Online Opinion an Australian leftist website recently published a piece by Caitlin Roper a victim blogger and the West Australian coordinator of feminist group Collective Shout titled “The male cloak of invisibility.”
Roper argues that Australia is facing a serious epidemic of “men’s violence against women” manifest as “rape, battering, abuse even murder.” But rather than provide evidence for such an assertion she simply links to other feminist advocacy groups (White Ribbon and UN Women) that are not independent arbiters of the current status of peer-reviewed violence research but rather the well-funded vocal mouthpieces of feminist orthodoxy.
So what is the current evidence concerning partner violence in Australia?
The most authoritative source of information it the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, with information collected in 2005 and again in 2012. Even this research is tainted by feminist ideology and gender bias in that the 2012 sample included only 22% of male respondents (a decrease from 27% in 2005). None the less it showed on both occasions that men account for at least one in three of the victims of partner violence in Australia, but more importantly that the vast majority of perpetrators of dating and partner violence against men were female – only 6 or 7 per cent of incidents involved same-sex violence.
In relation to sexual assault the 2012 Personal Safety Survey found that almost one in three victims of sexual assault during the previous 12 months were male whilst more than one in three victims of physical and/or sexual abuse before the age of 15 were male.
Since 1989 the Australian Institute of Criminology through the National Homicide Monitoring Program has collated data on homicides. Rather then epidemic rates of partner homicide, current rates are reported to be at a historic low, with at least one in three victims of intimate partner homicide being male. This of course is likely to be an underestimate as homicide by proxy usually by a man on behalf of a woman will not be recorded as a partner homicide and typical female methods of homicide such as poisoning may go undetected.
Roper uses well-worn feminist techniques of conflation and selective citation in an attempt to stimulate moral outrage. Combining statistics like one in three women will be victims of partner abuse in their lifetime with a few anecdotal examples of the very worst cases, attempt’s to paint all partner violence as this severe form (intimate terrorism) when in fact a vast majority of that “1 in 3 “ group will have only ever experienced some minor relationship conflict, which according to current definitions could be as trivial as a mean word or a threatening look.
In typical feminist rhetorical style Roper takes the opportunity to infuse her article with overt male hatred and repeated references to “naming the problem” of “men’s violence against women” and the “gendered nature of men’s violence” as if no other type of violence and certainly not any form of female violence exists.
I guess Caitlin has not checked out the statistics on: non–therapeutic termination of pregnancy, post-viability and post-birth termination of pregnancy/the fetus, infanticide, neonaticide, filicide, women’s predominant roles in child abuse, neglect, elder abuse or the extent of women’s use false allegations of abuse as a tool of abuse. It’s as if these aspects of female violence are “softened or made non-existent” by a complete refusal on the part of feminists to even acknowledge them let alone NAME them.
No feminist piece on partner violence would be complete without the ludicrous claims that this “men’s violence against women” is accepted tolerated and even condoned by society. I have yet to see a single reputable person argue violence against women is ok. But female violence against men of course IS routinely minimized and excused, after all what did he do to deserve it? This is one of the issues explored by Dr Nerdlove in this excellent article “Invisible Victims: Men in Abusive Relationships” with thanks to Judgy Bitch for sharing the link.
Psychologist Adam Blanch, a father and therapist with both clinical and research experience of male victims of partner abuse, wrote a thoughtful and well referenced response to Roper’s polemic titled The fallacious stereotype of ‘male violence’, and why it’s being sold to you. It is well worth a read.
Roper didn’t like Blanch’s response and took the opportunity launch an ad hominem attack against him (and the very concept of men’s human rights in general) titled ‘Bash a bitch’: How Men’s Rights Activists Hate Women sub-titled A Voice for Men: harassing and abusing those who defend women.
Her lack of any real understanding of the field of partner violence is clear when she parrots other prominent feminists and the media in using repeatedly debunked factoids such as “Violence is also the biggest cause of injury or death for women between 18 and 45.” Let Tom Voltz educate you on that one, Caitlin.
Rather than responding to the very valid points in Blanch’s article Roper makes only fallacious misrepresentations of men’s human rights, its advocates and AVFM. I believe that’s called “derailing the conversation,” Caitlin.
Part of that derailing involved out of context rehashing of an old satirical article by Paul Elam just like those protesting the Detroit conference did. Of course that article continues to broaden the exposure of AVFM and as was intended attract new interest to men’s human rights; fortunately some people understand satire – thanks for that Caitlin.
She goes on to claim
“A Facebook group with links to MRA group ‘A Voice For Men’ has been formed for the purpose of harassing and abusing Collective Shout members in Townsville.”
Not to my knowledge and I reckon as the Australian News Director for AVFM and resident of Townsville I would probably know about it. Oh hang on “with links to,” covers all manner of sins, doesn’t it? Well if someone reading a website, is a “link to” then yeah, one of the group members had a link to AVFM just like I have a link to News Corp, Fairfax, Blogger, Facebook and many other media and social outlets so clearly anything I do is endorsed and ratified by those organisations.
I decided to contact the group and conversed with one of their number and whilst I don’t agree with their use of vulgarities in expressing their opinions (this tactic is best left to Clementine Ford a feminist blogger with limited vocabulary) he seems like a reasonable bloke and there is scope for developing a link with AVFM and perhaps even forming a local men’s human rights collective. This is something I will explore when I return from the Detroit conference. Thanks for making the connection for me Caitlin.
What is clear is that Roper has “links to” the virulent end of anti-male hate because she condemns the exposure of gender bigots who advocate eugenics and genderocide such as Vilet Tiptree / Pamela O’Shaughnessy. Yes, she has discovered the underbelly of hate at Radfemhub and it would appear she is fully on board with the agenda, even Betty McLellen has come out of retirement with comments to support her. Meanwhile Pamela O’Shaughnessy has released a post dated (29 July 2014) retrospective of her outing as a vicious gender extremist .
If one has any inclination to understand why Caitlin Roper has become embroiled with this band of gender lunatics you will gain insight by reading her victims blog Brighter Than Before My journey of recovery from sexual abuse. (I’m not there yet) in which she details 12 months of allegedly repeated rapes of which she remembers very little, all allegedly by the same boyfriend that she continued to see. Alleged rapes that, despite gaining a restraining order against said boyfriend at the conclusion of the relationship, were not reported then – rather, she decided to wait 10 years to report and is now surprised that the police won’t investigate. Well, they would but apparently according to Roper only if the alleged rapist agrees to talk to them! Roper’s response is straight out of Dr Betty’s feminist therapy but more on that and “collective shout” later…