Australian domestic violence hysteria

Violence against women has received government attention in Australia and elsewhere for some time.  It is not, the government tells us, just an ordinary crime.

The Australian Government’s National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (The Plan) informs us “These crimes are gendered[sic] crimes – that is they have an unequal impact on women. (Australian Government, 2012).”

Emotionally, The Plan describes the plight of women caught up in domestic violence:

“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women, in a home, at the hands of men they know.”

That small proportion of male domestic violence victims is 28.9% from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005 Personal Safety Study  (ABS, 2006). No educated person would honestly call this a “small proportion”. It is almost 1 in 3.

The 2005 survey is quoted in the Plan with the following information:

“In 2005, over 350,000 women experienced physical violence and over 125,000 women experienced sexual violence.” By the way, in case you don’t notice the sleight of hand, this is all kinds of violence. It is not just domestic violence.

The number of women experience domestic violence for that year “at the hands of men they know,” is 195,300. What is the reason for the government uses the bigger, all violence, number? Well, it’s bigger, of course.

In the same report, it was found that 779,800 men experienced physical violence (that’s more than double) and over 46,700 men suffered sexual violence. These figures are a direct comparison to the ones for women above.

The Plan declares “No form of violence in our community is acceptable.” Yet, the Plan states:

“Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence.”

And what are those different strategies to address violence against men?

There are none.

There is no Plan to Reduce Violence against Men.

In other words, when violence has an “unequal impact on women”, it is “gendered[sic]”, and when it has an unequal impact on men it is simply “different”.

So, is the lack of “genderedness” because the violence on men is by men? Let’s again look at the same study.

On domestic violence between the sexes, the survey tells us that 195,300 women experienced assault by a male; 79,500 men experienced assault by a female. This is the 28.9% of assaults on males by females that the Plan completely ignores.

Do females attack other females?  66,600 females said “Yes” for 2005.

The 2005 survey also tells us 641,100 males and 389,300 females reported violence at the hands of females since the age of 15. That’s 1,030,000 separate individuals reporting instances of violence carried out by females in their lifetime. While the total for male perpetrated violence is higher at 3,641,400, this still means that almost 1 in 4 perpetrators were female.

Another question that springs to mind: is it getting worse?

The 1996 Women’s Safety Study, done by the ABS, was the first study of its kind. This study examined the plight of women only. No male victims of violence were sought, because the study was funded by the Office for the Status of Women (ABS, 1996).

Is that “gendered” or what?

The 2005 Personal Safety Study was similarly funded by the Office for Women, but the ABS insisted in including men and so funded that part of the survey.

The later study showed that violence against women decreased from 490,400 in 1996 to 443,800 in 2005, even though the population of women increased by some 12%. Not only that, but the number of reports to police also increased by almost 30% from 54,400 to 70,400 for the same period.

So, according to the ABS figures, the problem for women definitely declined between 1996 and 2005.

Why then, when “No form of violence in our community is acceptable,” are male victims of violence being declared “different” enough to be ignored?

The male experience of violence should not be lightly discounted. It is not simply a fact that men experienced double the levels of violence. The ABS’s 2009 Causes of Death report shows that twice as many men were murdered than women (ABS, 2011). So, more men suffer at the extreme end of violence than women.

Not only do male victims go unvalued, but the female perpetrators simply evaporate as well. Even when they attack females, the Australian government is prepared to ignore their existence.

So while “No form of violence in our community is acceptable,” and “Reducing all violence in our community is a priority,” according to The Plan, there are clearly some forms of violence more equal than others.

This lack of concern from society for the violence that men face, and the demonising them as always being the perpetrator, may also be factors in the suicide rate for men.  The ABS’s 2009 Causes of Death report informs us that the men are the victims of suicide on a ratio of more than 3 to 1.

It certainly won’t help men’s self-esteem.

This figure is not to be ignored. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in males, and the first in the order that is not disease related. There were ten times more suicides than murders in 2009.

The conclusion has to be that the discussion on domestic violence is indeed “gendered” in Australia. This is not because of the impact violence has on women.

The complete denial of female perpetrators is clearly a bigoted attempt to cover-up female violence.  This is not done as a deliberate act to help violent females, but more a price to be paid in order to follow the feminist agenda of demonizing men. That it also implicitly condones violence by females shows how bad this bigotry has become.

The total disregard of male victims in domestic violence is similarly bigoted and completely heartless.

But what does this bigoted approach actually do for domestic violence?

Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, tells us that the feminists’ ideological approach to Domestic Violence “has crippled prevention and treatment programs (Straus, 2010).”

He states that almost all domestic violence, which he calls intimate partner violence, is “gender[sic] symmetrical”. In other words, both men and women can be equally violent. This is not to say that one is being the aggressor and the other is hitting back in self-defense.

What he is really saying is that the world of domestic violence is not the feminist approved version where the big, strong man beats his poor, defenceless wife because patriarchy demands it.

In the real world, the aggressor is just as likely to be a woman as a man. For many couples, the answer is both. This is not a question of “who started it?” Both partners in the relationship can have violent tendencies. The issues, however, are as complex and varied as the people in the relationships. Professor Straus says:

“[It] is more likely to be traceable to risk factors such as antisocial personality traits, chronic excessive drinking, social disadvantage, a propensity to crime, and psychopathology of varying degrees of severity.”

These are clearly “gender-free” terms.

The main reason for following feminist ideology rather than the facts, according to Straus, is it attracts sympathy, funding and government support. There are more votes in being “Defenders of Women” than there is in trying to explain what “psychopathology of varying degrees of severity” actually means.

Certainly, the Australian government seems to be motivated in this way. It sanctimoniously distorts the picture of domestic violence by focussing on women as victim; and men as aggressor.

The plan repeatedly makes emotive statements like, “The emotional and personal costs of violence against women cannot be measured: the effects reach all levels of society,” and “[The Plan] will allow women who have experienced violence to rebuild their lives.”

This brings an image of knuckles on face violence, yet the figures quoted in the 2005 study are not incidents of crime. The study was conducted by calling random individuals at home and asking them if they had experienced any violence. Violence was defined as “any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault.”

In 1996, 52% of assaults did not result in any physical injury. Minor cuts and bruises were the majority of actual injuries (85%). In all, 0.4% of the female population reported violence which resulted in serious harm. In 2005, presumably due to their lack of emotional impact, the injury figures were not reported.

Similarly,  in 1996 almost 70% of so called assaults did not report the event to the police because, in the mind of the women reporting the event, it was not serious enough to report or she could handle the matter herself.

So if the 1996 and 2005 figures describe all kinds of all violence, the vast majority of this would constitute petty violence.

And let us not forget the biggest numbers of all. In 1996, 93% of all women did not experience any kind of violence whatsoever. In 2005, that figure rose to 95%. The number of men who did not experience any violence was 89%.

No matter how you look at these figures, the Australian government is clearly trying to create a moral panic by exaggerating and distorting the problem. Ultimately, male victims of violence are simply being ignored while the declining problems of violence against fewer women are being tackled as a priority.

And the serious harm that was inflicted upon men as a result of violence in 1996, 2005 or any other year?



ABS. (1996, December 11). 1996 Women’s Safety Study. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from Australian Bureau of Statistics:$File/41280_1996.pdf

ABS. (2011, May 3). 2009 Causes of Death. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from Australian Bureau of Statistics:$File/33030_2009.pdf

ABS. (2006, August 21). Personal Safety Study 2005. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from Australian Bureau of Statistics:$File/49060_2005%20(reissue).pdf

Australian Government. (2012, June 20). National Plan. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs:

Straus, M. (2010). Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence of Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from University of New Hampshire:

About Jim Muldoon

Jim Muldoon is an Australian men's human rights activist and Australian Editor for AVfM. He is an advocate for the equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

View All Posts
  • Zerbu

    When at least 10% of the victims of something are female, it becomes a gender issue.

    I’ve wondered for a while how long it will take until workplace deaths become a gender issue. Currently men account for about 95% of workplace deaths. Maybe when that figure reaches 90%, it will turn into a women-only issue.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    blueface: I am e-mailing some notes on Australian filicide cases involving child custody disputes. These notes are helpful in formulating rebuttals to the propaganda.

  • rams888

    It is also worth mentioning that men who experience domestic violence themselves are less likely to report it.
    Good article.

  • nigeles175d

    Women receive a discount at several stages. Firstly, men are less likely than women to report violence against them, and even moreso if that violence is perpetrated by women. Secondly, the authorities are less likely to document any incidents reported by men, of violence against them by women, yet they will suggest and coerce women into documenting anything they allege men to have done. Thirdly, the legal authorities are more likely to proceed with charges against men than they are against women. Fourthly, the courts are more likely to find men guilty than women, and once found guilty men are more likely to suffer a much greater sentence than women.

    When the media reports the outcome of all these events biased against men and boys, the ignorant non-critical thinker will conclude “all men are violent”, and the myth perpetuates itself.

  • BioCan

    I’ve noticed an alarming trend in my city. Violent crimes and robberies are more often being committed against men between the ages of 50-60. I don’t have the data compiled (I’m sure the police do and it would be nice if they released such data), but I went by the incidence of stories dealing with crime reported to the media within the past several months and they mostly involved the demographic that I had mentioned.

    And if you think about it, it would make sense. Crimes are being committed against them because they are relatively incapable of defending themselves compared to younger males. As well, our society has focused almost solely on the welfare and safety of women that we’ve completely neglected older men who are at risk of being targets of crime or violence. If a woman is harmed by crime, it is more likely that attention and resources will be poured into the protection of all women. But, the same cannot be said for older men.

    It is more often that they are seen as disposable and capable of taking care of themselves. I would even go so far as to say that the rampant spread of such social memes directed toward women, and not men, has probably made the average criminal more aware of the advantages brought to him/her if they were to instead target older men now.

  • Arvy

    The “lies, damned lies and statistics” are largely irrelevant except insofar as they can be distorted to serve the true underlying purpose. Australia is just doing its bit for what Robert St. Estephe quite rightly calls a psy-ops infowar.

    In other words, what we are actually dealing with is an orchestrated effort in furtherance of a predetermined sociological mission which (obviously, I think) extends far beyond any single country or government. The broad target is the entire masculine role in society at large and the influence it has traditionally exerted throughout history — especially in governance and particularly in giving effect to demands for individual rights and freedoms as opposed to narrow and short-sighted perceptions of self-interest.

    Feminists (both male and female) are merely tools, along with the media and many others, in that orchestrated campaign against masculinity and its traditional influences in society.

    It won’t be resolved by any narrow focus on the tools alone, and certainly not on any singular country basis. Men (and women too) really need to start asking themselves some deeper questions in a much broader “globalization” context if they hope to get at the real roots of the issue and its probable outcomes. As usual, “follow the money” is never a bad place to begin.

    • BioCan

      I’ve also noticed a trend within the last twelve years or so, especially after the 80’s and 90’s. Specifically, is it just me or do you find that there are less male role models in society? I remember there used to be television shows and cartoons with plenty of role models. There were athletes, like Michael Jordan, that had inspired a whole generation of younger men in a way that no athletes do now. It seems to me with the demonizing of men more male athletes are there to compete and earn their wages. Any involvement with the media is mostly done in advertising and marketing, which is mainly there to sell a product and not to inspire people to retain positive values. If they do involve themselves with being a role model for men, they are quickly shunned because they forgot about the other 50% of the population. Meanwhile, the plenty of female role models that exist today don’t have to concern themselves with being a role model for men. But, why should they?

      The era of American wrestling brought a lot of role models that I thought were important to the development of boys into adulthood and so on, such as Hulk Hogan and others. I understand that they are fictional characters but they had brought a lot to younger generations of men when it comes to understanding our own masculinity and what differentiates us from women.

      Even television shows that were not gender-specific had positive influence from men, such as Mr. Rogers and Bill Nye, etc. Though these examples are few and far between today.

      • Arvy

        Absolutely. In fact, it goes far beyond the diminishing (almost extinct) presence of positive male role models. The media almost exclusively now portray males in an extremely negative light.

        Some offer the comercial rationale of women’s spending power relative to men’s, but that hardly seems to explain the total spectrum-wide shift that has occured with truly amazing synchronisation. The “coincidence” is just a little too precise to be believed.

        • BioCan

          I agree, Arvy. Although, female-spending power would explain why there are a lot of male role models in the media, which are both younger and older, that are there for the satisfaction of teenage girls and women in general. The role that they play is to appeal to whatever demand that women and their money can buy.

          • Arvy

            And that appeal is almost invariably a bumbling servitude and total dependency on the feminine goddess to guide and instruct on proper hanging of the new toilet paper roll.

            A wonderful role model for young mistresses-to-be, perhaps, but I’m somewhat less enthusiastic about the impacts on emerging young boy slaves.

        • The Real Peterman

          “that hardly seems to explain the total spectrum-wide shift that has occured”

          I don’t know, businesses like television and movie studios really only care about making money, and if catering to women’s sensibilities is the best way to do that, that’s what they’ll do.

          • Arvy

            There was no other way to do that except by denigrating men, of course?! And you seem to have overlooked some very amazing full-spectrum synchronisation in the cross-media transformation process.

            C’mon. Dig deeper into their big ownership’s and sponsorship’s profit-inspired motivations. The REALLY BIG ones on a global scale. This isn’t some piddely-ass local phenomenon amongst shampoo manufacturers. Think global markets, and labour forces, and male resistance tendencies, and stuff like that. It goes far beyond selling lipstick. Have you checked out your political choices recently?

  • Kimski

    “In other words, when violence has an “unequal impact on women”, it is “gendered[sic]”, and when it has an unequal impact on men it is simply “different”.”

    Just let me guess here..
    -Sharon Osbourne and the grrlz on The Talk came up with The Plan, right?


  • keyster

    The Violence Against Women canard has gotten strangely quiet here in the US. Right now everything is about abortion, and abortion rights in cases of rape or incest…as political wedge issues with the election coming up.

    No mention of House Republicans blocking VAWA funding at all. It’s all about abortion, contraception and women’s “access to healthcare”.

    This means violence against women does not test well among the electorate, while abortion rights does. Also, the US domestic violence statistics have been thoroughly vetted, and anyone trying to use them as a talking point will expose the true numbers.

    It’s either that or the feminists care much more about whether a woman can legally kill her unborn (not being “punished with a baby”), than they do women getting beat up by their husbands once every 10 minutes.

    • BioCan

      It is sad to see the political agenda being taken over by political wedge issues, especially when there are so many other problems facing the United States. However, the politics of your country most often reflects that of Canada. Wedge issues on regional affilitiation, whether or not you arrived here centuries ago from England or France, and religion are some of the hot topics of debate. Whether or not we can get our financial house in order, especially in Ontario, is out of the question though.

    • Shrek6

      Planned Parenthood are pushing their poster boy, Obama, to go all the way this election, on the abortion platform, with the view of bringing in full-term abortion, from what I believe.

      There has been talk here in Melbourne Australia over the last year, to allow ‘post birth abortions’. Yes you heard that right.
      They want to give women the right under the law to have a child who has been born into this world, murdered, because the selfish mother has decided she can’t keep it or doesn’t want it.

      This push is coming from Planned Parenthood and another of its despot poster politicians, in Hillary Clinton.

      I am an opponent of abortion for any reason, but I am very angrily apposed to abortion from the point of view of a father. Although this has not happened to me personally, I am angry on behalf of all those fathers out there who have been totally cut out of the decision making process, which sees them losing a child they would love and want.

      I am also similarly angry at the men and family members, who force some young women and older women, into having abortions against their will.

      The overwhelming majority of abortions in the western world though, are procured by women who simply do not want the child and are using abortion as a means of contraception.

      And fathers have no say whatsoever as to whether or not that child lives.

      “My body, my rights!”

      • Raven01
        Ryan Barlow seems to be a prime candidate for his own suggestion since he is already dead above the neck for failing to take into proper account the right of the child to not be murdered.
        If this ever passes into law he will be the most prolific leader of any mass-murder cult in history in under a year. Charles Manson and Jim Jones combined won’t come close to his numbers.

        • Shrek6

          “In a controversial and scathing indictment of religion and current political policy, Ryan Barlow offers a logical and fascinating argument for post term abortion up to one year after birth.”

          “a logical and fascinating argument”???? How the hell can there be anything logical and fascinating about murdering humans of any age?

          You are right about him being brain dead. There is nothing logical about this lunatics thinking. His book is nothing more than just another manual showing how you can legally waste humans you don’t want walking this earth.

          • Raven01

            The disturbing thing is that these people aren’t metaphorically ripped apart and chased out of the village by peasants with torches.
            Do people care so little now that they are not inclined to demand that people like Barlow, Francesca Minerva and, Alberto Giubilini(of Monash University, big shock) be fired outright? I noticed the “reasoning” also applies to kids with Downs Syndrome and, I am not reading this between the lines they come right out and advocate specifically that murder of disabled children should be a “parental right”.
            I bet organisations for Downs, autism and, so on would be very willing to help in a concerted campaign to remove these people from their posts. To bring into the light the environments that allow these people to not only survive but thrive and profit from their very lack of humanity and compassion.

          • Shrek6

            And how many children who have Downs Syndrome, have been proven to be quite intelligent?
            I believe there are many!

            Sure they may not be as intelligent as the ‘above average’ normal human, but I can tell you that those I have met who suffer Downs Syndrome, are by far much more insightful and intelligent than a huge number of so-called ‘normal people’ that I have met in all my years.

            They are going to introduce Euthanasia into our societies one way or another. And it will be used to get rid of any human who is classified as not wanted, not needed, or is a burden on the State.

            Firstly, it will start with ‘What Women Want’!

          • Arvy

            “… more insightful and intelligent than a huge number of so-called ‘normal people’ that I have met in all my years.”

            In my own acquaintanceships with the herd, that would be damning with very faint praise.

          • Raven01

            My dog is better “people” than a large number of humans.
            So, I for one would not dismiss that not only are these kids with Downs or, other problems not only capable of being intelligent but, that intelligence or lack of is not the deciding factor in the absolute value of a human. Sure, it is important but, there are plenty of not very intellectually gifted people that are really stellar examples of humanity.
            Those horrendous theoretical policies leave me wondering how Stephen Hawking would have fared if his parents had been initially afraid of the potential difficultly his life would cause to them. And, let’s face it most of us would harbour those fears, then we would face them, and in the end be better people for it.

        • Shrek6

          Here’s a blog where some bloke has posted to show a case where a woman is in court with the backing of all the Jackals in society, to plead not guilty to murdering a 43 month old child. They are calling it 43 month gestation.

          So, at what age is a child considered to not be gestating?

          That means my 86 year old mother can do away with me if she so chooses.

          Not that it makes much difference anyway. Women in Australia already get away with murder. They can murder any human being of any age, just as long as they place an abusive man in the picture somewhere, they won’t go to prison.

          Now it will be legal for them to murder their children, no matter what age they are.

          This makes me sick to the very pit of my soul!

        • Arvy

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s long overdue for men to adopt the “think of the children” slogan that feminists have so misused and abused in their own interests for so long, while they actually abandon their own kids to state care or worse. Bloody hypocrits, the whole lot of them. Sickening isn’t a strong enough word for it.

          The supposed universal altruism of “maternal instincts” is highly overrated in my experience and this seems to confirm it. Most men, at least, would actually mean it as spoken.

          • Raven01

            Right you are Arvy.
            Fuck defending against the stupid ad hominems of feminist trolls and start DECLARING that paternal instinct demands that these people be held to account for advocating such atrocities. Complete with photo’s of adorable toddlers.
            None of us men may be as cute as a baby seal or a panda but babies are and the sheeple cannot resist cute. Throw in a valid argument with that cute factor and watch the wallets and purses open up. It would definitely help any activist group that wanted to take on this particular issue.

            The more I think about it the more I agree with Dan Moore’s assessment that now is the time for MRM foundations to start setting up. I agreed from the outset but, the issues we face are so multi-faceted that we will have to start taking on smaller more focused roles to make bigger gains toward actual equal opportunity, equal protection and equal treatment before the courts.

        • Malestrom

          Why is this surprising? With legal abortion our society has accepted the principle that it’s ok to kill humans for convenience under the right circumstances. From there it’s anyone’s game to define what the ”right circumstances” are.

          The abortion debate is actually extremely similar to old debates that raged in various nations throughout history to determine who was a citizen. There were factions in favour of limiting the franchise (the usual factors being wealth and birth) and some in favour of extending it. What we’re basically doing is defining humanity as a conditional state, back in the day it was enough to be a living human organism, that’s all it took to be considered a human being, but we decided to restrict the franchise based on ”consciousness” or something. From there, there is no principle reason not to restrict it further, why should anyone with an IQ lower than 75 be considered human?

      • JFinn

        Yet another South Park prophecy

      • keyster

        It’s all about perception.

        If she decides the prenancy is to be terminated, the parasitic Zygote is vanquished from the womb. It’s a procedure that takes place in the best interest of her health.

        If she decides to carry the pregnancy to term, suddenly a future human is divinely brought into existence at her behest. It magically becomes something called a “baby”, and people ask when the due date is and whether she knows the gender or not.

        The late term and post-birth abortion debate goes on here, and Obama stated he was a supporter of it when he was a state level senator.

        I guess a baby isn’t really considered human until it can walk, talk and pay taxes.

        • Arvy

          Exactly right, keyster. It is indeed all about perception. Women and THEIR children?! Bullshit! If there were any truly logical aspects, here are just a few of the questions that would need asking and answering.

          When a women engages with a man in the act of procreation, by what special right does that women then reserve unto herself exclusively the choice of negating the natural result of that procreative act. The fact that a gestational period (of somewhat variable length, by the way) occurs within the human female anatomy is simply a part of that natural process. Does the male seahorse also enjoy during that equivalent period the same “my body, my choice” prerogative to dump his partner’s contribution from his belly along with his own? If not, why not?

          And let’s deal briefly with that “my body, my choice” issue. It is NOT some adjuct to her own body, like a finger or a toe, that the gestator is casting aside. If it were, Rh disease (among others) would be impossible.

          Furthermore, if the gestational partner does claim that exclusive right to decide upon survival or death of the natural product of procreation, by virtue of what magic does it cease upon exit from the birth canal or some other predetermined period of development? Or does it? Apparently there are some who would now claim exclusively for females the same right to murder their own and their partner’s progeny AFTER birth. It’s not entirely clear whether that godlike power would then be exercised equally over children of both sexes, but based on some radfem proclamations, I’m strongly inclined to doubt it.

          • Shrek6

            Couldn’t have said it better myself Arvy!

        • Shrek6


          As you say, depending on the mothers desires, the new human is called either a Zygote or a Baby. And they are the names used at the very moment they establish that they are pregnant.

          The most dangerous place on earth for any child, is in its mothers womb!

          One of the first things that needs to happen, is to remove the rights and powers of women to murder children of any age. And at the same time, the fathers should be given equal rights and power in law, to also decide to keep the child if that is their wish.

          Women have behaved like spoilt brats for far too long, where everyone else, has been forced to suffer the consequences, most especially innocent children.

    • Primal

      Would you shed some similar light on the rape canard for us? Seems that rape is all the rage now thanks to Adkins comments. How does rape test among the electorate?

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Problem reaction solution. Truth is irrelevant. The propaganda indoctrinates the public into accepting an increasing tyranny in the incremental march to a total surveillance-police state. Control-freaks are control freaks whether they are banksters, shills (elected bribe-takers of “left” or “right” rhetorical camps) or cultural marxist elitists.

    • Arvy

      So I ask again, Robert, accepting your premise for sake of discussion, how does a fact-based refutation as exemplified by your own remarkable efforts fit into an overall strategy for dealing with the issue? Can it, in fact, prevail and under what circumstances in your own opinion.

      It’s not an idle question. I really would appreciate your views as I’m currently doing my best to support Dean Esmay’s undertaking in his quest for a solution and a fact-based contribution thereto.

  • gateman

    The message is clear. If you’re a male victim of domestic violence you’re on your own. Society certainly doesn’t care about you (real men don’t complain) and will likely punish you if you report it.
    After years of abuse, one day you snap and either hurt yourself or her and then you become just another statistic used to garner more funding for women.

  • The Real Peterman

    This is off topic, but it’s pretty important:

    Here is a petition to bring sex equality to the new Affordable Care Act. This isn’t a question of whether or not you support the act. The way things are going now the act is going to happen, so we might as well make it as fair as possible.

    “On August 1, 2012 many more health care services became available to women without co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses. While this can be seen as a victory for women’s health, there are many services that affect men in equal or similar ways that still require men to be able to afford those cost-sharing requirements. Why should all women receive these services (such as well-care visits) “free” while men still will be denied those services if they can not afford to pay for them? The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly expand the gender life-expectancy gap even further due to men being denied these well-care visits. Black and Hispanic males will be hit hardest as studies have shown them to be less likely to afford those out-of-pocket expenses.”

  • limeywestlake

    OT: It is official – women are better at wiring up home theater systems than men…

    Check this out and feel duly humbled, oh ye brethren.

    • Arvy

      While no fan of the Saudis, I still think their idea about a women-only city would be a great opportunity for the gals to demonstrate their superiority in all fields of human endeavour — including civic construction projects and the maintenance thereof, of course.

      • Shrek6

        Arvy, that may be a worthwhile test to see just how good they are at performing the same as men. So, I suggest if they wish to do this, then not one single thing should be contributed by a man at all.

        That means, the women build the city in the first place, which means they start clearing the land and doing all the hard, dangerous dirty work. No man should be allowed on the site at all.

        Get all the wonderful female builders, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, labourers etc, etc, etc, in there to do all of it.

        Let’s see just how far they get!

        • Arvy

          I can see it vividly in my mind’s eye now. All those high-steel feministas wielding their superior talents and skills forty stories or more above terra firma. Oops, that must have been a male chauvinist girder. Send up a new rivetter, please Molly.

          Wonder how many white knights would be unable to resist the urge to go charging in there to sacrifice their bodies as ground cushions.

    • Kimski

      Is those the same women, that can’t get the remote for the TV or the dvd player working, without an excruciatingly long and thorough instruction from a man, or a new hybrid?

      Perhaps a re-invention of the model that pops the hood on the car, and usually look at the motor with that bewildered and lost look in their eyes.

      -Or maybe a completely new model, that doesn’t look downright scared, when you hand her a power drill?
      (-And, no, I’m not talking about the journalist,-everybody knows they don’t make power versions of those, nowadays..)

      I want one of those!

  • externalangst

    Proponents of the ‘gendered violence doctrine’ and ‘violence against women’ campaigns are well meaning but….

    No they’re not. Bigots mean well for the in-group; just not anyone else. Bigots make false accusations and have a reckless disregard for the out-group.

    Blueface is spot-on that it is not violence that is gendered; it is our attitude to violence that is gendered. Violence against weak men and boys is ignored or offered as comedic entertainment. It is not that the victim is weak that we care, it’s that they’re female. Pure and simple sexism.

    Opportunists and narcissists will do whatever they can get away with to attain power. It’s time for good women and men to stand up to the despicable fraud that is ‘gendered violence.’ Thanks blueface.

    • Arvy

      Ask yourself exactly what they mean when they say “different strategies are required to address these different types of violence.” What sort of strategy do you suppose they have in mind for dealing with violence against men and precisely how does it differ from their current strategy for dealing with violence against women? And if, as they seem to suggest, the perpetrators are predominantly male in either case, and their true objective is ending violence in both cases, WHY must it differ?

      Strategies underpinning feminism often seem to have a peculiar way of serving purposes other than just their stated aims. Like diminishing all of masculinity, for example.

      Please don’t forget to neuter your pets and other domesticated animals.

      • caimis.vudnaus.

        I think you forget that doing nothing is a strategy, mind you a horrible stupid thoughtless bigoted one, but a strategy none the less.

        • Arvy

          In some ways I’m less fearful of a do-nothing stratgegy than what they might possibly have in mind for males that they deem to be too aggressively inclined for their tastes.

  • Tawil

    Well researched and delivered, Blueface. Australia (and the world) must begin to say “No!” to violence against men and boys.

    PS. an international look at violence against males as a “gendered” problem along with the refusal of international agencies to view it as gendered:

  • Tawil

    Here’s a pic/slogan I discovered about violence against males. Perhaps it can be adapted to make a similar poster for the AVfM ‘wallpaper the world’ movement:

    Its simple enough to get an imbecile thinking….

    • Shrek6

      I like the graphic Tarwil.
      By the way, how did your postering go over the weekend?

      • Tawil

        Hi Shrek, all went well…. I did 12 toilet blocks total, half in my rural town and half in the city nearby. I placed them in cubicles, on walls, and on mirrors. There’s is gonna be a lot of people reading them. :-)

        • Dr. F


          Well done ol’e son.

          I plan to hang around public dunny’s all the time now in order to catch up with sticker info.

          None the less, you are quite the champ with the A in the MRA.

        • Shrek6

          Hey Mate, well done!
          Let’s hope that many are educated and hopefully a lot of them swallow the red pill.

  • Shrek6

    Blueface, thanks for a great article. Hysteria is such an apt word for DV in Aus. And isn’t the hysteria growing daily.

  • tallwheel

    “Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public…”

    Wow. I’m surprised they acknowledged this at all. Like Blueface said, though, they don’t mention any strategies for dealing with this. They’re clearly concerned only with domestic violence against women by men.

  • MrWombat

    Another girl-on-girl glassing at the bar this last Saturday.

  • Rper1959

    Many thanks Blueface and concisely put as usual.

    In the Sunday Hearld sun an article looking at new aussie research – which states
    “One study of 5000 Australian teens analysed by the clearinghouse found
    one in three females and males say they have experienced at least one type of physically violent behavior from a girlfriend or boyfriend – this includes kids as young as 12. ”

    Funny even the DV clearing house a feminist run organisation – is forced to admit the truth sometimes

    that is

    Domestic Violence : Women ARE half the problem!!

    • GE

      2 forms of denial at the Herald. Totally ignore the topic in Drill’s Saturday article, then document an example in Sunday’s article, but ignore it when drawing conclusions.

      Regarding the Rihanna/Brown siutation – here is my canned response that I cut into blogs which bring up the topic

      Chris Brown’s DV was secondary to the DV committed by Rihanna. She was the party who escalated their conflict into DV by damaging his property (his car and clothes) and her controlling actions directly prevented him attending the awards ceremony they were travelling to ( he was a muddied mess after having to search a road-side drain for the keys to his rented Lamborghini) . He lost the plot and retaliated. Would this secondary violence have occurred without the primary antagonism? I agree that DV is not OK, should not be trivialised and should not be brushed under the carpet, however this is exactly what has been done with Rihanna’s primary DV.

  • Ben

    I don’t know what came first — demagoguery or the state. They seem to be synomous. Thanks for putting [sic] after any form of the term “gender”, by the way. I am registering to take state certification exams to get my professional credentials and you wouldn’t believe how often I am asked for my “gender [sic]”.

  • Ben

    I don’t know what came first — demagoguery or the state. They seem to be synomous. Thanks for putting [sic] after any form of the term “gender”, by the way. I am registering to take state certification tests to get my professional credential and you won’t believe how often I am asked for my “gender [sic]”. I despise that word.

    • Ben

      Sorry about the duplicate posts. I was posting from my phone and it got all screwed up.

      • Arvy

        Damned cell phone keyboards are a plague on humanity. It’s all a feminist plot against large male fingers, I tell you. :)

  • Kazzi

    First 2 articles (and so rare to find within the Australian media) regarding abuse against men – dated 22 May 2010 dated 23 Jun 2009
    Oh and found this gem of a b/shit article and this sentence ‘According to Minister Ellis, a recent internet survey has indicated that 98% of all women are victims of violence and abuse from men. She claimed that this internet survey was completed by a women’s shelter and is a real eye opener at the extent of violence faced by women in this country.’
    Hang on a minute… this internet survey was done at a womens shelter… not by ppl walking down the streets or in their own homes… no wonder the stats are also so WRONG & False.

    • Arvy

      Jeez! Only 98% in women’s shelters claim to be victims of male abuse. What happened to the other 2% I wonder. Did they not get the pre-survey message?!

      • Kazzi

        I was thinking the same thing… but of course didnt say how many were at that shelter… etc and what the so called abuse was… probably the husbands telling them to do some housework and not to spend all of their money.. as that is now classified as abuse.. (but they can nag a hubby for hours, but thats ok … ~thats not abuse by their defination)

  • Dr. F


    Thanks for this article. It’s a stellar job as per bloody usual mate. :)

  • Bev

    One stat not being mentioned! Noel Pearson (Aboriginal spokesman) let the cat out of the bag. Aboriginals comprise 1% (aprox) of the Australian population but according to him comprise 50% of the reported DV. If these figures were separated out and reported as Aboriginal DV, DV in the rest of the population would drop by 50%.

    • blueface

      The aboriginal question is a difficult one for the Australian government. The excuse for the men bad, women good is that domestic violence is cultural – therefore if men are educated in a new culture (feminism) then the violence will be gone.

      Within the aboriginal community domestic violence. According to The Plan, aboriginal domestic violence is significantly higher.

      However, to give the aboriginals a new culture is very politically incorrect. So, for the aboriginals, there is a mumbling about their, and theirs only, is a problem of poverty, and so they don’t need a new culture.

      But, The Plan is for all Australians. Typical doublespeak.

      • kiwihelen

        Not just in the aboriginal community. Across the pond in NZ the DV rate is higher amongst Maori and Pacifika folk.
        Why? Because of poverty, because of social inequality. Thats the real crime here…that there are people suffering on the margins in countries that are so rich in resources.

  • chris3337

    @ blueface
    An excellent piece. Are you going to sumbit that to some mainstream outlets in Oz?, I hope you do somebody will put it out , the fact are solid and cant be disputed.

  • ActaNonVerba

    Women hogging (i.e. being greedy with) public space is something I notice every time I go out. The sidewalk when I’m walking downtown–women hogging. The aisles in the store–women hogging. The path when I go jogging in the park–women hogging.

    That IS NOT the behavior of people that feel intimidated. In face, it’s the opposite. It’s the behavior of people that feel secure and entitled, and, it’s just plain rude.

    Don’t pay any attention to this “violence” BS. In fact, do what I sometimes do. For example, sometimes when I see women walking carefree, arrogantly side by side hogging the sidewalk, I just act like they’re not there (rather than squeezing around them like a scared little lamb) and plow right through. I call it “pig bowling”. I love watching the self-absorbed little pins go flying.

  • Dannyboy

    Great article.
    The numbers don’t lie so how come the feminist controlled D.V. industry does?

  • quolls!

    Sole Fathers United Inc. shared a link via Ten Late News.

    48 minutes ago.

    I am appalled that the assistant commissioner actual said on national television that Domestic violence is a men’s problem not womens. Then the white ribbon rep mentioned the horrific incident where a man took the life of his family, matric
    ide is 5 times higher than patricide. Really look at the statistics. Men if you have experienced domestic violence please comment on the Ten Late News post. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS AND CHILDREN… AUSTRALIA SAY’S NO!

  • Shrek6

    Well, here’s another classic example of good old Aussie justice, where a murderous woman got away with her crime, yet again.

    A woman behaving like a typical over privileged demanding child, drugged, tortured, stabbed and then cut the penis off of her husband, who then subsequently died, only got 4 years but will be out of prison some time in 2014.

    As with all these female criminals, they are forgiven and declared to have had some mental illness. And yes, they can be so calculating and precise, even when suffering a mental illness. Yeah, bullshit!

    Here’s the article:

    Now, if a man drugged his wife, tied her up, stabbed her in the neck and tortured her, then cut off her labia and clitoris, then the wife died, how many years in prison do you think he would have got?
    Well actually, let me put that another way.

    How many years OUT of prison would he have enjoyed before he died of old age?

  • Durin007


  • quolls

    Two years ago the courts family consultant wrongly told the judge my son’s “primary attachment” was with the mother, but he never wanted to go to her from a baby.

    From a baby I took care of him and he always wanted to be with me ever since, now 3yo, the judge said I brainwashed he and he needed to protect him from me and gave full custody to the mother.

    I was in trial for a week until 3rd August
    2012, just had the first 1 hour a week “supervised visit”.

    Just got a call from the supervised contact centre Eagleby sally mackedie, wanting to talk about the hour supervised visit with Oskar today, I just said I didn’t want to talk about it.

    The three of these women followed Oskar and I around at arm’s length for the full hour taking notes.

    Oskar said he wanted to go home a few times then he said he wanted to go home with daddy, one of the women got nasty making accusations it was tense trying to have some time with Oskar and these feminist women standing over us, I had to tell Oskar we can’t talk about that and that we aren’t allowed to go home.
    When I had to leave him he grabbed his bag wanting to come with me.

    I’m sure they will report, it is not working out for Oskar even though he loves being with me just so they can make a report so they can stop him seeing me all together.

    I don’t know why they are doing this or what to do about it.

    • Shrek6

      Quolls, I really feel for you Mate. These slimy bottom feeders are doing all they can to aid and abet this mongrel criminal mother of your child, in her attempts to alienate your son from you.
      And I hate to say this, but the reality is that there is a very high probability that they will succeed. If you don’t have a lot of money, which is usually the case, then it is almost impossible to fight.

      Depending on what country you live in, the only thing I can suggest is that you see if you can document everything and have the case exposed here on AVfM.

      But you must check the law that you’re covered by to see if that is allowable.
      Where I am in Australia, if you publicise anything to do with your case that can in anyway identify anyone involved in your case, they will put you in prison.

      I’m sorry i can’t be more positive. And I know exactly what you mean when you say your son would rather be with you. It’s an agony I have gone through also….many years ago.