victimized, and subject to violence. No repetition of this narrative in the previous pages yet cites research to establish veracity. However, a new claim of Sexual Violence affecting 1 in 5 women in their lifetimes is made in the Executive Summary refers to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, but fails to identify a specific report or study.

The term Sexual Violence, which in the Executive summary, it is claimed 1 in 5 women are victimized by in their lifetimes is purposefully ambiguous. Fortunately “The Plan” includes a glossary of terms which a reader can use to determine if this represents violent physical assault, or a broader range of activities designed to pathologize nonviolent behavior for purpose of statistical inflation.

The glossary provides a definition for Sexual Assault, but not for Sexual Violence. If we assume the authors of The Plan are incompetent, this variation in terminology can substitute Sexual Assault’s glossary definition for Sexual Violence referred to in the Executive Summary.

On the other hand, if we assume the authors of The Plan are competent, the absence of a definition for “Sexual Violence” in the document’s provided glossary takes a different character. Familiarity with an ongoing pressure from ideologues to expand the definitions of offences indicates that use of undefined terminology is purposeful male vilification and inflated statistics.

Another visit to the Australian Institute of Criminology website shows that despite the insistent narrative of “The Plan” the collected statistics of the A.I. of C stubbornly refuse to show anything except men as the primary victims of violent crime. Similarly, reference to methodologically valid peer reviewed literature on domestic violence continues to fail to support a sexually one sided view of domestic violence. The repetition of an unsupportable narrative by the authors of The Plan may convince readers who fail to compare the doctrinal view of domestic violence with research on the topic. To informed readers, the repetition appears increasingly desperate.

The executive summary also continues to promote the fantasy that any organized effort to reduce violence must obviously focus exclusively on female victims, since, in the fantasy world being sold by this document, male victims don’t exist, and female perpetrators don’t exist. This theme is continually re-enforced through the document, with an insistence bordering on panic. The authors know the enormity of the deception they are crafting. A lie which, if not continually buttressed through the narrative, will collapse due to its stark contradiction of reality. Researchers and service providers in the area of domestic violence have the same, or greater access to publicly available, peer reviewed statistics that the public do.

Strauss stated in the conclusion of his 2007 paper:

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

Seven methods identified in Straus’s research created an intellectual climate which:

“…inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in PV and largely explain why an ideology and treatment modality has persisted for 30 years, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence on the multiplicity of risk factors for PV, of which patriarchy is only one..” [2]

Despite a doctrinal adherence the male-as-oppressor model for domestic violence, the greater body of peer reviewed research on DV continues to indicate:

that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.[3]

That intimate partner violence is a reciprocal issue, without sexual direction in it’s practice, means that any plan to address purposefully ignoring half the problem by sex is a plan deliberately designed to fail. Counter violence programs with this designed impotence will effectively escalate violence by diverting attention and resources from legitimately useful strategies.

The purpose of The Plan is not to reduce violence. Rather, it appears to be the establishment of a legally tiered society, and expansion of the state’s power to a level of totalitarian reach, recognizing no limit in the interference and abrogation of individual’s human and civil rights.

The document’s executive summary includes the paragraph, indicating a bold and sweeping deception:

Domestic and family violence and sexual assault cannot be excused or justified under any circumstances. It is wrong, and all victims need compassionate and highly responsive support, and all perpetrators must be held accountable for their violence.

Rewriting the Dictionary to Excuse Violence

In the included glossary, Domestic Violence is defined to:

refer predominantly to abuse of a person, usually a woman, by their intimate partner.

Taken in this document’s larger scope, the possibility here of men as victims is a major concession. However, this is potentially discounted by the declaration that:

Domestic Violence refers predominantly to abuse of a person, usually a woman.

When this narrative’s contradiction of well known sexual symmetry in DV is considered, it’s apparent that to the plan’s authors, males do not merit consideration as “people”. The remainder of the glossary’s provided definition for Domestic Violence provides a detailed attribution of motive.

“the central element of ‘domestic violence’ is an ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one’s partner through fear”

Rather than DV being violence which occurs within a domestic context, according to the supplied glossary, DV is distinguished by the intention of the alleged perpetrator, and is not even limited to actual violence. However, the implied exclusion of male victims from consideration is solidified by characterization of an assumed motive, rather than the behavior of participating individuals.

the violent behaviour is part of a range of tactics to exercise power and control over women and children.

Persistent omission of mention of male victims of DV demonstrates a selective avoidance of the peer reviewed literature indicating DV as sexually symmetrical.

The glossary definition of domestic violence continues to include an inventory of types of qualifying abuse.

Economic Abuse, Psychological Abuse, Spiritual Abuse, Sexual Abuse and physical abuse are the listed categories, each with accompanying descriptions which when taken in sum, allow for almost any non-abusive behavior’s categorization as abuse. In addition, the first three inventoried abuse types are commonly female behaviors towards men. This fact, along with repeated implied male exclusion from consideration as victims of DV clarifies the persistent falsehood that stopping DV is this plan’s purpose.

An unstated purpose becoming increasingly obvious is the stripping of human rights from males, the abrogation of personal autonomy and volition of women, and justification of unlimited reach of the state to interfere in the lives of Australians.

The glossary definition of perpetrator is also explicit in its exclusion of women as possible violent offenders.

A ‘perpetrator’ is the individual who inflicts violence against a woman or child.

What word do we use to describe an individual who inflicts violence against a man in any situation, domestic or otherwise? Is this omitted from the definition because men are never victimized? No, because despite the narrative of the Australian government’s plan, the criminal victimization statistics clearly show men as the majority sexual demographic in receipt of violence. The peer reviewed literature similarly provides no support for definitional exclusion of women as perpetrators:

282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

The glossary’s definition of perpetrator as an individual inflicting violence on women or children, and excluding consideration of male victims shapes the entirety of the rest of this document, decoding the concepts of “safety”, “justice”, “victimization”, “rape” to mean only for women and excluding men.

In fact, this government authored and produced plan is increasingly obvious as a procedural road map for legalized sexual discrimination and a practical legalized abrogation of personhood for males in Australian society.

The glossary also defines Family Violence, excluding men from consideration as recipients of abuse in the definition.

Family violence refers to violence against women perpetrated by a family member which may include, but is not limited to, their intimate partner.

Whether this exclusion is because violence against men is not violence, or whether men are not parts of families is academic, the executive summary’s conclusion – that “Family violence […] cannot be excused” is an obvious lie in the context of this document’s recommendations.

It obviously can be and is excused when violence is committed against men or boys.
There are three implied assumptions in this selective definition.

  • Domestic violence is sexually directional against women but not men. False
  • Male victimization is acceptable because men are “not really people”. False
  • That reciprocal DV can be reduced or stopped by a plan ignoring half the participants. False


The glossary’s definition of Sexual Assault is also predictably incomplete, using the word “explicit” to characterize omission of male victims from consideration in cases of sexual assault.

While ‘sexual assault’ is explicit in the definition of violence against women and their children in the Plan of Action.

By now, this pattern of exclusion has exceeded characterization by the words repetitive or pervasive in the government’s plan, and can only be described as excessively overstated to the point of boring monotony.

However, the provided definition not only excludes the real-world male victims of violence perpetrated by men and women, in its exclusive identification as females as victims, expands the scope of sexual assault to a potentially unlimited range of non abusive, non sexual, and non assaultive behaviors which healthy people engage in regularly.

According to the continued glossary definition of sexual assault:

there is no single nationally or internationally agreed definition of what constitutes ‘sexual assault’ and definitions used in Australia vary between jurisdictions, agencies and surveys.

According to this definition, subjective perception of behavior, social awkwardness, miscommunication, or badly timed flirting could all plausibly be classified as sexual assault.

The experience-based term defines sexual assault as unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature directed towards a person:
which makes that person feel uncomfortable, distressed, frightened or threatened….

The numbingly monotonous repetition of the doctrine of exclusively masculine violence and exclusively feminine victimhood is reiterated following the Executive Summary in a letter signed by the collaborating Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon. Kevin Rudd.

From that letter:

how it could still be the case that in 2008 so many Australian women could have experienced violence from their partner…
It is my gender – it is our gender – Australian men – that are responsible.

This statement by Rudd is false.

In fact, Rudd is either misinformed, or unconcerned about the content of what his name is attached to, because domestic violence is not a sexually directional issue at all.

Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first women’s shelter in England stated in 2001:

If you come from a dysfunctional, violent and sexually abusive family, how do you learn? Therefore, domestic violence can’t be a gender issue, it can’t be just men, because we girls – and I was from one of those families – are just as badly affected. [8]

Pizzey’s extensive and direct experience is confirmed by Martin Fiebert’s research at California State University in Long Beach.

“…women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”

Culpability for a Mountain of Lies

Page 13 of The Plan opens with a roster of the document’s authors, the membership of the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

  • Libby Lloyd AM (Chair)
  • Associate Professor Moira Carmody
  • Maria Dimopoulos
  • Rachel Kayrooz
  • Vanessa Swan
  • Pauline Woodbridge
  • Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair)
  • Dorinda Cox
  • Dr Melanie Heenan
  • Andrew O’Keefe
  • Lisa Wilkinson


The introduction of this collection of experts makes it clear to readers that the greater body of peer reviewed research and expert literature demonstrating domestic violence as sexually reciprocal, and not sexually directional cannot be unknown to the document’s authors.

Established for a term of one year, the Council consists of 11 members from across Australia selected for their extensive knowledge, expertise and networks in the fields of sexual assault and domestic and family violence.

These individuals have no excuse, and as professionals, and the authors of this Brobdingnagian edifice of falsehood, are plainly a clan of professional liars, intent on doing harm escalating violence against men and women, and collapsing the human rights of anyone but themselves.

In 2011 Christina Hoff Sommers, speaking to a live audience said on the topic of domestic violence:

We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses, we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.

The Plan provides a further narrative of justification in its development.

The Council developed this Plan of Action by validating emerging trends, repeatedly testing ideas and solutions against the best available evidence, and building on the experience and wisdom grown from practice.

The claim: repeatedly testing ideas and solutions against the best available evidence is patently false, as through this document, the male victimization, and the sexually reciprocal nature of domestic violence is ignored. Perpetrator is defined in the plan’s glossary exclusively as an “individual who inflicts violence against a woman or child”.

Also ignored is the fact that most child victimization is perpetrated by mothers.

Advocacy Research

Advocacy Research is a term used to distinguish unbiased research from that which is conducted with a particular conclusion as the researcher’s goal. This kind of study seeks to measure, or to illustrate social problems with a view to heightening public awareness of them and providing a catalyst to policy proposals and other action to ameliorate the problem in question. Advocacy research studies are susceptible to bending of research methods in order to inflate the magnitude of the social problem described, and thereby enhance the case for public action to address the issue.

This is why scrupulous care and rigorous adherence to valid methodology is so importance in advocacy research. It is easy to craft a study supporting a pre-selected conclusion, ignoring evidence or data which doesn’t conform to the selected conclusion.

The Duluth Model is the name for a conceptual model for understanding and addressing domestic violence, and it is a template example of an ideologically selected conclusion.

Critics of this model have stated that “programs based on the Duluth Model may ignore research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and psychological problems, such as attachment disorders, traced to childhood abuse or neglect, or the absence of a history of adequate socialization and training. [10][11] Some criticize the Duluth model as being overly confrontational rather than therapeutic, focusing solely on changing the abuser’s actions and attitudes rather than dealing with underlying emotional and psychological issues.[11]

Donald Dutton, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied abusive personalities, states: “The Duluth Model was developed by people who didn’t understand anything about therapy.” He also insists that gender doesn’t play a role in domestic violence. [10]

The exclusive focus on males as perpetrators and the rejection of system dynamics models has been criticized from perspectives influenced by psychology and family therapy. The fields of psychology, psychiatry, and social work all provide for application of skill learning, improved social understanding and practiced behavioural mastery to provide for corrected and alternative behaviours.

In comparison, the Duluth Model presents only a simplistic and ideological “once an abuser, always an abuser” response to the complex problem of partner violence. It also starts from the false doctrine that domestic abuse is a sexually directional form of abuse.

The Plan‘s frequent reference to the Duluth model (pages 137, 139, 148, and 155), when considered beside the panel of expert authors of this document does nothing to lend it credibility.

What’s obvious to the point of extreme tedium is that this plan is built, promoted, justified and supported by lies. What’s also obvious is that the plan’s framers have no intention to reduce violence, create safety, or pursue anything describable as justice.

What the council intends appears to be the elimination of the human rights of men in Australia, and the radical expansion of the power of the state to interfere in the private lives of Australians.

These goals, among others are explored and exposed later this week by AVfM Researcher and Contributing Editor Kyle Lovett.


Following the publication of this article in January 2012, The Australian government has either moved or deleted the PDF document, formerly hosted at the address:

Fortunately, a copy of this document was saved by this article’s author, JtO, and the PDF version of The Plan is now hosted by AVfM at





[5] Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

[6] Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
[7] Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680








  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Zorro

    I am stunned.

    1. At JTO. This guy will replace Paul, one day.
    2. At human society’s ability to completely fuck itself.
    3. At the human female’s solipsism.
    4. At the human male’s complacency.
    5. At the pathetic worthlessness of western civilization.

    I used to believe in people. I would be more than happy to blame myself for what happened to change that. But I can’t find out why.

    Western civilization learned why slavery was morally repulsive. And yet it adopted sexism instead.


    • Paul Elam

      Yo, don’t write me off yet! lol!

      • Tawil

        Lol, yes had a smile at that one…

        Excellent analysis and exposure of the fault-lines, JTO.

      • Zorro

        Okay. Here’s how it works. When I say JTO is going to replace Paul one day, it’s a compliment to Paul, not JTO.

        You da man!

        Jeez Louise.

        • Zorro

          Oh, and incidentally, I think JTO is totally the shit.

          There. I’m covered.

          • Kimski

            Instant mental image:
            A moose frantically running around on a baseball field, trying to cover all the bases at the same time. :)

          • Kyle Lovett

            “wave to the people”


            And a KO post JtO, very damning.

            For those that don’t know, the 206 page plan is underpinned by dozens of other documents, many of them linking back to this one.


            This is Volume 1 of the ALRC legal response, a 1,556 page legalize paper that is, in many ways, even more sickening than the 206 page document. It goes into extreme detail on how they plan to carry out their plans. I haven’t gotten to volume 2, but vol. 1 very much de-humanizes Australian men in very legal terms. It’s rather sad, but like they say, “They devil is in the details” and this is some EVIL shit.

        • Roderick1268

          Jeeze Louise?
          Don’t you sneeze,
          on my Louise!

      • Roderick1268

        J.T.O’s work is amazing, and so is your work Paul.
        Thank you all at A.V.F.M.
        J.T.O your ability to unravel this monstrous deliberate deceit articulately (as humanly possible) is way beyond most people.
        Designed manipulation – is designed to deceive on many levels.
        Anyone who has suffered under a female sociopath is on the path to understanding that.
        The evolved complexity of ‘bad’ female manipulation is as complex as the most advanced technology humans develop.
        But it is invisible to most born into it because it is so hard to face.
        The apprenticeship into understanding this, is being a victim of it.
        Emotionally raped over and over then publicly accused and punished by the instigator and profiteer, while she hands you her autograph.

      • BeijaFlor

        No, man, you and JTO stand shoulder-to-shoulder, at the pinnacle!

    • Milesius

      Because it was founded on sexist principle that men have a duty to sacrifice their lives to the community (literally or by forcing them to waste it with a familly) while the only women’s duty consists of keeping their legs closed to strangers. Everything based on injustice is destined to fall, it would have collapsed even without cultural marxism, just more slowly.

      • Red Bones

        Even that isn’t and wasn’t a formal duty of women. No one enforces female fidelity in the West.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        A friend posted this on my facebook today. I might have lost that friend with my reply.

        Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not “Crazy”
        It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice.

        • Poester99

          yes, I’m near to the point where commenting on men’s rights will make me “that facebook kook”. For now I just bring it up face to face with men that I meet. They accept it sometimes because they know me and that I have integrity.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I know! It got a dozen “likes” afterward. I’ve been kicked off Huffpo or I would have been ALL OVER that…

        • BeijaFlor

          You don’t “lose” friends like the “friend” who posted that tripe on your Facebook page.

          You kick ‘em the hell out!

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Actually, I love the kid.

            Big, goofy, likable guy. He’s an ex-marine but has NO self confidence. He stutters when you ask a direct question and was always overly acomodating.

            I didn’t want to hire him, he was a bad fit, but the (female)manager hired him after she got him to agree to work every weekend so she could take off.

            After a few months, he asked if they could rotate weekends – he hadn’t had a day off with his wife since he was hired, and she was 8 months pregnant.

            The manager was enraged. She tried to get me to back her on firing him, showing me on the computer where he had looked at a site featuring fully clothed women with big butts(after hours).

            She wanted to charge him with sexual harassment because she had been exposed to “porn” – even though she had to dig and spy on him to find it.

            I asked the owner to transfer him to another location, to get him away from her.

            That kid never knew how close he came to getting fired and having his wife find out why.

            He’ll just think I’m a bitch. I’m fine with that.

  • Kimski

    I think I’m going to buy myself some stocks in the tracker chip marked, because that seems to be the only thing missing, before men are effectively made into slaves by the people working together behind the curtain, on this soon to be legal abomination of injustice. And I don’t think it will stop with Australia. There’s a reason for choosing that particular country to carry out this, but I’m not sure what it is. I suspect geography has something to do with it.

    This will not end at setting up husband and wife against each other, but also the kids against the father, as for example denying them pocket money, as a punishment for breaking house rules, would also constitute DV.

    I wonder if this can be used against women, if a couple of guys stands as witnesses behind a man reporting DV from his wife or girlfriend, or even if evidence in the form of video or tape recordings would be sufficient for a conviction. I seriously fear that it won’t.

    You have my deepest sympathy for having to read 204 pages of this borderline brainwashing material, JtO. Really.

    • Dannyboy

      ” There’s a reason for choosing that particular country to carry out this, but I’m not sure what it is. I suspect geography has something to do with it. ”
      I can think of a few, it is relatively isolated, it is English speaking and is home to some of the ” ugly sisters ” known as radfem.
      Australia appears to be the perfect testing ground for this amelioration of basic human rights on the basis of sex. To put forth a comparison it is almost like the game of ” Risk ” only with a misandric theme.

      • Kimski

        Ahh, yes, of course, language and RadFems were the missing pieces. Thanks. I was thinking along the lines of a relatively low number of cititzens spread out over a wide area. Guess I was playing my own little game of ‘Risk’, while trying to imagine the worst possible consequences of the Plan.

        • Dannyboy

          So that makes the tally about 5 for the reasons why Oz is being assaulted by this cancer.
          IMHO the common sense theory / comparison to ” Risk ” does appear to hold water.
          Thanks to you as well Kimski

  • Codebuster

    These recommended changes, if passed into law, will transform Australian society from a Western, egalitarian society into a tiered, totalitarian state organized along lines of sexual legal segregation.

    Dead wrong here, JTO. Australia never was an egalitarian, free society. Neither politically nor psychologically nor culturally.

    I’ve made reference in the past to Australia’s introduction to Australia and the world of seatbelt laws, and fines of hundreds of dollars for failing to buckle up. Then there are the voting laws, anti-association laws, repressive, bureaucratic meddling, etc. According to a Lew Rockwell contributor, the US Constitution was first trashed with the introduction of dui laws – a long-standing Aussie initiative (nay, tradition). More recently, the rest of the world has awaited with eager anticipation Australia’s introduction to cigarette packaging laws.

    I’ve got a thesis, and I stick by it… the Iraq war would never have happened without Australia’s involvement. The Iraq war was the direct result of a Partnership (Greg Sheridan), and not confined to America’s lone adventurism. Just watch Aussie bureaucrats deny this, should the blowtorch ever be put to them.

    I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the thought had crossed my mind wondering whether Rupert Murdoch’s media empire was part of some grander plan.

    I find it amusing that to this day Americans continue to fawn over Australians (e.g., Oprah Winfrey), yet Australians have always, collectively, despised Americans at a fundamental, gut level. See here and here and here. It’s in their genes. When Australians routinely call you Americans “Seppo” what are you thinking? I suppose you think it’s just harmless banter and that they’re just joking. This is what “Seppo” translates to in their minds… “Americans are full of shit.” It is true that anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon. But in Australia there is something else going on… something more toxic and enduring than global, collectivist liberalism. “Seppo”, in the spirit in which it was intended, could only have originated in Australia. There are other links, but at the risk of getting others into trouble for “hate crimes” (another Aussie initiative) perhaps we should leave them out of it.

    The rest of the world needs to get over Australia. They need to regard Australia as an example of how not to be. They need to regard Australia as an example of what happens when you trash your own constitution to replace it bit by bit with that of a penal colony.

    Otherwise JTO, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your assessment. In fact, I’m surprised at how acutely you see things. Do you have an inside source, or something? :)

  • gateman

    Brilliant work JTO. I will be doing my best to distribute this to widely.

  • Mr. J

    I see Goebbels was cited in the article.

    How perfectly fitting since the Nazi German Gov’t had, and the Australian Gov’t has, successfully removed lethal weaponry from the hands of their citizens.

    Now, they do as they please and villainize anyone they want.


    • Kyle Lovett

      Now Manboobz will scream Goodwin at some point I’m sure.

  • scatmaster

    I have not read the article yet but before I forget the descriptor on the main page uses the word(?) “debuk”.
    I am suspecting the word you want is “debunk” but hey what do I know. Just pointing it out because you know the tools will use it in some way. Now I am off to ground my coffee beans for my morning cup of java and enjoy my “newspaper”
    The Red Pill Gazette. Though “enjoy” might not be the right word.

  • blueface

    I live in Australia, and I am horrified with what I am reading. Let me tell you why:

    I was in a court because some of my kids were claiming abuse.

    The kids were doing this because their mother convinced them to do it. She was the preferred parent(from the kids POV) because they didn’t have to do their homework at her place, and didn’t have to do chores. The kids also believed my ex’s stories of hardship and abuse and felt sorry for her.

    Me, the single parent for many years, was the bad guy (from the same kids POV) because I made them do the homework and chores.

    So Child Protection got involved and took the kids before they even interviewed me. My other kids (same mother) who lived in the same house told the CP that the kids were lying: Ignored.
    My wife (not the children’s mother but had been living in the same house for a few years) told CP they were lying: Ignored. I had court orders that the kids should be with me for a reason: Ignored.

    The physical evidence amounts to no more than a bruise on a leg. The child in question was taken to a doctor at the time. The diagnosis: faded bruise. The police took a photograph of this leg: faded bruise.

    10 hearings and thousands of dollars later I end up in court for what passes for a trial in Australia.

    So, they wheel in someone from the school. Mr Mangina (First Class) tells them a bunch of meaningless crap supposed to put me in a bad light. When discussing the child’s injury, he remembers the bruised leg. “Big and Purple,” he says. But, he’s getting carried away with himself and how useful he can be for the cause.

    “Wait” he says, “I remember he also had a bruise on his arm”. Mr Mangina should get a job on CSI because he could tell from the shape of these bruises that they we caused by my fingers.

    This gives the CP folks a bit of a problem. Clearly, Mr Mangina is talking shit. So, they get another clown from the school. Ms Sensitive gets on the stand.

    She can hardly talk for crying. The pain she felt for the childs pain was, of course, actually more than the child’s pain itself. Finally, she get’s to the point. “I remember the child showing me the bruises on his back”.

    His back.

    Any other bruises: No. What about his leg: No. His arms: no. Anywhere?

    His back.

    There was a psychologist who had been seeing the children who gave evidence. She did not give any evidence that I abused the kids. On the contrary, “A caring father” is what she called me.

    The judge’s final conclusion was that I was clearly emotionally abusing the children becuase both Mr Mangina and Ms Sensitive said that the boy had been upset.

    So, upset with this bullshit verdict I appealled. And won. A rarity in these parts.

    Of course, all this shit takes time. And winning in one court means nothing in another court here. By this time the manipulating bitch had plenty of time to work on the kids. I believe its called Stockholm Syndrome.

    I haven’t seen those children since CP took ‘em.

    This was in Australia BEFORE this plan came into being!

    And here’s another thing to bear in mind. I won my appeal. All charges dropped. All gone. Vindicated!

    I can’t publish my story or they’ll put me in jail. There are sections in the various laws that say if you publish anything that names you, the court, your kids, or anything that identifies anybody involved then they’ll put you in jail.

    As I said, that’s BEFORE the plan. Can you imagine how it will be once the plan is implemented!

    • scatmaster

      Holy shit blueface.
      That is awful!!!!
      It never ceases to amaze me the level women and their minions will go to. I am truly sorry for what you have endured. Stick around here and hopefully we can all win this fight together for future generations.

    • Stu

      Yes the family court in Australia bans you from telling your story, under threat of jail. And does under the guise of protecting children. But the media is free to defame and publicize any unfounded accusation about any guy that any woman points a finger at….this has lead to many children being bullied and threatened, and assaulted and discriminated against at school and in the street. So obviously these laws concerning protecting children are a load of rubbish. They exist to protect the evil draconian kangaroo courts, and the stinking pieces excrement that preside over them.

      These miserable excuses for human beings, and complete waste of oxygen, know that their rulings would cause outrage among any fair-minded people……so they insist……that the public…..who funds their operation….through taxes forcibly appropriated from them….these so called public servants….who are so vile and disgusting that they know they can not withstand public scrutiny… they ban it.

      It’s exactly the same as the bully who beats you up and robs you…..and then holds a knife to your throat and says……..if you tell anyone….I’m going to cut your fucking head off.

      If their rulings were just, and fair, they would have no reason not to be transparent.

      I believe all men who go the family court and get robbed..should publish every detail…every name of those involved in this robbery….on overseas sites that are out of their reach. Yes, you risk going to jail….but I say give them no place to hide….make their rulings public….and ftsu

      • Stu

        Btw, I believe that that the recommendations in The Plan, will not recieve one bit of msm coverage. These laws will be snuck in a bit at a time, without men having the slightest idea that the new laws exist. Until they actually know someone, probably themselves…..who is carted from their homes and branded a wife beater…for sitting in silence in their homes…..or buying a new pair of runners without prior permission to replace the ones they have been wearing with holes in them for the last two months…..depriving their wives of the 28th pair of black stilettos to add to the pile that occupies most of the space on your side of the wardrobe. Or maybe it will be complaining a bit about their wife spending three weeks of your wages down at the pokies last night.

      • Ray

        “….these so called public servants….who are so vile and disgusting that they know they can not withstand public scrutiny… they ban it.”

        They make a very popular button at father’s day rallies and rallies held in front of court houses.

        On more than one occasion, I’ve had people ask, “Have you got any more buttons?”

        After making and giving away several thousand buttons, I’ve kinda run out gas, and have gone on to other things.

        Buttons are cheap enough to make, that anyone can do it – after you buy the basic button 2 1/4″ making stuff, which isn’t so cheap. Here are the two pieces I think are the best from my experiences in button making.

        Of course you at least need MicroSoft Publisher to make the images.

  • James Huff

    What a stunning piece of work. This is the type of work that doctoral dissertations are based off of.
    @ Paul: I know this has been suggested before, but perhaps the compiled information concerning Australia (and other countries as they come up), should have it’s own reference section. The level of writing that has occurred here recently certainly deserves this. It allows any of us to reference the material instantly, passing it on to other sources as needed.

    • Tawil

      Stunning- absolutely. JTOs analysis lays bare the circular reasoning, emotionally loaded rhetoric, misdirection, obfuscation, logical fallacy, appeal to Authority, appeal to Popularity, exclusions, contradictions – and many other ‘tricks’ used in the construction of ‘The Plan’.

      This dovetails with Kyle’s presentation of the sources and stats, together creating a comprehensive exposure of feminist deceit. Sherlock Holmes himself would praise this effort.

      And this isn’t over yet… there’s more to come before this gets archived… much more.

  • Ray

    “That this is planned, and principally impacts men, means that humanitarian organizations worldwide are now ignoring, and will likely continue to totally ignore, the organized campaign of apartheid and its resulting human damage.”

    Amnesty International should be called “Womanisty International” for ignoring the civil rights of males, while feminism has witch-hunted innocent men – especially domestic violence law.

  • Ray

    “This campaign is being pursued and justified in a document called The Plan…”

    I’m waiting for the German translation of the Australian government’s plan. The title will literally be translated, “Mein Kampf.” How appropriate!

    • Stu

      The feminists have their Mein Kampf…’s called the SCUM manifesto. Unlike Mein Kampf… was never banned, and is now getting taught in schools in some countries..sweden for one. We have a SCUM convention in Perth recently….many influential feminists attended……I’ll bet some of the Authors of The Plan belong to that group.

    • keyster

      Or Mao’s “Sensitive Training”.

  • Robert Full Of Rage

    I am always disgusted how people outside the MRM believe feminism is good. Feminists are some of the most hate-filled people in existence. They want a world without men, or a world where men are slaves. I am not surprised because the writing on the wall has been there for a while. All feminists are radicals, regardless of what they might tell you. They have been getting so much anti-male legislation passed that I am surprised they tried to hide their true agenda in a 204-page document. When I read this article, the word ‘genocide’ kept popping into my head, and it reminded me of a YouTube video with Dan Moore (Factory). He layed out how feminism is following the same path as naziism, and his words are ringing louder by the day.

    • Stu

      Yep, I’ve been saying feminism is just a female version of nazism with us men being the Jews and Gypsies for ages. I’ve read a few articles by a few different MRAs that put it in words that I wish I could have written.

      I’m in awe of guys like Paul and JTO and Fidlebogan and too many others to mention, for their ability to articulate these things. If verbal and written ability was physical ability…..they would be olympians……mmmmmm……and I’d be a in a wheelchair with a respirator and a pacemaker.

      • Dannyboy

        Stu I know how you feel about the ability to write. Still we all can play a part in the destruction of this hate movement.
        To use a phrase that I see used fairly often by Paul ” We can’t push the toothpaste back into the tube” I humbly would like to add a small addition ” but we all can help clean up the mess that was made”

  • Ray

    “The phrase “Women and their Children” reveals a belief that apart from men as fathers, a “family” is a woman and her children, and that fathers are a mere disposable utility. Setting aside the hatred towards men innate in this idea, an overwhelming body of peer reviewed research demonstrates the developmental importance to children of the presence of their fathers [8][9][10][11].”


  • Ray

    “This distancing from responsibility is also nullified by the frequent inclusion in The Plan of letters of explicit support for the plan by members of Australian parliament.”

    It’s fascinating to see government commit misandrist hate crime under color of law.

  • Ray

    .“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent”
    ~ Joseph Goebbels”

    When one thinks of the “power of the Nazi state to repress dissent” the first thing that usually comes to mind is the Gestapo (secret police), and the SS, but in fact, Goebbels may have been even more effective in his power to spread propaganda, thereby controlling the public, through his manipulation and dissemination of images. Leni Reifenstahl was Hitler’s master cinematographer, and she made a number of propaganda films for the third Reich to assuage and/or ameliorate public opinion. I’ve also seen a number of photos of a smiling Hitler with numerous children gathered around him. One such child (a little girl) is even on a postage stamp from that era, presenting “the Fuhrer” with flowers – literally the face of innocence, next to the face of Hitler.

    Isn’t it fascinating (AND FRIGHTENING) how we now see a number of aspects of that history repeating itself in Australia – as well as other Western countries?

  • Dannyboy

    I will need to read your article at least one more time. The amount of dis-information published by ” the Plan “is mountainous.
    It did however motivate me into looking up the definition of fraud in Australia.
    Here is an excerpt :
    ” 4.4 Fraud against the Commonwealth may include (but is not limited to):

    providing false or misleading information to the Commonwealth, or failing to provide it when there is an obligation to do so ”

    Given the wealth of contrary peer reviewed evidence that is contrary to what ” the plan ” is stating I see the potential for a class action lawsuit against ” the plan’s” Authors and those who submitted it to the Oz government.
    Are you catching this Libby Loyd, Am et al.
    You are providing false information to the government of Australia. It ignores male victims in wording and intent which makes it sexist as well.
    It would be an awesome day to see the headlines in an Oz newspaper along the lines of ” Class action lawsuit launched against ________ for fraud ”
    On that day perhaps the men of Australia would understand the amount of skullduggery used by the femie factions and finally raise their voice in outrage. Demanding their elected representatives start dismantling this mockery.
    Lets hope some motivated individual gets this done and brings these crimes to light.

    Great stuff JTO many thanks.

  • Kimski

    “This document is written to convince an intellectually defective readership. We know the intended audience is a nation’s elected representatives, so this shouldn’t be surprising.”

    Nope. Not. At. All. The phrase: ‘The only people more stupid than the politicians, are the majority of those who vote for them’, becomes more and more accurate for every election in the Westworld.

    I wonder how many male representatives that actually read and understood it? Or if they were so brainwashed by the constant repetition of lies, that they were unable to see that they were sticking their head in the noose, when they signed it? My guess is that some of them only saw this: “Reduce Violence against Women and their Children”, and then went something like this: ‘Well, of course, I’ll just sign it, and then I won’t have to read it because it looks soo boring, and that new secretary..-Hmm..-I just gotta’ check her out!’

    • Ray

      “My guess is that some of them only saw this: “Reduce Violence against Women and their Children”, and then went something like this: ‘Well, of course, I’ll just sign it, and then I won’t have to read it because it looks soo boring…”

      And most are aware of the weapon of the feminist media/propaganda machine that will come after them with extreme vitriol. No politician wants to be subjected to that kind of negative PR, especially considering they’ll get nothing like that from their male constituents so they usually just rubber stamp the next Feminazi proposal into law, and the next, and the next…

  • Ray

    “The Acknowledgements section of “The Plan” also establishes a framework for Appeal to Popularity, a logical fallacy suggesting that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held.”

    There’s no denying that Marxist ideologies, from Stalinism, to Nazism, to feminism and more are steeped in public spectacle and celebration. Candle vigils to take back the night appear reminiscent of Nazi torch light parades through Nuremberg in 1933, in my opinion.

    Post WWII parades through Polish streets under the Stalinist regime are replete with paper mache caricatures of Western leaders, including Harry Truman, in Andzej Wajda’s post war film “A Generation.” Anyone attending a domestic violence conference today in America can witness parallel Marxist artistic spectacle as gender propaganda, in my opinion.

    Here are cut outs of women, and one man (included after much protest and lobbying), and dogs, and cats, all allegedly killed in d.v. incidents. Notice the complete lack of children cut outs – KNOWING THAT BIOLOGICAL MOTHERS ARE THE SINGLES LARGEST GROUP KILLING KIDS BY NEGLECT AND ABUSE AT A RATE TWICE THAT OF BIOLOGICAL DADS. More kids are killed by neglect and abuse in a year than all female intimate partner homicides in a year, and those little kids who are killed are in a much, much smaller age range making the rate at which they are killed much higher.

    Apparently, hypocrisy and outright lies have no limitations, when promoting feminist ideology.

  • justicer

    [note to editor: word ‘debunked’ misspelled in the teaser for this article, front page]

    Sensational article, JTO. You are the man!
    The ‘glossary’ on this alarming documentation is a matter of extreme concern, almost a hate-crime in and of itself. It’s a pristine example of gyn-feminism capturing and destroying the language.
    In case some of you were unaware of this, “advocacy research” has been semi-normalized in the social sciences, by a set of research-ethics rules which tolerate politicization of research methods. “Research ethics” used to involve non-harmful product testing. Today, no research can be done without prior “ethical” vetting– which can include determination of whether the “results being tested for” are “of benefit to the society,” where benefit is defined politically, not scientifically.
    Also ignored, in the above equation, is the idea that all knowledge gained by people doing research is intrinsically beneficial to society; rather, it’s implied that certain inconvenient findings should not be researched or followed up.
    Finally, for the unaware, there are full-scale academic programs, fully funded and full of eager little women students, that call themselves “Advocacy Studies.” Think about it.

  • Ray

    “Today, no research can be done without prior “ethical” vetting– which can include determination of whether the “results being tested for” are “of benefit to the society,” where benefit is defined politically, not scientifically.”

    The catalog for my taxpayer funded college contains a very brief statement, regarding “social justice” as an accepted part of the curriculum.

    • justicer

      I’d love to see how this is defined, Ray.
      Best-case: If “studying the history of the movement for social justice” is what’s being done, hey, that’s History, let’s go with it. That can be taught by legitimate scholars. although, even there, they might teach it with wildly skewed biases, against which few students can protest.

      If, on the other hand, “Social Justice” is named as a “learning outcome,” a “course objective,” or “institutional goal,” then the institution is completely compromised.
      I rather suspect that the latter is happening.

      Just a note to add to what I said re: ‘ethical review’ and ‘demonstrated benefit to society’.
      This can be camouflaged by the politician-reviewers. For example, a scholar can wish to study addictions in a racial-minority population; and the vetters will nix the research, because “you don’t have the right to intrude into their community with those difficult and culturally-privileged questions.”
      With this in place, studying lesbian partner-abuse might only be done by lesbian researchers, to offer another example.
      This also occurs in the liberal arts: doing research on literary discourse within feminist writings, to use a fictitious example, might be curtailed because ‘you’re a male; have not graduated from a course in Women’s Studies, and have not demonstrated a sensitivity to the issues’.

      • Ray

        “I’d love to see how this [social justice] is defined, Ray.”

        My sin of omission on that one, and the catalog is vague on that part. But “yes,” I bet you and other AVfM readers can guess how it goes. As far as it involves gender issues, from my experience with the curriculum, it overwhelmingly follows the feminist perspective. “Social justice” by definition is a term that employs special identity group politics (race, class, gender). Often when trying to isolate and discuss gender issues, proponents of “social justice” will attempt to drag an MRA into race and class issues as part of the discussion – in my experience.

        “If, on the other hand, “Social Justice” is named as a “learning outcome,” a “course objective,” or “institutional goal,” then the institution is completely compromised.”

        Yep, that’s how they define it – all of those.

    • Kimski

      “Today, no research can be done without prior “ethical” vetting– which can include determination of whether the “results being tested for” are “of benefit to the society,” where benefit is defined politically, not scientifically.”

      You only have to exchange the word ‘politically’ with ‘theologically’, and Earth would still be considered to be flat, by using this definition. All this progress has led us right back to the middle ages.

  • TigerMan

    I think one of the reasons why AV4Men is beggining to attract flak is because it is QUALITY commentary with presentational style to match, whereas, detractors tend to resort to blunderbus stereotyping, strawmen and ad hominems with little or no substantive content.

    • scatmaster

      For those of us who could not put it as eloquently as you I will translate.

      Paul Elam and his band of renowns are fucking awesome. They are scaring the shit out of their enemies with their rock on weapons. The shit bags are using their usual tactics to try to deflect the assault whilst, ahem sorry, while scurrying for cover like the cowards they are.

      How did I do?

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Nailed it.

  • Ray

    “During our investigations, we found a widespread belief that this issue was pressing and serious.”


    Was the group they polled representative of the population or just a bunch of cackling feminists and their toadies, who are already benefiting from government largesse?

    The sample must accurately represent the population, or that’s another logical fallacy in “The Plan.”

    I’ve also heard that type of polling, or information gathering, referred to in publishing/journalism circles as SLOP (Self-Selected Listener Opinion Polls), where the group being measured is from the “listener audience” of the radio station, or “reader audience” magazine, etc. In other words, one hellaciously biased survey group.
    “So, the first question that you should ask of a poll report you read is: “Was the sample chosen scientifically?” If the poll is a scientific one, then an effort has been made to either choose the sample randomly from the population, or to weight it in order to make it representative of the population. Reputable polling organizations always use scientific sampling. “

    • Kimski

      “Was the group they polled representative of the population or just a bunch of cackling feminists and their toadies, who are already benefiting from government largesse?”

      Most likely the exact same group mentioned in the second disclaimer as ‘third parties':

      “Views expressed in this publication are those of third parties, and do not necessarily reflect the views of FaHCSIA or the Ministers responsible for the portfolios of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.”

      -Which makes the whole concept just as invalid as a 13$ bill.

    • justicer

      Yeah, that’s right, Ray.
      The rape-violence stats that are waved around by many rad-fems is such an example. In few cases are they based upon verification/conviction rates for any offence.
      In most cases, they include vast, flabby questionnaires that ask for things like, “have you ever felt that you were being threatened? abused? ”

      They adore asking about “feeling threatened on university campuses,” and accredit the “feelings” of women students, and spend thousands on “safewalk programs,” even though the stats show that campuses are among the most women-friendly environments we have.
      In all cases, they fail to tell us that “campus violence against women” is a construct of the media , not of reality, and that that’s what the women are reporting as “feelings.”
      In all cases, they include “not listening to me” as a form of “psychological abuse” — in the flabbiest, most catch-all of ways.
      In many cases, they will accept that a man who prevents his wife from hitting him is committing violence, because he restrained her by holding onto her shoulder, etc., and she felt that as physical abuse.
      In all cases, they ignore — fail to correct for — the total inhibition of most males in accepting and verbalizing themselves as victims of a female.
      So the research is junk and propaganda.

  • Ray

    JTO: That really is a compelling read, but alas I pooped out before getting to the end. I’ll try to get back to it later as what you’re exposing is of vital importance to all males in our global society. Thanks for your diligent, and professional, hard work.

    • scatmaster


  • .ProleScum.

    John, your mind is a fearful symmetry. :-)

  • Roderick1268

    It is a strange thing – this appalling sadistic and murderous determination to deceive – is exactly what I witnessed throughout my childhood.
    The complexity and cunning, – the appetites for harming men is soooooo feminist and nasty female.
    I know there are good woman in the world but God.
    I learned very early that most people would never believe me as a boy. – I couldn’t believe it myself. I still told everyone tho.
    But it put me in a cold place and on the outside.
    I questioned my own sanity it was horrible and depressing.
    My truth was almost impossible to believe, her screaming lies were always convincing.
    When my sister ran away to live with my mother, it went to court and this woman screamed the whole friggen court down with her insanities. The court laughed but did nothing to protect me and my other two sisters.
    I have seen all of this behavior before it is narcissistic and sociopathic and intently hateful.
    God take a breath,

  • Jade Michael

    JTO your work is inspiring, humbling and 110% necessary all at the same time. It’s men like you who set the standard for fellow activists. You keep the bar sky high and influence us to maintain it to the best of our abilities. Amazing job on this and thank you for all you do.

    And of course that extends to all of you guys at AVFM. You’re all so fricken necessary and valued. Hope you realize it.

  • Dr. F

    Great stuff JTO.

    I think it will take a while for me to absorb all this….. (gulp)

    One minor change I’ll submit:

    “This document is written to convince an intellectually defective readership. ”

    Might read also as,

    This document is written to convince an intellectually defective leadership.