Nicole Madigan-Everest posted an article at The Punch recently, entitled “Mummywars – how mothers are our own worst enemies”. Her conclusion, as puerile as it is vacuous, is that Mothers should just give up their petty jealousies and support each other, like, you know?

Mothers supporting mothers? Nice and cosy thought, but who does Madigan-Everest think she’s fooling? There isn’t a mother alive who wouldn’t sacrifice another woman’s baby to protect her own. Why? Because women are deeply rooted in the earth, and the earthly drive is to survive, or help one’s genes survive, at all costs. And no matter how moral a woman is, how good a person she is, how kind, how caring, how selfless, there’s no time in her life when she is more attached to Mother Earth than when she has a baby. To a normal woman, nothing is more important than the survival and well-being of her baby.

A ‘good mother’ is, by any definition, one who successfully puts the needs of her child before all else. This can only mean, deep down, she can’t seriously care for another mothers child in a way that she cares for her own. That would require her best efforts, which she must reserve for her own child. She may be kind, helpful and useful, to a point, but this likely has less to do with child care than storing up ‘support credit’ with the other mother against the day when she or her own child are in need. As such, it is more likely to be self-centred than selfless.

This is why a man is so desperately needed in a child’s life. A mother can raise a physically healthy child on her own, perhaps, but will always need support if the child’s emotional, physical and spiritual health is to be optimised. A father is needed to raise a good child. A mother can try to do this, but the self-centred feelings she has for her child, left unchecked, will eventually elicit self-centredness in the child. A father is needed to teach the child how to create worth in others, which is the essence of a civilised society. If we want to live in civilised society, the importance of the father must therefore not be understated. There are thousands of studies that indicate the widespread negative impact on society of single motherhood – increased selfishness, delinquency, drug abuse, criminality, violence, self-loathing, isolation, teen pregnancy, suicide.

Yet, in her article Madigan-Everest makes exactly how many references to fathers? None. Instead, she implies mothers alone comprise the “parenting world” even though she knows the readership of The Punch is more or less equally divided between men and women. She also makes no reference to the critical role of a male in tempering the self-centredness inherent in motherhood. Before you complain that the article was only about mothers, I say it is absolutely about fathers – the calculated absence of reference to them. This omission defines the problem to the very solution Madigan-Everest purports to find – i.e. removal of the father from the parenting equation. Not only is she putting the cart before the horse, she’s trying to persuade her readers that the horse is redundant.

This is a growing problem in Australian society, facilitated by the gender feminist ideologues that have swelled the ranks of the family services sector. If their highly discriminatory National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Domestic Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021 passes through both Houses of Parliament and makes it into Family Law, the role of the father in a child’s life will be so trivialised and undervalued that self-centredness will be the defining character of parenting in the country.

Actually, ‘The Plan’, as it has come to be known, will go much, much further than this. It proposes to criminalise the presence of a father in a child’s life and, it would seem, of men in general. Read this article on what it proposes and try to quell your anger.

Apartheid has begun its ugly march into Australia, supported in no small part by candyapple articles like Madigan-Everest’s that treat Australians like children and men like, well nothing.

I’ve long felt Australia is in grave danger of succumbing to the evil ideologies of radfems on a massive scale. Our feminist Prime Minister is more aptly called the Prime Sister. A Spearhead contributor from Australia had to say this on the day of her ascension.

We have an unmarried, childless, feminist Prime Minister who insists she represents Australians, yet has zero concern for men. Take, for example, the Australian Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, which was passed through the Senate last month. This is the legislation our friend and Member of Parliament George Christenson fought hard to subvert because it aims to change the definition of family violence and abuse under the act to include a host of alleged behaviours, that are now to be determined by what the alleged victim claims to have feared, rather than what actually occurred, was witnessed or can be proven (see clause 3.61 of the Bill).

Here’s the video of George at work which Paul posted at AVfM a while back (watch it all to get some serious lead in your pencil):

One of the feminists responsible for manipulating the public discourse which allowed this Trojan Horse to be wheeled into Canberra without so much as a squeak is none other than Melinda Tankard Reist. You know, the one whose name appears on Agent Orange’s list of SCUM Conference speakers .

Reist’s website is dripping with lies, fradulent statistics, misandry and all manner of anti-male sentiment, yet she is a powerful voice in many areas of public discourse in Australia. Read the the archives. Feel the shaming language and anti-male derision in her views.

As for Prime Minister Gillard, her approval rating is at an all-time low and she is starting to look like the despot politically savvy Australians always suspected she was. Anti-misandry sentiment in Australia is also increasing, so don’t be surprised if this country becomes the next rallying point for the opponents of corrupt feminist governance.

Whether or not that’s a good thing for Australians, time will tell.

Gender violence campaigns like White Ribbon Day and the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence by the Centre for Global Womens Leadership are two examples of campaigns that attempt to shame men into acknowledging that they’re all violent criminals by the fact of their birth. Like Josh Jasper’s baby ad campaign and Verizon’s recent Monster campaign, they present ideas in such a way that provide men with no other response but those society is already primed to see as disingenuous. This view blinds society to the fact that men are also victims of violence and that perpetrators are just as often women. The frustrating thing is that no matter how easily and often the massive public delusion is exposed, the people just keep marching.

In Australia, according to the organisers of White Ribbon Day, the data for the campaign comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey 2005 (reissued 2006), which states that 39.9% of women over 15 have experienced at least one incidence of violence in their lifetime. It is supported by an Australian Institute of Criminology national survey (Mouzos and Makkai, 2004). These studies are publicly available here and here.

When one studies these documents, however, it becomes clear very quickly that the statistic is part of a broader picture about violence in which men are the greater victims. One can’t blame female victims for ignoring the forest for the trees in the aftermath of a traumatic experience but organisers of campaigns have no excuse. Using these statistics only in reference to women makes it easy to forget that violence affects everyone, especially men. It’s also easy to forget that women are violent too, and often excessively. This social blindness makes it easy for feminist ideologues to emotionally manipulate the public, which is exactly what the gender violence campaigns are intended to do.

The feminist narrative is loaded with all kinds of discussion-ending, ironclad “arguments” that use cherry-picked statistics that “prove” men are solely at fault. This makes it easy to justify wildly disproportionate public funding for women’s programs at the expense of that for men in all areas of public spending. Disturbingly, it also allows feminist ideologues to press forward with man-hating legislation such as the Australian Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 which seems to endorse the idea that all men are guilty of violence merely if a woman fears it.

Let’s look more closely at the ABS report:

“An estimated 35% (5,275,400) of men and women have experienced physical assault since the age of 15.”

In other words, one-in-three people (men and women) experience violence in their lifetimes.

“In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men.”

In other words, twice as many men than women experienced violence in the previous 12 months.

“Since the age of 15, there were an estimated 3,065,800 (39.9%) women who experienced violence compared with 3,744,900 (50.1%) men.”

In other words, more men than women experience violence. This is no doubt a primary source of violent behaviour in men, yet there are no mainstream anti-violence programs aimed at helping male victims. Public spending on anti-violence programs for women is an order of magnitude higher than those for men in most western countries.

“29% (2,243,600) of women experienced physical assault compared to 41% (3,031,800) of men.”

Yet violence against women is increasingly labelled a crisis, while violence against men is increasingly mocked – e.g. “man up”, “don’t be a wuss” etc.

“11% (833,200) of women experienced physical threat compared to 22% (1,675,300) of men.”

In other words, more men than women face violence, yet a man is expected to simply deal with it or face ridicule and revulsion, while a woman’s mere fear of violence is sufficient for the Family Court to undermine the very foundations of a civilised justice system (the presumption of innocence for men accused of violence).

“17% (1,293,100) of women experienced sexual assault compared to 4.8% (362,400) of men.”

“4.6% (353,700) of women experienced sexual threat compared to 0.9% (69,500) of men.”

“Since the age of 15, 5.5% (408,100) of men reported experiencing sexual violence compared to 19% (1,469,500) of women.”

One-in-five women and one-in-twenty men experience sexual violence or threat in their lifetimes. Clearly, sexual assualt centres for women are necessary, yet there are twenty times as many government subsidised centres for women as there are for men despite the fact that men are sexually assaulted only four times less.

The second source (Mouzos/Makkai, 2004) used by the White Ribbon people is more sociological in nature, but the figure it cites – i.e. that 57% of women suffer abuse in their lifetime, is too broad to apply only to violence and is clearly stated as an inference only. There also appears to be no evidence that the population samples used in the analysis were independent or unbiased. This information must therefore be treated with caution.

The conclusions I draw from this very brief analysis are threefold:

1. There is nothing to suggest women are special victims of violence, although sexual violence is four times more likely to be against women than men. The opposite is, in fact, true – men are victims of violence in greater numbers than women, and more often.

2. Men are severely neglected in all areas of public discussion and spending when it comes to violence, sexual or otherwise. While there are a few agencies that help men who have been assaulted in terms of legal recourse, there are very few programs that adequately assist men psychologically and emotionally. There are no government programs in Australia to assist men who have been raped. NB. The average man is no better equipped to deal with violence than the average woman – the feelings of anger, fear, neglect, low self-esteem and acute sense of social injustice are the same, possibly more since society tends to feel revulsion towards victimised men.

Read about how rape affects men here.

3. Violence is not just a women’s issue nor can it be said to just be caused by men. The feminist narrative avoids describing the extent to which female victims of violence might have initiated, contributed to, or exacerbated it. Feminists encourage such misnomers as “victim shaming” in an attempt to discredit any evidence that might point to a woman’s guilt, while disavowing any responsibility by the woman, exhorting even when such evidence is irrefutable that “a man must have made her do it”.

Read a list of 275 scholarly articles that indicate violence is committed as often, if not more, by women than men, here.

Here’s an interesting to-do list for women trying to break free of feminism, that’s bobbing up here and there on the internet:

1. Don’t be narcissistic.

Never think you’re more important than men or children. Marketing departments delight in exploiting women’s tendency to think they are. They promote ‘women’s only’ this and that, and women have bought into it. This appears sexist but it is really a marketing ploy that works because women are narcissistic. Companies know they can charge more for goods and services by using the words ‘women only’. Narcissistic women are easily exploitable women. Be neither. Read Ferdinand Bardamu’s Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind.

2. Don’t let others make choices for you.

This should be self-evident but if you’ve allowed yourself to be told what to wear, what to read, what to buy, what to watch, what to eat, how to dress, where to go, how to think – in clubs, gyms, magazines, websites, books, stores and by TV talk show hosts, then stop it. If you’ve ‘needed’ a step-by-step guide through life which you’ve followed like sheep while companies have exploited your weakness, then stop it. Behave like a sheep if you must but obey the sheepdog (husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends), not the wolf. Better yet, be a woman who can think for herself.

3. Get rid of the self-induced schizophrenia.

Don’t insist you’re strong, confident, capable and independent one minute, then weak, frightened and vulnerable the next, especially when you’ve been caught doing something wrong. Don’t change your persona whenever it suits you – choose one that fits and stick with it. Admit when you’ve done something wrong. Don’t suddenly remember that you suffered abuse in the past or have some kind of mental illness or other instability, then use it to get yourself off. If you never sought help for these problems before you were caught, don’t use them as an excuse afterwards. Be a woman who accepts responsibility for her actions. See one here.

4. Don’t let the law take responsibility for crimes women commit.

Speak out against women routinely receiving shorter sentences than men for the same crimes. If the law punishes women as it does children, treat them like children and encourage other women to do so too. Don’t call these women victims and say ‘they’ve suffered enough’ because they’re women. Believe in, and stand up for, equal justice on the basis of gender.

5. Don’t believe everything feminists in the media tell you.

Many serve up slop by the bucket – celebrity gossip, man-shaming tips, rape fantasy stories, etc. TV talk shows are filled with advice on how you can transform yourself into a victim and blame everything on men, while constantly ridiculing them. Partake of more nutritious fare than this. Be aware of the cultural status quo from male and female perspectives.

6. Don’t fake solidarity with other women, especially in public.

Don’t pretend that all women are your best friends when everyone knows nothing could be further from the truth. Openly acknowledge the reality that most women despise each other unless there’s personal advantage in not doing so. Post-feminist men can see through this deception, so lies won’t travel far. Don’t be a liar, especially not a public one.

7. Don’t seek equality with men.

Masculinity and femininity are inherently different. As different parts of the sexual continuum they can’t be defined from each other. Men and women are neither equals nor opposites, but complementary. Actively seek to separate masculinity from femininity in your mind and separate both from the sexual politics that keep them in healthy tension with one another. Don’t exhort that “women can do anything men can do” if you’re just bloviating for the ya-ya sisterhood. If you’re truly capable, measure your achievements against your own potential.

8. Don’t demonize male sexuality.

Male sexuality is a pearl to be cultured not a demon to be exorcised. Don’t teach children that all males are potential rapists or that being a woman is like being a man only better. Both sexes can be evil, both can be virtuous. Empathy, wisdom, grace, mercy, compassion and love are all as masculine as they are feminine. Don’t invaginate your sons by shaming or medicating the masculinity out of them before it matures and don’t impregnate them with corrosive lies about their sexuality. If you want your sons to grow into admirable men, suffuse their egos with promise.

9. Respect male sanctuary.

Men are judged far more harshly than women and are often ridiculed for things that women don’t and often can’t understand. Men don’t have the opportunities for emotional support as do women so their sanctuaries are far more valuable to them than women’s are to women. In these places men can express themselves and vent any pent-up anger, so they are essential for women’s safety everywhere else. Stay clear of these unless you are willing to submit completely to masculinity. If you venture in don’t draw attention to yourself, don’t censor the language, don’t try to control the dialogue and don’t expect protection if you do. Male ground is sacred - treat it like a cathedral.

10. Don’t use shaming tactics.

Don’t accuse men of having anger management issues when they’re angry at injustice. Don’t accuse them of being a threat when they defend themselves, or when they call you out for being a bigot, a hypocrite or a tyrant. Don’t accuse them of having a fear of commitment when they’re merely making a choice between bravery and stupidity. Don’t assess the merit of their arguments on the basis of their attractiveness to you. Don’t attribute their disdain for women to past hurt when it is merely an objective assessment of your sex. Shaming tactics are remnants of childhood so leave them in the nursery if you want to be taken seriously.

11. Be honest about sexual harassment.

If you assert that you have the right to dress as you please and that men should be able to control their sexuality, then also assert a mans right to be protected from you if he finds your clothing or behaviour sexually provocative. If you instead want to control their loss of control for your own enjoyment, accept unpleasant consequences without complaint. If ‘harassment’ – the stares, sexual innuendos, sly touches, and even rape – magically cease to be harassment and become a desirable encounter occasionally, admit that you never wanted (some) men to control themselves in the first place. Don’t expect men to know when it’s right to ‘harass’ you and when it’s not, especially if you’re inconsistent in your sexual intentions and desires. Don’t treat men as exciting and courageous heroes one minute and as monsters intent on tyranny and abuse the next.

12. Speak out against misandry.

The main reason for the proliferation of misandry is that most women have remained silent. Silence in the face of this injustice is both cowardly and foolish. It has allowed loud, obnoxious women to preach hatred with impunity, which has reflected badly on all women. When you speak out against misandry you do all women a favour. Don’t be a coward, don’t be a fool and don’t be silent. See what this looks like here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.