Australian Misandry

Julia Gillard: The Professional Lair..

2012-02-14T12:15:00.000-08:00

Column - Is your Prime Minister a liar?

Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:27am

THE question we now face: Is the Prime Minister of Australia a liar?

Her Four Corners disaster on Monday night is part of a pattern.

Julia Gillard deceives and, I suspect, lies. And what’s killing her is that she does it so badly.

Here are my seven deadliest examples.

The first: Just a “part-time” typist

The Socialist Forum was a radical group that helped to bring former members of the Communist Party into the Labor Party.

In 2007, asked about her involvement, Gillard said “many a long year ago” - mostly when “I was a university student” - she’d merely done “part-time clerical and administrative work” for this “debating society”.

In fact, she’d been on the forum’s management committee, organising events and giving speeches. The parliamentary register of interests states she was still a member from 1998 to 2002.

The second: “I did not say that”

On July 6, 2010, Gillard announced she’d talked to East Timor’s President about her plan for a detention centre for boat people.

Her Immigration Minister said our “unauthorised boat arrivals will be returned to East Timor”.

On July 8, after East Timor’s Prime Minister said “what plan?”, Gillard rewrote history: “I did not say that ... I’m not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location.”

On July 9, mocked for flip-flopping, she conceded: “I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor.”

The third: “There will be no carbon tax”

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.”

A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.

The fourth: Fooling Andrew Wilkie

In 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie agreed to make Gillard prime minister after she promised to make all poker machines have mandatory pre-commitment.

Last month, scared of the backlash, Gillard broke her promise.

The fifth: “A bit of a lark”

In 2010, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb told a story of deception that must have come from Gillard.

In 2004, Gillard was Labor’s health spokeswoman, and “one night ...fired off a despairing text message to a friend, confessing exasperatedly that health was too confusing for her”.

To her horror, she accidentally sent the message to Tony Abbott, then the health minister. Fearing he’d embarrass her, she arranged to talk to a regional radio station.

“During the interview she laughingly confessed to having sent tongue-in-cheek text messages to her opponent feigning frustration with the minefield of health reform.

“Had (her email) been raised in Parliament, she would musically have read aloud from the transcript, demonstrating that the whole thing was a bit of a lark.”

The sixth: “The Marriage Act will stay unchanged”

Gillard before the 2010 election promised not to allow same-sex marriage.

“We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged,” she said.

“And that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected.”

A Labor MP this week introduced a private member’s bill to allow same-sex marriage, which the Labor Party now supports.

Says Gillard: “The undertakings I gave to the churches are undertakings that I’m abiding by ... There won’t be a government bill.”

The seventh: I did not plot

Gillard yesterday said she’d never plotted to remove Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

“I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked him for a ballot,” she said.

But on Monday came her embarrassing exchange with Four Corners reporter Andrew Fowler.

Fowler: Did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister, were preparing a (victory) speech that you subsequently delivered?

Gillard: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.

Fowler: My question was simply whether or not you knew.

Gillard: I heard your question and I’ve answered it.

My list does not include many of Gillard’s broken promises or false claims about her “carbon tax”.

No, I’ve listed only the seven deceptions I think damn her most.

So, is your Prime Minister a liar?

Gillard Employing More Monkeys..

2012-01-31T10:56:00.000-08:00

The desperation of the Gillard Government in trying to sell the ABN, demonstrates desperation as they try on the Soviet Union style, communist era propaganda methods. Why not, how much closer can Gillard's Government get to communism without actually giving that name what they would like it to be. Could change it to the Gillard's Peoples Republic of Australia and guess which left wing lunatic they would assign the position of puppet head of state..

Why not the current "Rudd Slave", governer general, she has in one term already destroyed the GG office and reputation, dragged it down the drain just like other left wing lunatics have done with every else they touch, eg. Gillard, Roxin, Wong just to name a few. Totally hopeless as well as being dysfunctional..

ART FOR LABOR’S SAKE

Tim Blair

Wednesday, February 01, 2012 at 03:21am

Dance, arts monkeys! Dance for money:

Artists are being offered grants of up to $100,000 by the federal government to create “visionary” works promoting the controversial $36 billion National Broadband Network.
The Australia Council for the Arts has called for submissions on creating “visionary arts projects”.
An initial funding pool of $300,000 has been set aside for the projects, which would have to demonstrate the network’s cultural benefits and the “new opportunities” broadband creates for the arts.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull isn’t impressed:

“So now Australian artists will be recruited to promote the NBN,” Mr Turnbull said.
“It reminds us of Soviet artists being recruited to glorify the heroic labour of the No.3 V.I. Lenin Missile Factory.
“What’s next? Will the Flying Fruit Fly Circus be given a grant to develop a show involving larger and larger backflips?”

Actually, so far as I understand things, that’s exactly how the Flying Fruit Fly Circus operates. Add taxpayer money: children fly through the sky! Subtract taxpayer money: children lose crucial tumbling skills. Arts Minister Simon Crean (the name and title mesh so naturally) defends his government’s creative bribes:

“You only have to look at the submissions to the National Cultural Policy discussion paper to see that artists and those in the creative industries understand the significance of the NBN for reaching new audiences and encouraging innovation,” he said.
“It’s only the Coalition who doesn’t understand this. The Coalition’s cultural policy is to roll back high-speed broadband, stifle innovation, suppress creativity and send artists back to the Dark Ages.”

If that really was the Coalition’s policy, polling would be sensational.
(Via Tim T.)

Australia abandons its children to abuse..

2012-01-10T04:33:00.000-08:00

January 9, 2012Kyle LovettFEATURED, FEMINIST LIES

Australia abandons its children to abuse

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′ is that the plan doesn’t address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been intentionally omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council’s plan.
Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun “their,” regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their childrens lives. But perhaps the government’s failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let’s take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to guage the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

THE EXCLUSION OF CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a cbild’s well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.
In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G & Hall G (1996) [8] and Tomison A (1996) [9] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia.
In 1997, the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published ‘Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996′ for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus & Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [10-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

“The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations.” [10-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

“In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)”[10-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

40% single parent female
46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators)
6% single parent male
8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. This information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser, unless it was sexual abuse.[11]
(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Click to enlarge

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

“Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers.”[11-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women’s violence can be explained away.

“This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’…..I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another.”[11-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

“In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent & Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.
Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that “the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented.” Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.” [11]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia’s numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

Click to enlarge

For State government, or key members within, to intentionally cover up the sex and relationship of child abusers in reporting important child welfare statistics, simply because 40% of child abuse cases are perpetrated by single mothers, it may well constitute a criminal conspiracy. Particularly if children are harmed as a result. Since Parliament allocates monies to combat child abuse, decisions to stop keeping these crucial statistics must be seen as at least passively endangering the welfare of Australian children.
It is also important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women’s violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.
This kind of conduct has been previously identified and addressed in a paper by the internationally recognized expert researcher on Domestic Violence, Dr. Murray Straus. In his paper, Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, he catalogs methods used to conceal and distort evidence on symmetry in partner violence, which has become a widespread corruption issue in western academe. As Straus writes:

Method 1. Suppress Evidence - Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gende r symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).[24]

Using this method and others, The National Council attempts to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia’s problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse has been intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies. Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit codemns Australian children to lives of invisible pain, for which no help will be allowed, by edict of the government.
It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it’s a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. And it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.

References
(1)The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx
(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx
(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397
(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf
(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx
(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics
(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)
(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra
(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)
(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2
(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies
(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.
(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml
(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62
(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71
(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680
(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx
(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument
(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6
(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical
(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
(23)http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22
(24) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Written byKyle Lovett

13 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Important Message for ALL MEN: Please Read..

2012-01-08T12:46:00.000-08:00

Here we have an explanation of what feminists, in this case radical feminists and the Gillard Government, have in mind for ALL AUSTRALIAN MEN and this is just an example of what is coming your way as well. This legislation is already in Place in Tasmania, AUSTRALIA and it will ensure that Men are jailed, without any opportunity to claim a fair trial, no opportunity to present any counter argument and will be taken to prison on any claim made by any female under any circumstances..

Fifty percent of all men in jail in Tasmania are there because of this draconian piece of legislation. They are served with a court order for one year to not go within 100 meters his own home or see his children and all his accounts, everything he owns will be confiscated and given to the person making the claim. No proof is necessary, no witnesses required, no doctors reports required, no evidence has to be submitted, only on the word of one individual will ensure this action to takes place..

This action will be enforced even when he is not guilty or if the female is the abuser. There is no comeback whatsoever. Even if the claimant retracted her accusation and informs the Police that she has lied, nothing will change..

This release identifies precisely how this new legislation is going to work and this will become LAW in AUSTRALIA within a very short period of time. Possibly over the next month or two if we do NOTHING. Ignore this at your own risk..

New Legislation Designed to Persecute Men and Deny his basic Human Rights.

If you are male and living in Australia, this is the probably the most important email you'll read this year.

This message is about the highly discriminatory National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Domestic Violence Against Women and Their Children, 2009-2021 (henceforth described as 'The Plan').

The Plan is long (200+ pages), so you might like to save it to your desktop and read it little by little, but it's essential that you do read it as it may affect your freedom. If you don't, you may well find yourself in jail one day - minus legal entry to your house, access to your children and any reputation you think you once had, all without doing a single thing wrong. Please share it with every other responsible men you know so they too will learn how their civil liberties are being dangerously undermined under the guise of reducing domestic violence against women.

The most important liberty that will be lost is the presumption of innocence (for men, not women) - one of the foundation stones of a civilised legal system. If the draconian legislation proposed by The Plan is passed through both Houses of Parliament and into Family Law, the legal system in Australia will no longer automatically protect men from false DV and rape accusations and the government will take control of the family. Adoption of The Plan will, essentially, legalise Apartheid and enforce it if necessary at the point of a gun.

Domestic violence and sexual assault are serious crimes, so any wise and just plan to properly identify and reduce them should be applauded. The Plan, however, is neither wise, just nor worthy of applause. It presumes women have no agency when under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that all men are violent offenders by default. Read the document and learn for yourself what could happen to both men and women if The Plan passes into law. Once you've read it, forward it to others with a copy of this message and get active. Write to your MP, raise awareness, talk to the press, raise some placards at your local shopping centre, take your protest to Canberra. Do whatever suits you, but please do something. If you do nothing, prepare to lose your civil liberties via the most draconian legislation since the anti-semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Yes, it is that serious.

Here's a summary of what will happen if The Plan is endorsed by both Houses of Parliament:

1. The Australian Government will assume that women never lie about domestic violence or sexual assault, even when child custody is at stake and the temptation to lie is extreme.

2. The definitions of Domestic Violence will be broadened to include acts such as striking inanimate objects, making purchases without consulting a female partner, not listening to a female partner or even disciplining a dog. The same actions will not be considered DV if the actor is female (see item 3 below).

3. The legal redefinition of domestic violence will exclude male victims from that legal definition - i.e. men and boys who are assaulted by female relatives will not have legal rights as victims.

4. DV and Sexual assault cases will go to the front of the court docket (presumably ahead of first degree murder).

5. There will be lower standards for arrest and dual arrest may be forbidden where violence was reciprocal - i.e. police will not be allowed to arrest a woman if both partners were violent (The Plan presumes that female violence is self-defense in almost all cases, despite a substantial and growing body of evidence that indicates otherwise).

6. Protection Orders will be issued with lowered amount of proof, such as an accusation or belief from a specialist that violence "might" occur in the future - i.e. a woman's fear of violence, rational or not, justified or not, proven or not, would be enough to arrest a man and hold him without bail.

7. No-Contact orders will be issued much more often, and for non-criminal cases - i.e. a man could be separated from his children on the whims of their mother, without any proof of danger from him, and even when he is the only source of protection for his children against her own abuse and violent behaviour.

8. The burden of proof will lie with the accused to end a No-Contact order - i.e. the man must prove he wasn't violent, thereby ending the presumption of innocence, but only when the innocent person is male.

9. Ouster/ Exclusion Orders will be issued more frequently to remove an accused man (not a perpetrator, necessarily) from his residence, as well as removed from lease - i.e. make him homeless, even if his earnings paid for the house and everything in it, including the children's food, clothing and education).

10. A father's rights will be removed in cases where the State (read: DV industry specialist) feels that the father should never be allowed to see his children until they are adults - i.e. no conviction will be needed, just the word of a State DV specialist.

11. Men accused of any DV, regardless of conviction or criminal charges, will go on a national registry - i.e. a man's reputation will be potentially destroyed, together with his friendships, family relationships and job prospects permanently on the basis of an accusation alone.

12. Court procedures will change to limit or even disallow cross examination of "victim" (i.e. a woman who lies about DV may never be held accountable by the courts).

13. Cases of criminal accusations relating to DV and sexual assault will not be dropped ander any circumstances - i.e. a lying woman who wants to recant her false accusations before a hearing will be prohibited from doing so.

14. Pre-requests for allowing bail for an accused man (not a woman) will become extremely difficult - i.e. the presumption of innocence would be removed when men are accused of DV or sexual assault.

15. A method in which it is legally acceptable for a man and a women to engage in sexual intercourse will be formalised. A man will have to verbally ask permission, and receive a verbal affirmative answer, and be able to prove it in court, for each sexual act, even with his wife.

16. Broader scope when the state feels that female agency is no longer hers to give consent. Woman can remove consent after the fact if she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol - i.e. a woman would be deemed not to have agency when she is affected by drugs or alcohol, thus it would become the man's responsibility (even if he himself was affected by drugs or alcohol), to know precisely what his partner (or wife) had imbibed, how she was affected and how quickly she would be compos mentis (with medical precision) prior to any sexual encounter with her. NB. Men, however, will be assumed to always have agency when affected by drugs or alcohol at the time of a sexual encounter.

17. An accused man must show proof of consent when using certain defenses such as "mistaken consent" are used. Mistaken consent means he felt that she gave consent, but she denies giving it. In other words, a woman would be able to withdraw consent should she regret a sexual encounter at any time afterwards, and the man would have to provide evidence of a lie or go to jail for 20 years.

18. A "Gendered policy of arrest" will apply for DV and sexual assault cases - i.e. the man will ALWAYS be arrested, even when the woman is blatantly and obviously the guilty party.

19. The State will pay for the mother and children to remain in a residence with "crisis payments" and will pay for high tech security features - i.e. The State will keep children with their mother, under high security, away from their father, even if she lied about DV or sexual assault or if she is the (more) violent and abusive party.

20. The State will have the right to take children into State custody if the mother wants their children to have a relationship with the father, if the "Specialist" feels that this would be detrimental to the children in any manner - i.e. The DV specialist has the power to keep a father from his children until they turn 18, on the mother's say-so, even when the mother has lied about DV or is the greater danger to her children than their father.

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights..

2012-01-06T16:21:00.000-08:00

When one reads something like this, you could be excused for thinking that it's not really true. How can this be in this day and age when everyone is so enlightened. Human rights is instituted, surely, in law. The bad old days of fascism and witch hunts have been relegated to history as a joke. We now have legal rights as human beings to go about our own business and to live a life free of tyranny and injustice, surely..

Apparently not. The forces at work in Canberra are not a force of consisting of a group of people who are looking to enhance our lives but to destroy it. Radical feminists have already demonstrated what their end goal is and now we are seeing those same people that we exposed on the RADFEM HUB, who are directly linked to the Australian Government, introducing laws that will not only create disharmony but bias and hate. The reality of all these recommended laws are indeed mind boggling and we have only just starting to poke and prod it's reality..

Those radical feminists will, if they are not stopped, introduce laws that are so archaic and debilitating as to make George Orwell's book "1984" appear be a normal everyday event. This is not tyranny as we have witnessed in the past, it's apartheid between the sexes in the very worst degree..

Wait until the facts are released as at the moment, if we were to introduce them, it would just be too much to take in. This is only the beginning..

January 6, 2012Paul ElamFEMINIST GOVERNANCE

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights

As chief cook and bottle washer at AVfM I have been in the dubious position of gathering information from across the globe on the negative impact of feminist governance.
Last year we addressed matters like the “Dear Colleague” letter, which effectively ended the right of due process for college men accused of any sort of sexual misconduct. We covered the unthinkable events in India, where men have been assaulted and even thrown from moving trains for daring to set foot in train car reserved for women; where politicians have suggested bounties be paid to women who beat their husbands in public. We exposed circumstances in Sweden, where school children are being indoctrinated into the virulent and hateful ideology of Valerie Solanas. Just last night we did a radio show as a follow up to Robert O’Hara’s investigative piece on the plan to coerce 28,000,000 African men into being circumcised. And of course there is the ongoing exposure of ideologues at Radfem Hub, a group of well-placed feminists who glorify murder, child abuse, eugenics and infanticide.
It appears now that 2011 was just a warm up for 2012.

Over the next several days you will find a series of articles on this website regarding an assault on human rights that will sweep the Australian continent. The scope of aplanned campaign by the Australian government (The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021) is so far reaching that presenting it without overwhelming readers has been a significant challenge for myself, Kyle Lovett and John the Other. The sheer volume of the content, as well as the staggering loss of civil rights that Australian men are about to suffer is formidable.
The amount and complexity of the material to come is sufficient that I felt it warranted to prepare you with this article, which in essence is written solely for the purpose of bracing you for the onslaught of information; to, if I may request your indulgence, tell you what you are about to be told.
These machinations have now reached the stage of action, and are about to be implemented. They involve, but are by no means limited, to the following:

The systemic enabling and promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women.
The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition.
Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence.
Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends.
Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the state to the defendant. The accused will be forced to prove he did not commit an act of violence.
The legal redefinition of rape, and subsequent shift of the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove the he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.

These actions are not individual initiatives to change isolated and different laws. They are all part of a package deal referred to as “The Plan.” It is a far reaching, invasive effort of monumental scope designed to eliminate the civil rights of men and children across the Australian continent, and as you will see in the upcoming articles it is well on its way to becoming reality.
The articles will explain “The Plan” in detail, and show the egregiously corrupt methods that ideologues employed within the Australian government are using in order to pass it all through to law.
For instance, Australian research up to 1997 demonstrated empirically that women, overwhelmingly, are the perpetrators of physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of children – compared with men.

After 1997, the Australian government ceased requesting and recording information on the sex of offenders against children in the home, and all the subsequent proposals in “The Plan” run on the assumption that the male is the primary perpetrator.
What you will also learn in the upcoming series of articles is that all of the proposed legislation is specifically gender targeted. The suggested laws will be written with the protection of women and the punishment of men in mind, and will leave scores of abuse victims even more vulnerable than they were before implementation of “The Plan.” This will be particularly true for children who will frequently have the father, their only protector from an abusive mother, removed from the home and incarcerated without bail as the “identified problem.”
What you will also learn is that the suppression and distortion of scientific research so that it appears to support “The Plan,” has reached pervasive levels in Australia. Such a level of corruption is occurring with complicity and enabling from within the Australian government.
Australia, you will learn, is about to be thrust into the legal Dark Ages, beginning in 2012.
A Voice for Men, I am proud to say, is a very popular website in Australia. It is our hopes that this series of articles will give our friends Down Under something on which to take action with their elected representatives. Perhaps it is not too late to prevent the majority of the damage.
There is some action already. Dr. Greg Canning, an Australian oncologist, has formed an organization to foster an initiative to address these issues. I am going to close this piece with his announcement, hoping that it reaches the eyes of as many Australian citizens as possible.

An open letter to all Australian Men’s Advocacy Groups

There exist in Australia many men’s advocacy groups, albeit with differences in focus. This indicates that many men are not being treated fairly in our country that prides itself on providing a fair go for all.
In the lead up to the next federal election, I have a vision, that if all the men’s groups in Australia unite to jointly lobby for men’s issues to be put on the national political agenda, we can make a difference.
To this end I ask all groups to commence a joint dialogue with a view to supporting a delegation to go to Canberra and lobby for change.
The focus of the delegation will be open for discussion, but I believe it should present a small number of broad objectives, which could include:

Establishment of an Office for Men, and Minister fo background-origin: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; list-style-type: none; padding-left: 25px;">A requirement for intellectual honesty and peer review in the data being used to drive social policy for example the “National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010 to 2022”
A requirement to address the increasing problem of fatherlessness in Australia, its determinants and consequences.
A focus on Male specific health and education issues.

Whilst it is acknowledged there will be philosophical differences amongst the groups, I have little doubt that all would agree with these types of objective.
In the first instance I have commenced a discussion group that can be accessed at http://menscoalition.blogspot.com/
This is a private site and you will need to be invited to join the discussions please email gregcanning@me.com to request access.
Please log on to the blog and in the comments section of the first post introduce yourself and your organisation or group and share your thoughts on forming or joining a “Coalition of Australian Men.”
We can then see where the discussion leads us, but I believe if our joint voices can finally be heard nationally as those of reason and egalitarianism, in the land of the fair go for all, perhaps our sons and daughters will enjoy a brighter future.
Please pass this message onto anyone you believe would be genuinely committed to such a cause.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Greg Canning

Written byPaul Elam

388 POSTS IN TOTAL

The ABS and the Feminist Lies and Misinformation..

2012-01-03T14:15:00.000-08:00

Here is a legitimate response by staff at the ABS (Aus Bureau of Stats) which shows the bias and downright misinformation feminists have introduced to further their agenda. They have indeed provided studies that have the answer to begin with. Endless misinformation and downright lies are the order of the day.. It did not go unnoticed.

A QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY
THE FOLLOWING comments were made by male and female staff members of the Australian Bureau of Statistics using the bureau’s internal e-mail after the Office for the Status of Women approached it in late 1994 to conduct a survey called Male Violence Against Women,
Freely available information on this survey has been pretty thin compared to that usually available during the development of other surveys which I have had to deal with. I think part of the reason for the lack of freely available information is that those responsible for the survey want to minimise the involvement of men. In fact just today I was told that is the case and a special exemption from sexual discrimination is about to be provided, so it looks like I won 't be involved.
Australia currently lacks a comprehensive study of domestic violence with reliable and valid information. Perhaps public funds would be better spent getting such a comprehensive picture first. Would it not be possible to convince the powers that be that, as there is already a survey being funded to gather some of the data, they should take advantage of this and with the addition of a minuscule more funding extend the survey to cover all forms of domestic violence?
Now that a number of surveys in the ABS are being financed by users, it is imperative that we remain objective and that we ensure that the methodology of such collections is soundly based. In the past, I have raised with senior management the possibility that in, the current environment we are in danger of dancing to the piper's tune with surveys funded in this way. Now it appears my concerns are well-founded I have it on good authority that the methodology for this survey is flawed and it appears that it is being deliberately manipulated by OSW to achieve the survey results that they desire.
Has anyone been following the development of the Survey Of Violence Against Women? It is becoming increasingly clear that the Office of the Status of Women are not interested in getting an accurate picture of domestic violence nor are they interested only in violence against women. They are interested only in violence against women by men. We should be asking if this survey is in the best interest of the public. What purpose does it serve? What uses will such data be put to? I have serious concerns about this survey and do not feel that the ABS should be involved if it continues to develop along these lines.

Turning Aus. into Sweden, Radical Feminists in AUS.

2011-12-30T14:38:00.000-08:00

December 30, 2011Kyle LovettFEMINISM, FEMINIST GOVERNANCE

A path to Australian apartheid

(The first part of this series on Australia can be found here)
Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;

“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]

Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]
In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:

“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”

She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;

“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]

Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;

“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]

But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:

“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]

The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective that entailed a goal of destroying what she saw as a patriarchy and associated with radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys. Plibersek also believed that women and children are the only parts that constituted a family and felt that the parental responsibly of raising disabled children lies solely with the state. Plibersek hand chosen, as her legal expert to the National Council, Judy Jackson, was a “committed feminist” who has openly disregarded due process of law for men, ignored compelling data or research when drafting radical legislation and has been often accused of “incessant sexism” by her fellow colleagues. [6]
It is not known exactly how the Rudd Labor Government choose the 11 members of the National Council in May 2008, but their members were: Libby Lloyd AM (Chair),Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Moira Carmody, Dorinda Cox, Maria Dimopoulos, Melanie Heenan, Rachel Kayrooz, Andrew O’Keefe, Vanessa Swan, Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Woodbridge. [8][9] The council in conjunction with Plibersek, Jackson and Macklin, sought the help of several other academics, domestic violence experts and other individuals that the report refers to as “critical friends” to complete and finalize what became known as ‘Time for Action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021‘.[19][20][27]
The Sources of New National Policy
The sources of data, research and analysis that were gathered and referenced by the national council and used as justification for their plan were formally acknowledged in the Government’s press releases in early 2009. Those sources were:[24][25][26]

The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC)
The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA)
The Women’s Services Network (WESNET)
Women, Domestic Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASSV)
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) were also used, but only as the information they provided was delivered via other research papers and analytical reports.

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.
The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane Bell, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Renate Klein, Jocelynne A. Scutt, Mary Lucille Sullivan, Denise Thompson, Bronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]
Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]
Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Dayfor the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.

“Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network): peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.”

Many of these names will reappear again, including WESNET and its role in Australia’s ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, but what is of primary note here the last name mentioned in the article, a women’s rights advocate named Julieanne Le Comte. I did an extensive search for a women’s rights advocate under that name in Australia, or indeed, anyone connected with a domestic violence or battered shelter group, and found nothing except some links to some very old internet list servs about feminist science fiction.
According to the AO files, Julieanne Le Comte is the person who is also known under the alias Rain Lewis. Rain is the owner and the main administrator of the Radfem Hub and forum, and she was also a speaker at the 2011 Pert SCUM conference. [19] Dr. Winter is also public friends on Facebook with Rain Lewis, as well as the organizers of the Perth SCUM conference Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher. Does this mean that Dr. Winter is saying that Le Comte is an Australian women’s rights advocate leader because she runs the Radfem hub and forum, which as we all know, often discusses things like violence against men and infanticide?
WESNET, Political Action and Patriarchy
Dr. Betty McLellan has been on the Australian feminist scene for some twenty years, and has written several books published under Susan Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press. [20] McLellan has also hosted or chaired several conferences and gatherings of mostly radical feminists, including the 2002 Townsville International Women’s Conferenceand the 2007 International Feminist Summit. [15][16] Her Feminist Agenda coalition was also co-founded in 2002 by Dr. Joanne Baker, a Senior Professor at James Cook University, Chantal Oxenham, who works for the Australian Department of Human Services in the Northern Queensland Service Zone as a Regional Manager and Coralie McLean. [21][22][23]
The 2002 Townsville International Women’s 5 day conference hosted about 50 different feminist speakers from 15 countries. Over a dozen panels and workshops took place as well, several of which took place in women only sessions. From the Australian speakers, a large portion of them were some of the same radical feminists we’ve seen above; McLellan, Jeffreys, Winter,Scutt, Renate Klein, Hawthorne, Sullivan, Baker and Oxenham.
What stands out was the large contingent of WESNET board members, who were part of four different panels. Over the past decade, WESNET has had only about two dozen board members, the most prominent two being Pauline Woodbridge and Julie Oberin. WESNET describes itself as:

“Established in 1992, the Women’s Services Network (WESNET) is a national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence. With almost 400 members across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations and individuals including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses and information/ referral services.”[29]

While having individual speaking assignments, here are the four panels in which WESNET board members were involved. (WESNET board members in bold)

Panel – “Many Pieces Make a Whole – Providers of Anti-violence Education (PAVE)” Members - Jennyne Dillon, Ines Zuchowski, Joanne Baker, John Brown, Catherine Bessant, Jo Stewart, Shirley Slann, Jane Collyer, Pauline Woodbridge

Panel -”Joined Up Responses to Violence Against Women – Townsville Women’s Services Collaboration” Members - Lindy Edwards, Morgan King and Pauline Woodbridge

Panel – “Domestic and Family Violence Peak Round Table – Reflections, Future Directions/Strategic Directions for Advocacy and Lobbying” Members - Julie Oberin, Pauline Woodbridge, Shirley Slann, Ara Cresswell, Maxene Schulte

Panel – “National Strategy for Family Law Act Reform” Members - Julie Oberin, Ara Cresswell, Pauline Woodbridge

Obviously the focus of much of the conference was on consolidation of feminist groups within Australia, to lobby and advocate for new laws and new programs on a national level. Indeed, less than two years latter, in March 2004, five members of the 2002 Townsville Feminist conference (under the banner of the Feminist Agenda Coalition)went to the capital Canberra and met with several Labor Party leaders.[30] They discussed their idea for a blueprint of a national plan, which basic concepts were laid out in Townsville. Interestingly enough, many of the same 2002 Townsville plan basics were incorporated into the 2007 Rudd Labor Party platform, which led to the ‘National Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.
This topic will be addressed further in the next article, but two items are very important from this 2004 Canberra trip:

Only one of the five Feminist Agenda delegation that went was a WESNET representative. The other four were into differing degrees of radical feminism and were led by McLellan.

The politicians the delegation met with are some of the politicians who were directly involved with the 2009 national plan, including Tanya Plibersek and Jenny Macklin.

At the 2007 International Feminist Summit, which was a far more radical feminist conference than 2002, saw Woodbridge and Oberin of WESNET take a much larger role individually. They both even gave back to back speeches:
Pauline Woodbridge – “Challenging Patriarchy in Men’s behaviour Change Programs”
Julie Oberin – “Perpetrators of domestic violence: Can we? Should we?”
Less than 6 months after this conference took place Rudd’s Labor party won the election and took power. And less than 10 months after the 2007 conference Pauline Woodbridge would be appointed (from all indications by Plibersek) to the National Council chaired by Libby Lloyd. Woodbridge and Oberin, under the banner of WESNET, would go on to play a crucial role in the analysis and direction of the National Council. In fact, not only is WESNET listed as one of the main sources for information, Woodbridge and Oberin, along with the WESNET organization were recognized and used extensively as references and analysis in the 2008 Flinders University Synthesis Report; another of the Council’s primary sources.
From Woodbridge and Plibersek past speeches and remarks, and by the policies outlines in the report, much of what was recommended seemed to draw heavily from the feminist theory of Patriarchy. Furthermore, if the 2007 International Feminist Summit was any indication, WESNET’s top two people were increasingly moving in radical feminist circles, including interaction with people like Jeffreys, McLellan, Winter, Bell, Sullivan, Hawthorne, Klein, Catharine MacKinnon, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Ryl Harrison and Beth Tinning.[16] The question is if they did become radicalized, how much? And to what extent did their influence with the National Council’s sources and analysis moved in a radical direction?
Other question remain, which we will examine in the next article:

Who were the other members of the National Council and what is their story? Were any of them less than friendly to Feminist ideology than Plibersek, Jackson or Woodbridge?
What exact data and statistics were used? Was the data accurate and factual? Was the information used honestly and in context?
What did the 2004 Feminist Agenda delegation to Canberra produce, and how much of McLellan’s agenda did the Labor party buy into?
What other feminists and radical feminists were used as sources for the study?
What role did the White Ribbon Foundation play?
What exactly is the plan, and how does the Australian government intend to enact it?
How does this fit into the already extensive Australian governmental agencies dedicated to women?
Have any men’s groups or father’s rights groups had a say in the plan?
How much more marginalized will men become in Australia because of these actions?

This subject is complex, but hopefully many of these connections are a little more clear to everyone. I’ve been as detailed and thorough as possible to avoid any confusion, and to stay away from generalized accusations. The men’s rights movement is, for me, at its root about equal protection under the law. Much of Feminism has been about changing the way government operates to further their ideology, often with radical feminists leading the way. It’s happened in Sweden and I hope our research here shows how it is happening in Australia.
[1] http://evatt.org.au/news/womens-suffrage-100-years.html
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ausnews/message/7160
[3] http://workers.labor.net.au/9/print_index.html
[4] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1245028.htm
[5] http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200411/s1252626.htm
[6] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2005/s1517030.htm
[7]http://www.safeathome.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27585/Family_Violence_Act_2004.pdf
[8]http://www.dvirc.org.au/UpdateHub/FACS_37004_Violence_Against_Women.pdf
[9] http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/newdelhi11/lloyd.pdf
[10] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/
[11] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html
[12] http://sydney.edu.au/arts/french/staff/academic_profiles/winter.shtml
[13] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/
[14] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Authors/
[15] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/history/tiwc/list_of_abstracts.htm
[16] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Summit/detailedProgram.html
[17]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[18] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5212&page=0
[19] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-scum-connection/
[20] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/author/id=1/
[21] http://www.rural-leaders.com.au/programs/arlp/course-18-participants/488-chantal-oxenham
[22] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/aboutUs.htm
[23] http://www.jcu.edu.au/sass/staff/JCUPRD_016477.html
[24]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/acknowledgments.aspx
[25] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/research/Pages/default.aspx
[26]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/nat_plan_2010_bibliography.aspx
[27]http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx
[28] http://www.wwda.org.au/natviolplanrept1.pdf
[29] http://wesnet.org.au/about/
[30] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Canberra%20Report1.html
Other links
(ADFVC) – http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/
(AIC) – http://www.aic.gov.au/
(WESNET) - http://wesnet.org.au/
Synthesis Report –http://fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/synthesis_report08/Pages/default.aspx
(NASSV) - http://www.nasasv.org.au/
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)

Written byKyle Lovett

11 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Radical Feminist Shiella Jeffreys and the Aus.Gov.

2011-12-28T02:59:00.000-08:00

December 28, 2011Kyle LovettFEATURED, FEMINISM, SHORT UPDATES

Sheila Jeffreys a “real” concern Down Under

In April 2009, after 16 months of compiling research and analysis, Australia’s Labor Government, under the guidance of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, approved the controversial project ‘Time for Action; National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.[1] For the next 18 months, the members of the Governmental council in charge of formulating a plan, gathered information and data from academic institutions, non-profit organizations, clearing houses of research papers and from other Governmental councils already established for the benefit of women only. On February 15, 2011 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, officially approved the 12 year plan, slating it for immediate action.[2]
The scale and scope of the proposed projects and actions rivaled almost any social program by the Australian government’s history that has targeted only one portion of its population. Before we examine the who, what and why, I think it is important to take a step back, to look at what forces were behind the movement, what their motivations were, how they gathered their statistics and data and how they were able to influence one of the country’s largest pieces of sex/gender based legislation and projects.
As an aside: In PM Rudd’s press release it states “The Government’s position on violence against women is zero tolerance.” I wonder, does that mean that the Australian government has a more than zero tolerance of violence against men? Looking back at the ten’s of thousands of ANZAC bodies of piled up on the shores of Gallipoli; or the unbelievable work of the Aussie and New Zealand ‘diggers’ who held off Gen. Erwin Rommel’s much stronger Deutsches Afrikakorps for over six months in the North African shithole of Tobruk; I’d say the answer to that question is probably yes.
In May of 2011, Melbourne was the host of the Feminist Futures Conference, which billed itself as an “active space for discussing different strategies to create a feminist future.”[3] Before the conference even got underway, a very nasty split erupted between two different factions of the feminist groups. The event sponsors first nixed the anti-porn feminist author Melinda Tankard-Reist for her speaking slot because of her stance on abortion. Then several of the other feminists, mostly transgendered friendly, began a vocal campaign to remove the popular radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys from the program for her outspoken scorn and hatred of transgendered people. Eventually the contingent of radical feminists quit the show all together, and two members of the website Radfem Hub who go by the name Amazon Mancrusher and Allecto, found room to hold a separate conference of their own.
They named it the “Real Feminist Futures Conference,” which featured the radical feminists Renate Klein, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Caroline Norma, Lorene Gottschalk as well as the Radfem Hub members Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher.[5] The conference consisted of the normal radical feminist talk concerning anti-porn, anti- transgender, anti-prostitution, how best to destroy male dominance and of course their devotion and admiration for SCUM Manifesto author and attempted murderer Valerie Solanas.[6][7] After the conference, Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher finalized their plans for another conference in Perth that year, which would be a tribute to Valerie Solanas called the SCUM conference.[8]

“THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. Workshops, guest presenters and social activities, plus a space to celebrate and re-member the life and work of Valerie Solanas and other radical feminists.”

In late September, 2011, the now larger group of radical feminists gather in Perth for their much anticipated SCUM conference. The fact that the conference was billed as a tribute to a woman who advocated the extermination of men, and called males “walking abortions,” never seemed to bother the well known professors, authors and activists from their excitement of the conference. This time the list of speakers and attendees was much larger than in May. It included:[9]

Susan Hawthorne – Author, professor and publisher of Spinifex Press
Dr. Abigail Bray – Author and research associate at Cowan University
Melinda Tankard Reist – Author and anti-porn, anti-prostitution activist
Dr. Betty McLellan – A psychotherapist and the principle founder of the Australian ‘Coalition for a Feminist Agenda’
Dr. Gail Dines – American author, professor and activist for radical feminist issues
Spiderlily Redgold – IT entrepreneur and businesswoman
Ryl Harrison – Phd Candidate at James Cook University in Townsville
Noushin Aref-Adib – Iranian born activist
Rain Lewis – Owner and administrator of the Radfem forums
Organizers Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher[10]

What happened at the SCUM conference isn’t really what is important. What is important however is the level of interaction with the Radfem Hub website(people who organized the conference), by these somewhat popular writers and professors, especially Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys and Betyy McLellan, all of who have made their own guest post on that site. Why is that important? By now, I’m sure you are all aware of the discussions that have occurred frequently on the Radfem Hub and forum, which include talk of gendercide, male infanticide and biological solutions to deal with the problem of men. Some of the more disturbing quotes from the Radfem Hub in just one discussion alone were:[11]

“There have been compelling scientific proofs that men, because of their Y chromosomes, are doomed to extinction anyway…” – Maggie
“Women need to stop raising male children … nobody wants to bite that bullet (except lesbian separatists) but it must be done.” – Mary Sunshine
“… the not raising male children one is difficult one for me as I have one!! I mean, we need female children and I’m so glad I have a daughter. SHe was my first, perhaps I should have stopped at one …” – cherryblossomlife
“More importantly, I think womyn need to stop giving birth to any more males…” – Maggie
“The Y chromosome is deteriorating … Men will eventually become extinct. It is unavoidable.”
– Maggie
“… the only solution to womens suffering under patriarchy *is* a biological one … that men are biologically, genetically mentally ill, and the only solution to this is a biological solution … ” – FCM
“I’m so glad that you and others are open to considering a biology-based analysis of what is wrong with men.” – vliet
“… look at animals… Females live together in groups, they *are* the community, and men hover around the outskirts fighting and killing each other. Let’s go back to the way it’s supposed to be, I say.”– cherryblossomlife
“On a possible matriarchy, this is something I have always missed and am constantly working on. I often wonder why I am a feminist at all given how women have, and do tend to treat me. I am determined, however, to build my own little female centered utopia. Seeking loyal, reliable friends is where I am beginning.
Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and radfems to create the utopia.”– Lilith
“The *magic number* to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population (roughly 2 females per male) … the men have managed to kill themselves off with a lot of warring, then the women get into politics and make a lot of community-friendly political decisions … so much for the MRA scare tactics of a matriarchy being just the reverse of a patriarchy.”– DaveSquirrel
“My Vision:: A world where mothers are in charge, every step of the way … A world where males are shunned by everyone & punished severely …”– patriarchywatch
“It’s *men* that are redundant due to their high fertility. They should be fighting each other, fighting for the right to pass on their genes: survival of the fittest *man* is how it really should be.”– cherryblossomlife

These kinds of brutal, violent and hateful discussions are rather endless on the Radfem Hub and forum, which really begs the question why people like Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys and Betty McLellan, among others, would be associated with this site and its administrators and owner. Hawthorne has published nearly a hundred books from dozens of authors at her Spinifex Press. Jeffreys, while her work is controversial and repugnant in its own right, is an often quoted and interviewed as a well known feminist professor. McLellan is the principle founder of a Coalition for a Feminist Agenda, and who has herself hosted several quite large feminist conferences of her own over the past 15 years in Australia. Could it be that their views are in line with those quotes above?
While I don’t know the answer to this, I do know that McLellan, Jeffreys and Hawthorne are closely involved with many other feminists and radical feminists throughout Australia, almost all of whom, including these three, have had their academic papers and research publications used 100′s of times by the Australian government, as justification in its bid to enact programs like the one mentioned at the beginning of the article, the ‘National plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. How is it that people with questionable, if not outright extremist views such as these, are chosen to be referenced and cited in official Australian government business?
There is an actual answer to that question, which we will take up in the part.
[1]http://www.formerministers.fahcsia.gov.au/plibersek/mediareleases/2009/Pages/violence_against_women_29april09.aspx
[2] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/default.aspx
[3] http://www.mfc.org.au/conference.html
[4] http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/making-revolution-our-radical-feminist-futur/
[5] http://allthatsazz.blogspot.com/2011/05/real-feminist-futures-conference-may-28.html
[6] http://allthatsazz.blogspot.com/2011/05/feminist-futures-conference.html
[7] http://allthatsazz.blogspot.com/2011/05/feminist-futures-conference-continued.html
[8] http://allecto.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/scum-conference-draft-program/
[9] http://johnstompers.com/2011/10/three-days-of-radical-feminist-scum/
[10] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-scum-connection/
[11] http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

Written byKyle Lovett

10 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Kyle Lovett has been studying, practicing and blogging about Zen Buddhism for the last 5 years, and has just started to write about Men's Rights issues. He works in technology field in Washington DC and has a wonderful 10 year old son. He is also the blog master of The Reformed Buddhist.

The Colour Stupid..

2011-12-26T21:02:00.000-08:00

Tim Blair quite rightly exposes those lunatics in the Green's Party. Their moronic antics are only just a little more bizarre then the Gillard Government who have yet to face the wroth of the Australian people regarding the huge increases of costs due to their mismanagement, which Labor always undertakes, plus the increase costs that the "Carbon TAX" will have on the general population..
My only wish is to see this government dissolved and see people put in charge who actually know what they are doing.

After watching the debacle that this government is, that won't be hard to do..

THE COLOUR STUPID

Tim Blair

Monday, December 26, 2011 at 12:44pm

The Australian Greens this year had the chance to prove they’d matured as a political force. Handed an unanticipated level of power due to the lotto-like results of the 2010 election, Bob Brown’s holy eco-mites could have demonstrated gravitas to match the gravity of their moment.

Oh, who am I kidding? The Greens are a philosophically and ethically scrambled crew of reality-denying leftist drones led by a pensioner who carries on like a first-year arts student. We all knew what we were going to get from the Greens in 2011, and those dummies duly delivered.

Leader Bob Brown began the year with a slur against the Australian coal industry, which he claimed was responsible for the deadly Queensland floods. “It’s the single biggest cause - burning coal - for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he told reporters.

Brown also told the ABC: “The coal industry, burning coal here in Australia or exporting it for burning overseas, is a major contributor to global warming therefore to the catastrophic weather effects we’re seeing around the world. It should pay its due.”

The Greens subsequently put out a devious press release ("WHAT DID BOB BROWN REALLY SAY ABOUT THE FLOODS?") that attempted to paint Saint Bob as the victim of a media beat-up. Apparently it’s the hate media‘s fault when Brown says stupid, painfully opportunistic things during a time of national tragedy and those comments are reported.

Leave them in local councils and Greens will just ruin garbage collection and make fools of themselves by trying to influence Middle Eastern politics. Not much harm done there, except to the state political ambitions of the particular Greens involved. (Local careers ended too. Greens candidate and anti-Israel activist Fiona Byrne, who failed to win a state seat in the 2011 NSW election, later declined to run again as Marrickville mayor because, she said, $47,000 plus a car wasn’t enough to feed her family.)

But elevate them to national level and Greens run into serious issues that more clearly expose their ideological goofiness. Having opened the year with a flood-based assault on coal, the Greens closed
2011 with an utterly cold defence of asylum-seeker policies that have drawn many hundreds of people to their deaths.

This time Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young led the way. The Greens are given to sweeping moral condemnations of their political opponents, especially conservatives. In the wake of the latest asylum seeker drownings, however, it was Hanson-Young who had the moral case to answer.

Asked if the Greens felt any responsibility for the deaths, Hanson-Young said: “Of course not. Tragedies happen, accidents happen.”

And there you go. Former Labor leader Mark Latham is inclined towards freedom of speech, but the Greens’ blind arrogance is beyond his limits of tolerance. “These people should be silenced. There should be a way of shutting them up,” Latham seethed, with good reason. “It’s a moral outrage that they talk this way and they are allowed to pose in the public arena as compassionate people who are so-called left-wing.”

Even Robert Manne, one of the weepiest of Australia’s leftists, now knows that onshore processing is busted. “The left has been unwilling to concede that the Pacific Solution succeeded in deterring the boats,” he wrote last Thursday. “The left’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious has been of great political significance.”

The obvious continues to elude Hanson-Young. “You know the reason people engage people-smugglers, Jon, is because they have no other option,” she told ABC interviewer Jon Faine last week. This is not so. Those who arrive by boat from Indonesia pay up to $5000 each, which is massively more than an airfare. Why do they take the deadlier option? Because air travel requires documentation, which makes it easier to investigate the claims of those pursuing Australian residency.

Greens and others who back onshore processing prefer not to dwell on this. Rather, they want to outsource Australia’s immigration responsibilities to people smugglers and have matters rely on a simple rule: make it as far as Indonesia and you’re in. As Hanson-Young puts it: “We need to be responding to the needs of asylum seekers.”

Incredibly, as the fatalities increase and almost everyone with the ability to count now urges a return to previously successful methods of coping with asylum seekers, Hanson-Young seeks to rewrite history. “I don’t think we should be in any way going back to the failed policies of the Howard government,” she said in July.

Hanson-Young is just as confused in other policy areas. In her most recent column for Melbourne’s Age, the 30-year-old Adelaide University graduate boasted: “The Greens stuck to our 2010 federal electionpromise that we would legislate to put a price on carbon pollution. As everyone knows, the price was part of the agreement we struck in negotiating the formation of government with Julia Gillard.”

Which forced Gillard into breaking her 2010 federal election promise not to introduce a carbon tax and began the government’s poll plunge. Final word goes to one of the Age‘s online readers, who added this to Hanson-Young’s column: “I sit here in open-mouthed amazement … I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a deluded person, in or out of parliament.”

Australia’s path to radical feminism..

2011-12-25T12:00:00.000-08:00

December 23, 2011Kyle LovettFEMINIST GOVERNANCE,MEN'S RIGHTS

Australia’s path to radical feminism

After taking some time to digest a lot of the information that was released about the RadFem Hub this past week, I decided to take a closer look at this organization and it’s ties to both the Australian government(if any) as well as evaluating whether any of these radical feminists or their associates had significant input into crafting new legislation that would be going before the Australian Parliament. What I found after several days of research can only be described as a deep and twisted network. Academicians, non-profit organizations, several public departments and public officials and dozens of individual authors, speakers and public health professionals, all linked together by personal or professional relationships and all working towards a structured ‘gender’ agenda similar to what Sweden has already begun implementing.
At the center of these endeavors are the usual subjects such as domestic violence, sexual assault and affirmative action for women. These goals are being pursued by increasing the scope of existing governmental policies and procedures, lobbying for additional funding and grants and writing and gathering volumes of ‘research’ and ‘academic’ papers which culminate into a laundry list of new Australian legislation to be enacted into law. At the core of this network are about three to four dozen (almost all self-proclaimed) Australian radical feminists, many of whom are directly and personally linked to members of the RadFem Hub, and/or have even made a guest post on that site. Almost all the members of this group were guest speakers at several radical feminist gatherings, including the 2011 Perth SCUM Conference and the 2007 Townsville International Feminist Summit Conference.
Make no mistake, while the “mainstream” feminists, or what the radical feminists mockingly like to call the “fun-fems,” sit back on their blogs or write in opinion pieces saying radical feminists are only a tiny minority, the radicals are doing their work. Sometimes “moderate” feminists take this further, defending the actions and statements of radical feminists who, in key positions throughout the academic, non-profit and public sector, are highly motivated to implement their agenda and effect policy. Over the next few weeks I will write a series of articles on this subject, making the information more manageable and digestible. Hold on to your hats ladies and gentlemen as I fully intend to expose the deep roots of radical feminism in Australia, as well as their powerful sway over public policy.
As a side note to our feminist readers: Think NAFALT? (Not All Feminists Are Like That) Perhaps that it’s true, but the ones pulling the power levers behind the scenes are exactly “like that.” As long as the “fun-fems” like Amanda Marcotte and David Futrelle keep covering for and defending these bigots, and more importantly until these ‘mainstream’ feminists start calling out the festering boils of hate that are in positions of influence and power, they are all party to the same damn thing. RadFems are laughing at all the “fun-fems” because while they spend their time writing snarky and sarcastic do-nothing blog posts, or leaving quirky ironic comments about MRA’s, these radical feminists are re-writing law. They are a hell of a lot more motivated, organized and established than you think, or perhaps more motivated than you are willing to admit.

Written byKyle Lovett

9 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

The Rise in Female Lawbreakers..

2011-12-24T02:11:00.000-08:00

&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2131708690/Girl-Fights"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;VIDEO: Girl Fights&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;
The ignored female offenders in NSW.

With regard to part (e), the pattern of offending for juvenile females was in line with that of females generally. Over the decade, the number of juvenile female offenders increased by more than a third whereas for juvenile males the increase was less than a tenth. The proportion of juvenile female offenders increased significantly by 2 per cent each year over this time, which was at a faster rate than for all female offenders. Trends in offending by juvenile females mirrored those of all females, with the exception of shoplifting for which there was a significant rise in the number of juvenile female offenders but remained constant for female offenders in general. For violent offences such as domestic and non-domestic assault as well as for offences against justice procedures including breach of AVOs and bail conditions, the increase in juvenile female offenders was significantly greater than that for juvenile males; for several theft offences (except shoplifting) however the drop in the number of juvenile female offenders was larger than that for juvenile males.

Compared to 0 years ago, juvenile females significantly increased their proportionate participation in six offences yet there were no offences for which their proportionate participation significantly dropped. The increase in offences by juvenile females was restricted to those aged 3 to 7.

Despite these findings, there were two limitations to this study. The first is that because many offenders are likely to go undetected, POI data is an imperfect measure of actual offending. The second limitation is that for many offences it cannot be definitively concluded whether a recorded increase/ decrease is attributable to increased/decreased offending or increased/decreased police targeting and activity.

Notwithstanding such limitations inherent in all studies using police POI data, the findings of the present brief suggest that the nature of female offending has changed over the past 0 years. The number and proportion of females and juvenile females offending has increased significantly and there has been an elevation in the severity of the offences they committed. These findings suggest that females and juvenile females are committing more violent offences than they did 0 years ago.

Radical Feminists Dictating Government Policy..

2011-12-24T01:48:00.000-08:00

This is a fine Christmas present indeed, Kyle!

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):

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVcCZyhWcLY&w=560&h=315

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.

It’s time to out Melinda Tankard Reist as the malodorous hate-monger she is. It’s time this feminist felt the deodorising power (and Google effect) of MRA scrutiny.

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 MRA action comes to the attention of the Frill-Necked Lizard herself.

And that will be a good thing for all Australians, believe me.

SCUM Feminists Files..

2011-12-21T15:12:00.000-08:00

The complete download of Agent Orange files are now available. This download is about 160MG + of files and it's a complete set of screen dumps that were lifted off the public and private RADFEM Hub website and forum, with all their recommendations about eugenics, genocide, child murdering, men killing, terrorism comments..

So be warned..

Just bear this in mind. Being exposed to this obnoxious, nasty poison will stay with you once it's read, as it cannot be removed. These comments are beyond disgusting and are as vile as you may or could possibly imagine. Just bear that in mind..

Also bear in mind that some of the women on this hate site are also involved with introducing laws and affecting legislation at government levels. We have already traced quite a few to government departments as well as professionals making submissions to governments for inclusion into law..

Their effectiveness can already be witnessed in the Family Courts system, Education Department's preferences for women only, Government promotions of VAWA as well as sexist male bashing advertising in regards to domestic violence which seeks to solely blame men..

All those anti male laws have been promoted and introduced by these radical feminists who are determined to destroy masculinity as well as any and all positive traits that men possess. That is their aim and SCUM Manifesto is the framework from which they work..

Those radical feminist have to be stopped..

Agent Orange file download..

Scum Manifesto Participants and other radicals..

2011-12-21T04:33:00.001-08:00

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2011

SCUM Conference Participants and other Radicals..

Perth SCUM Conference and it's connection to Australian Academia

The childish Beth Tinning

Between September 23-25th, 2011, two members of the radical feminist hub and radfem forum, Danielle Elina Pynnonen (Allecto) and her partner, Big Brother UK 5 contestant Kat "Kitten Pinder (Amazon Mancrusher) organized and hosted a three day feminist conference in Perth Australia that they called the 'SCUM Conference'.

They billed it as:

"THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. Workshops, guest presenters and social activities, plus a space to celebrate and re-member the life and work of Valerie Solanas and other radical feminists."

As you've seen in pervious articles, the people that frequent the Radfemhub and forum have often contemplated and discussed gendercide, male genital mutilation and advocating the abortion of male fetuses, among many other very disturbing activities. Valerie Solanas, the woman who this group has almost worship like admiration for, was the author of the SCUM Manifesto, never made it a secret about her feelings towards men. She wrote:

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

In another passage she writes:

"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) chromosome is an incomplete x(female) chromosome, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

Her writing seems to be in lock step with the very disturbing writings we have witnessed recently on the Radfem Hub and forum. And many would dismiss these people as wack-jobs, or insane or even the disturbed rantings of a few no-name sadistic people. Of course this isn't the case, as many of these women as we have seen are in positions of responsibility in the real world. But what about the guest speakers for the conference, the one's who also celebrated the life and work of Valerie Solanas? The sad, yet ugly truth is, that not only are these lecturers well known professors, authors and activists, but they also run in the same online circles with the very same women that advocate a desire for violence and death towards men.

While many of those who spoke have been smart enough to not talk about such ugly things as we have seen here online, (at least nothing that can be traced back to them) they are friends with these same groups of women on Facebook, guest post articles on the Radfem Hub and even comment on some of these women's individual blogs. Julie Anne LeComte on Canberra, Australia, the owner and administrator of the forum where most of the worst hate is espoused, goes by the online name Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Raindancer.

A quick look at her Facebook page, as well as online forum discussions, that she, as well as Danielle Pynnonen(Allecto) and Kat Pinder(Amazon Mancrusher) personally know many of these professors, authors and activists. Just look at the speakers and some of the attendees of the 2008 Brisbane Feminist Conference. So just who were these speakers at the 2011 Perth SCUM conference that would openly associate with people that express a desire for gendercide?

Susan Hawthorne PhD

"Susan Hawthorne is the author of six collections of poetry, a novel, political theory and a quiz book. She is an Adjunct Professor in the Writing Program at James Cook University, Townsville. In 2009, Susan was an Asialink Literature Resident at the University of Madras, Chennai. She is also a publisher and Director of Spinifex Press and played a leading role among independent Australian publishers in innovative and eBook publishing."

James Cook University is the institution where Michael Flood, the well known pro-feminist professor teaches.

Dr. Abigail Bray

"Dr Abigail Bray is a research fellow at the Social Justice Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. She has published widely in leading international academic journals on anorexia, child sexual abuse, moral panics, and child pornography. She is the author of Hélène Cixous: Writing and Sexual Difference (2004) and Body Talk: A Power Guide for Girls (2005) with Elizabeth Reid Boyd"

Melinda Tankard Reist

"Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, speaker, commentator, blogger and advocate for women and girls. Melinda has just initiated a new grassroots campaigning movement called Collective Shout. It aims to expose corporations, advertisers and marketers who objectify women and sexualise girls to sell products and services. In demand as a speaker, Melinda is named in Who’s Who of Australian Women and the World Who’s Who of Women."

Dr. Betty McLellan

"A psychotherapist with over 20 years experience, Betty McLellan is the author ofHELP! I'm Living with a Man Boy, which has been translated in 12 languages. She is also the author of Overcoming Anxiety (1992) and Beyond Psychoppression (1995). She believes in the importance of honesty in relationships and works with women and men in individual and couple settings and facilitates groups for women and men separately and then together. She lives in Townsville, Queensland."

Dr. Gail Dines

"Gail Dines is professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College. The author of two previous books and a regular commentator on TV and radio, Dines has been covered in Newsweek, Time, USA Today, the New York Times, Boston Globe, andPhiladelphia Inquirer. She lives in Brookline, Massachusetts."

Spider Redgold aka Spiderlily Redgold

"2005 Finalist Global Enterprise Architecture Excellence Award Zachmann Institute for Framework Advancement (http://www.zifa.org ) 2004 Elected Board member responsible for Education and certification Global Enterprise Architecture Organisation (http://www.geao.org) 2003 included on the Pioneers Women's Hall of Fame Quilt for Contribution to Women and Technology http://www.pioneerwomen.com.au/quiltsigs.htm 1999 Elected Board member and Vice President for one of Queensland's leading industry organisations - Women In Information Technology (WIT) Inc [1999-2002] 1998 - finalist (and runner up) in the Australian Institute of Management QLD Innovator of the Year Awards. 1996 Keynote Presenter at South Korean Summit on "Women and Informationalisation of the workforce"

And some of the other speakers?

Christine Sitka

Christine is a well know writer, speaker and activist in Australia who works with the Victorian Women’s Liberation and Lesbian Feminist Archives Inc.

Ryl Harrison

Ryl is a PhD Canidate at James Cook University in Townsville Australia

Samantha Berg

Samantha is the National Coordinator for the feminist organization Stop Porn Culture.

And of course:

Julie Anne LeComte (aka Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Rainsong)

Julie Anne LeComte, the owner and operator of the Radfem forums also is the Communications Coordinator for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce. She is also recognized as a nationwide leader for Australian women's rights activism. In 2006, Dr. Browyn Winter, Associate Professor at the University of Sydney wrote a piece on White Ribbon Day for the Australian Website On Line Opinion. At the end of the piece, Dr. Winter, who is Facebook friends with Danielle Pynnonen (Allecto) as well as LeComte, listed out what she felt were the most prominent feminist and women's organization names in Australia. Julie Anna LeComte was one such name. More importantly than that though is the question, are some of the other names listed connected to the group of radical feminists who frequently discuss how to reduce the male population through gendercide?

Well, let's just say that the rabbit hole of radical feminists in positions of public trust does not just stop with just these women. More on that later, but I'll leave you all with a question; When the Australian government wants input on new legislation concerning sexual assault, domestic violence or special assistance for women only, who do you think they turn to for expert opinions?

Just as a post-script, which we will expand on further in a later article, several of these woman that are members of the Radfem Hub are frequent commenters on many of the "mainstream" online feminist blogs and sites. Some of the mainstream feminists are well aware of these people, and indeed even Hugo Schwyzer has written two articles on one of the Radfem Hub admins, a person known as FCM (Factcheckme) of the blog Femonade, saying FCM makes "some very important points that deserve responses." We won't publish FCM's identity just yet (hello Mindy), but more to come on that later.

RAPE, Rape and more rape..

2011-12-21T04:20:00.000-08:00

A self explaining video for ManWomanMyth site that once again explains the need for feminists to treat women as total morons and children as well..

Needless to say, there does not appear to be any opposition to that claim, I am waiting for them to catch up on the irony..

Radical Feminists Advising Government Policy..

2011-12-20T17:22:00.000-08:00

Radical Feminists Advising Government Policy..

Radical Feminists advising Government on Law Reforms.

Legal reform varied in intensity and scope in Australian states and territories. However, the focus was to shift attention away from the victim’s character to the offender’s behaviour, eliminate the witness corroboration rule and other physical evidence requirements to prove non-consent, and broaden the definition of rape and sexual intercourse.

One does not have to search far to see precisely what radical feminists are doing when advising on Government Policies whenever the "Sex" topic arises. Radical Feminists have been responsible for all of the radical changes in laws regarding male and female interaction as well as family inclusion..

They have insured that every angle of evidence will be used to condemn men and boys, removed the evidence track which the Magna Carta put into force over centuries ago where any man should be judged by a jury. That has been removed and destroyed by feminists and intrusion in common law and family law..

Those laws have now been changed to such a degree as to make them totally useless. It may as well be the case that whenever any woman makes ANY complaint against any male, he should automatically be jailed and that is precisely what is already happening today..

Australian Institute of Family Studies

This Government Institute is saturated by feminists who have no interest in Families besides trying to destroy it. Feminists have over the years excluded Fathers from the social family and child payment processes where all payment made to children is directly granted to the mother. The Fathers are not even recognised by government as being any part of the family circle. A family is described as being a mother and child, there is no inclusion of Fathers in any aspect of recognition by Federal or State Governments..
The radical feminists, as we have already demonstrated, are involved directly in the submission processes as well as being research assistants, their responsibility is to gather as much information from feminists world wide, regarding newly recommended submissions to change any and all laws that apply to male/female activities..

Most of these radical feminists are indeed lesbians and therefore has no specific interest or even want to introduce any fairness, inclusiveness or equity into these laws. All they are interested in is ensuring that as many men are jailed for whatever minor or minuscule reason they can find to include in any point of law..

The male haters are not there to create common sense laws, they are there to create division, malice and hate. That is their sole reason for existence. The feminist hysteria must be maintained at any cost and men must be seen to be the main culprits while women are always regarded as victims. Those radical notions are being enshrined in laws as I speak and there is NO resistance from a single member of parliament or any scrutiny given by those people who are supposed to be working in societies' best interest. Nothing is blocking or halting their maniacal march to creating a world where the two sexes will be under two different laws. This will only promote more hate and malice as it has already done..

Here are some of these feminists advisers and involved in the misinformation process that feminists enjoy..

Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K. Regarding the mental health of women in prisons;

Lucy Nicholas (screen name “Luckynkl”), a professor and lecturer at both the University of Edinburgh and University of Portsmouth;

Susan Hawthorne PhD

"Susan Hawthorne is the author of six collections of poetry, a novel, political theory and a quiz book. She is an Adjunct Professor in the Writing Program at James Cook University, Townsville.

Dr. Abigail Bray

"Dr Abigail Bray is a research fellow at the Social Justice Research Centre at Edith Cowan University. She has published widely in leading international academic

Melinda Tankard Reist

"Melinda Tankard Reist is a Canberra author, speaker, commentator, blogger and advocate for women and girls.

Dr. Betty McLellan

"A psychotherapist with over 20 years experience, Betty McLellan is the author of HELP! I'm Living with a Man Boy, which has been translated in 12 languages.

Dr. Gail Dines

Christine Sitka

Christine is a well know writer, speaker and activist in Australia who works with the Victorian Women’s Liberation and Lesbian Feminist Archives Inc.

These are the new law makers as they manipulate and bias laws to suit their own agendas. These have to be exposed and stopped as they tear the very fabric of society and introduce their own version of what it should become. They continue to experiment and families, men women and children suffer because of it..

Verizon's Cowardly Ads on DV, Removed..

2011-12-20T15:56:00.000-08:00

SAVE E-lert

"Stop the Abuse"

December 20, 2011

Verizon Video Victory: Thank You!

Dear Christian,

Earlier this month SAVE learned about the Verizon Foundation's Monster video, which only portrayed men and boys as abusive monsters, and only women and girls as victims.

Persons got mad, got up, and took action. Thousands of personswrote emails, sent impassioned letters, and made phone calls. Some distributed flyers at Verizon stores or organized demonstrations.

Our efforts paid off...Verizon removed the video!

But the Verizon Foundation still features false DV information on its website. Verizon still has egg on its face:

But we need to give credit where credit is due. Congratulations to all for contributing to our Verizon Video Victory!

Sincerely,

Teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

www.saveservices.org

P.S. Help us grow our efforts....forward this E-lert to a friend!

Identifying Radical Feminists In Australia..

2011-12-18T02:59:00.000-08:00

"Those who believe in absurdities are committed to intellectual contortion."

The above should be the catch-cry for the feminist movement as they gather their thoughts to try and justify their lesser radicals as being not representative of the whole. Feminist hate mongering has been around since they first started in the 1960's, back then it was only threats, bombings and coercion, where now they are getting serious..

It makes their previous efforts seem rather lame in comparison..

The speakers at the SCUM Manifesto Conference reads like a who's Who of the feminist movement. Those radicals are ensconced in government departments, paid to introduce male hating legislation at will, employed and payed taxpayers dollars to asset their misandry and malpractice on the general population without so much as any dissent from both Labour, Liberal or Green Politicians. It is as if it was a planned effort to reduce man's part in society while granting total compliance to women without applying accountability or common sense. Both those requirements ensure it's acceptance by the opposite sex who see the government largesse as automatic entitlement, being freed from personal responsibility is just another way of encourage avarice and greed which again demands no effort on their part..

The more laws that are past in their favour, the more they demand. Radical feminists have taken over the law making facility with glee as they manufacture even more onerous and illegal methods of excluding one sex in favour of another..

Here are some of those radical feminist in the office of power, not to mention such as work specifically in the "Office for Women" which has been taken over by these haters and have been encouraged to do so..

Have a look at James Cook University Pro-Feminist promotional material as they exalt in the endless justification of that hate movement..

Here are just two individuals belonging to that hate movement, working at the James Cook University.

Betty McLellan,

Help! I'm Living with a -Man- Boy
Author:	Betty McLellan
Publisher:	Spinifex Press

Dr Betty McLellan Associate Professor, James Cook University

Dr Betty McLellan is one of four women who formed the Coalition for a Feminist Agenda in Townsville and organised the very successful Townsville International Women¹s Conference in July 2002. By profession, she is a Psychotherapist and, by passion, a radical feminist activist concerned primarily about the personal, social and political wellbeing of women. Her doctoral study and much of her subsequent writing focus on the conjunction between psychology and social ethics. She is Adjunct Associate Professor at James Cook University, facilitator of the f-agenda email discussion list and author of three books: Overcoming Anxiety (1992); Beyond Psychoppression: A feminist alternative therapy (1995); and Help! I¹m Living with a (Man) Boy (1999).

Main speaker at this meeting.
THE INTERNATIONAL FEMINIST SUMMIT
July 17-20th
Betty McLellan - Introduction & Welcome

And ofcourse we have this piece of work as well. Another male hater by the name of Beth Tinning, working at the same James Cook University as McClellan, more jobs for the girls..

Feminist Beth Tinning

Ms Beth Tinning

Field Education Coordinator

Student/Staff Liaison
School of Arts and Social Sciences, Cairns Campus

Beth joined JCU as a permanent staff member in 2007. In 2011

Speaker at -

THE INTERNATIONAL FEMINIST SUMMIT

July 17-20th

Relationships Australia : An Anti-male, Biased ,Sexist, Fallacy..

2011-12-17T20:45:00.000-08:00

Aus' Feminist Leader..

I did point out quite a few years ago that Relationship Australia was influenced by feminism's hate culture and also it was only totally interested in helping women and did not want a bar of any problems or issues that men face.

This blatant sexism permeates throughout all Australian Government departments, in most cases, they hide it but their literature and advertising clearly demonstrate it to be the case..

Editors Note: A F4E member recently received an email from Relationships Australia, presumably because he was a client of their service at some point during his separation.

This email highlighted a new program made available at Relationships Australia – Westmead NSW, called “Family safety – Women’s Choice and Change”.

Given this member’s history, it comes as no surprise that he was infuriated by this email, and has written back to Relationships Australia challenging them on why such services are evidently not available for male victims of abuse.

This member was in fact a victim of abuse and violence from his ex-wife, and has complained bitterly in the past at the lack of services available for male victims of abuse, and the completely dismissive disinterest in ‘male pain’ as he calls it, by organisations established to protect victims of abuse.

This man eventually won full custody of his young child, but only after the child was seriously injured by the mother. Up until that point, this man claims to have been criminalised by a system that only supported and believed women.

Below is his email to Relationships Australia.

Addressed to: Lisa Johns

REP Administration Assistant

Relationships Australia

Ph 02 9806 3203

Email: lisajo@ransw.org.au

Web: www.nsw.relationships.com.au

Lisa,

Given that men are the most unlikely victims of family violence to speak up, seek assistance or be provided any assistance at all, why can I ask does Relationships Australia ONLY provide a program for “Family Safety Program – Women’s Choice & Change”, as your email seems to suggest.

Maybe I am wrong and there are other services, but given my experience in seeking help for abuse, I consider it very unlikely.

Based on the program list, one has to ask whether your organisation simply does not receive any government funding if it provides services for Male victims of Family Violence, or perhaps is it merely the case that Men’s safety is not important to Relationships Australia?

As a male who has experienced family violence first hand, and who was denied any form of guidance, protection or support from numerous shelters I contacted, from every organisation and support network I contact, as well as being humiliated by the receiving officer when I approached the local police station to file a report, I need to continue to ask why there is no equivalent program being offered for men?

I am sure many men would value a program that informs them of “their Choice” as well, if we can humour ourselves for a moment and pretend that men have ‘choice’.

If they did, they would value services to help with emotional, physical, psychological and systemic abuse.

I would argue that as far as protection from family violence goes, women are already over-serviced, yet there is a glaring non-existence of genuine services for men.

Given the reluctance of men to report an abusive wife or partner, and given the overwhelming stigma and humiliation of being a male victim of abuse, and given thedepression and suicide rates of male victims of abuse, where is the support for men?

I believe that properly delivered programs that covered men’s safety and well-being is what is needed in this country, not more services that are sexist in nature and seem to only care about the welfare of one gender at the total exclusion of the other.

Men need services to help them cope with the emotional, physical, psychological and financial abuse at the hands of their wives.

They need services to help them cope with a fundamentally sexist family law system.

They need services to help them cope with being thrown out of their homes, with being denied contact with their kids, with being falsely accused of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.

And this is only scratching the surface, because unlike the Gillard government, men do not need to change the definition of family violence in order to show that it happens. It happens at a disturbingly high rate, but is simply ignored.

Please respond and advise if there is equity in services provided for men and women with regard to safety in Relationships Australia, and if not, why not?

If not, then Relationships Australia should realise that by focussing on half the alleged victims only, you are exploiting everyone, because you are being paid by the government to fundamentally fail people in need.

Relationship Australia have been asked for a response by Fathers4Equality. If they respond, it will be posted in this thread.

Radical Feminists and their Scum Manifesto Plan..

2011-12-13T15:16:00.000-08:00

Scum Manifesto and Radical Feminism.

The Men's Shed innovation was a boon for locals alike. It gave an opportunity for men to spend time learning new interests while at the same time, help the local community and individuals who would like to learn a few new tricks. Lately, more sheds have been showing up over Australia, New Zealand and in the UK. Community groups see the value of these sheds as not only being mentoring centres for the younger generation but help others in DIY methods, with a little bit of hands on..

So what about men's sheds..

WHAT IS A MEN’S SHED? The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture. Men’s Sheds are springing up all around Australia. If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school, maybe making Mynah bird traps or fixing lawn mowers or making a kids cubby house for Camp Quality to raffle.

As you can see, they are used for numerous reasons to help the local community and also "show by example", to install a sense of helping others and teach the younger generation all about caring and sharing within their local community. One would imagine that the inclusion of men's sheds locally and in the local community would be a positive and well supported innovation that demonstrates what supporting local communities is all about. Many people have already praised their efforts and how that help is appreciated. It's basically a two way method that has helped both parties..

Why Do Radical Feminists Want to Destroy Men's Sheds ?

To whose benefit would it be to promote their destruction and one must also ask what their motives are. If the Men's Sheds were introduced to encourage community involvement as well as ensuring health benefits for the people participating, one would think that they are great help, but not according to radical feminists..

Here are some comments from the RADFEM HUB forum (Radical Feminist Forum) where radical feminists are promoting the destruction of those Men's Sheds..

Here are a few example -

And some additional comments taken form that same site..

helzeph wrote:
I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow them up and call it "a service to the community".

helzeph

"Broad-thinking innovation" delphyne.
Allecto thanks for seconding the initiative. You could paint the at night, with slogans about the importance of women's refuges and how men are stealing their funding. Then apply for an arts grant.

Amazon Mancrusher

Hmmmm what about the women in the community who aspire to live in a community without men?
...Im involved in a feminist group

allecto

"helzeph wrote:
sheds I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow
them up and call it "a service to the community". "

Yea!

Radical feminists obviously see this as an achievable goal, they have put it forward as a proposal, put forward as a motion and seconded it. the option of destroying or defacing Men's Sheds is their latest hate-fest goal..

However, it does become an issue when we have a group of people raging against half of the population on the planet and deliberately planning their destruction and removal.
Copious information has been secured from these Radical Feminists sites to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are past just thinking about that or talking about it. We have already shown you the lunatic ranting of the author Pamela O'Shaughnessy and her wish to eliminate the male population via use of eugenics plus promoting genocide as another option. These radical feminists need to be exposed and we will expose them and tell you who they really are and let society decide what to do with these male-hating fanatics..

We have been given inside information from a net investigator, by the name of "Agent Orange". Agent Orange has infiltrated those sites and exposed their murderous intentions, their identities, the positions they occupy in public and private. These radicals are part of the community in which they live but secretly meet to discuss and plan the annihilation of millions or men and boys, your Fathers, Sons and Husbands, in order to satisfy their own psychotic tendencies..

These people are radical feminists, they are an active part of the Feminist Movement (the feminist hegemony) that feminists in general refuse to refute, refuse to condemn and also refuse to disassociate themselves from. These murderous, callous, hateful feminists are part of the same organisation and doctrine who claim to be working for "equality". These are the same people who claim that feminism will saves the planet, change everyone's life for the better and increase the equity between the sexes to make it a "fairer" world. They lied about that in the 1960s and they are lying about that right now..

As we have stated all along, feminism is a hate movement and it promotes hate and here we finally witness feminists admitting and confessing their hate, promoting genocide, planning terrorism and encouraging societal chaos..

Here we have a poster from like minded radicals from that same hate movement and their call to anarchy, genocide and terrorism. This Scum Manifesto Conference was held in Western Australia on the 23-25 September where they planned to "Overturn the Government, Eliminate the Money System and Destroy the Male Sex". This conference went for three days and included "guest" feminist speakers attending to encourage the members attending to look at and discuss actions they plan take to fulfil their goals and aims..

Needless to say that they are quite serious about their misandry, their violent intentions and plans to exterminate men as the Scum Manifesto" originally called for. SCUM (The Society for Cutting Up Men) is what it stands for, it is a total hatefest generated by a psychotic female who tried to murder Andy Warhol. Shot him as well as Mario Amaya, causing Warhol major pain and agony for years till his death. He died in 1987..

On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas shot Warhol as well as art critic and curator Mario Amaya at Warhol's studio. Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. Warhol died in New York City at 6:32 a.m. on February 22, 1987

Radical Feminists proudly promote their genocidal hero..

Feminists have never disowned SCUM Manifesto but instead glorified Solanas as a hero for women's rights and they continue to educate other women with this psychotics murderous ramblings and unsurpassed hate against men..

Radical Feminists in Australia..

2011-12-12T20:34:00.000-08:00

One does not have to look far and wide in Australia to find the extent of Radical Feminist loathing against men and boys. These Feminists ouze their hate like a perfume, they cannot see the hate that permeates from their own writing but their overall intentions are right there to read and ponder..

Radical Feminists have always promoted a separate viewpoint about men because of their abstract loathing and hate against all men and boys, their version consist mainly of removing all men from the Planet and by doing so, in their deluded opinion, create their own utopia. One would have to wonder who would be doing the majority of heavy work in that situation or even the logical long term planning that women in general appear to be devoid of, that's ofcourse besides the point. The RADFEMs will have just one outcome in their version of the world and it will be "Women Only". As sick as this sounds, you may wonder also how the breeding will take place, you know, having kids. Well, thats been considered as well, just kill the males babies and only raise the girls ofcourse, keep the odd male around to drain sperm from . There is nothing wrong with that point of view where they are concerned. Killing children has always been on the feminists agenda, so what's another angle of change going to make. Their world purview must be realised and it's their sole aim, their only reason for living if you can call spending ones life hating an entire sex as living..

Let's have a look at one of these RADFEM Male haters as she seethes and rants under the guise of being reasonable, have a read -

But Townsville is far from being unique: these stories are simply among the most recent in the unending horror stories of male violence, and retaliation against women who speak out.

Bromwyn Winter

Such retaliation is given more power not only by the proliferation of so-called “men’s rights groups”, as well as the writings of some male academics such as Michael Woods (University of Western Sydney) who seek to discredit research and testimony on male violence, but also by the media, which continue to sensationalise and trivialise it with tawdry headlines such as the “Love Triangle” one cited above.

Her hate and loathing just seeps out of the screen like the ouse in a muddied, tepid, frog spawned pond. Their endless loathing seeps from the pages like it's something natural. One can read the inflections in the wording as being precisely used to generate malice and intentional distrust, even loathing. One wonders if there is anything reasonable in attitude that one could pull from this article..

Let's see, here is the link for that ranting and raving article..

Women see red on White Ribbon Day

Not in the heading apparently, even that indicates that she is not happy about the implications others have made against that day as being nothing more than introducing another opportunity for radical feminists like her to demonstrate once again how much she really hates men in general..

It should be a time where each man considers his own behaviours, attitudes, beliefs and values he holds towards the women in his life and his community.

As the Master in Star Wars stated 'I can feel your hate", and that is precisely what I can sense here as well. Bronwyn Winter promote misandry like a vegetarian promotes well, vegies. It all heads in the same direction. Radical feminists like her have made no secret about wanting to destroy or at least remove all men from the planet. They have no issue about killing off the young male children by aborting them on demand, their demand. They have no issue whatsoever in demanding genocide of half of the world's population just because they had some bad experience in one of their relationships, but generating hate and malice appears to be their main aim..

So how many of these male haters do we have in Australia and what do they control. It is a known fact that radical feminists already control the Women's Shelters" all around Australia and use that as a training and breeding ground for hate and malice against all men. It is for that reason that those sexist shelters have refused to cater for both men and women and their children, should the situation arise when either sex are abused by their partners. But radical feminism does not recognise that women are violent or capable of abusing their partners and by following that level of cognitive dissonance they justify their abhorant behaviour and justify their hate of one sex for just that reason. Women are blameless and incapable of doing anything wrong is so totally unbelievable that even an abused child would witness that to be a blatant lie. It is a known fact that mothers are the greatest abusers of children but don't tell them taht as it would be "mysoginistic" as fair as they are concerned..

So what other names do we have here, are these radical feminists and male haters as well?..

Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network: peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.

Just like all the radfems in Australia, this lists demonstrates precisely why this article was produced and where radical feminism breeds their anti-male hating attitudes and it's all government sponsored and paid for by taxpayers dollars.. These sexist "women's shelters" should be staffed by trained professional who do not have a doctrinal axe to grind or an anti male attitude to promote..

These shelters are a hive of radical feminist promotion opportunity and while these sites exist, they demonstrate how sexist and discriminatory, feminism really is..

Gillard, lying again..

2011-12-07T03:00:00.001-08:00

Feminists like Gillard are "proud" to promote the endless goal of raising the "woman as leader" scenario. Stating the females will actually make the world a "better" place to live.. Gillard herself has already demonstrated that female leaders are compulsive liars as well as hypocrites.. Gillard has faced the Australian public once again claiming that she is "AGAINST" homosexual marriage and yet according to this article in the student magazine she proudly stands for homosexual rights and also claims to be an anti-nuclear supporter but has just autherised exports of Uranium to India.. A bigger lair and hypocrite one cannot find. A woman in charge, what a great example she is to demonstrate precisely what the world would be like with a liar and hypocrite like her in charge..

Pru Goward : More Discrimination and Sexism Against Men..

2011-11-24T18:19:00.001-08:00

Male hater and pretend conservative Prue Goward (former equalities commissioner) has absolutely no problem denying that domestic violence in Australia inflicts harm on both sexes as well as children. This biased and sexist member of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, has been touting this feminist pogram(sic) for years and from the looks of it, still refuses to except the truth, even when it comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics..

Pru Goward

Minister for Family and Community Services, Minister for Women and the Member for Goulburn.

Find out more about Pru Goward.

Electorate: Goulburn

The personal safety survey does not reflect Goward's claims and not even remotely. It is worth Goward's flase claims as it ensure that her sexist and discriminatory position as "Minister for Women" is guaranteed a long term position. There is no money or funding in claiming anything else than "ALL WOMEN ARE VICTIMS" that feminists have falsely claimed and Goward just falls into line by adopting those despicable exaggerations and downright lies..

ABS Personal Safety Survey

Physical violence: Approximately one in 10 men (10%) and one in 20 women (4.7%) experienced physical violence (includes being threatened or assaulted) in the 12 months prior to the survey.

What got Goward elected is beyond my comprehension as she displayed her sexism and bias in the previous office she held. Denying all man and boys in Australia equal rights and banished their efforts by introducing sexist and discriminatory laws that not only downplays the abusive actions of females but guarantees and automatic discriminatory bias against one entire sex..

Goward has to go. Her views and attitude does not demonstrate any level of reasonable behaviour and can be slated as a feminist and definitely a feminist enabler. The feminist organisation is a hate movement determined to remove all of men's rights and ensure that every privilege is granted to the female sex as a direct cost to men. Her position of Minister for Women already demonstrates that clearly..

Minister for Women Pru Goward encouraged members of the community to speak out about violence against women on White Ribbon Day.

Ms Goward urged women experiencing domestic and family violence to consider the impact on themselves and their children and to seek help.

"Domestic and family violence was the number one issue reported to the NSW Child Protection Helpline for children at risk of significant harm in 2010, with an average of 82 reports made every day," Ms Goward said.

"Today I am asking the community to consider the emotional and psychological impact that domestic and family violence has on the health and wellbeing of not only women, but their children as well.

"Domestic and family violence can affect children for the rest of their lives. This can lead to difficulties in dealing with stress later in life, trouble interacting with others and forming attachments, as well as increased aggression and distress when dealing with peers.

"The Government's NSW 2021 plan includes actions to reduce domestic and family violence against women and their children throughout the state.

"The Staying Home Leaving Violence program is being expanded to an additional five sites with a further $2.5 million. This will enable women and their children to remain in their homes and to support them make their home environments safe.

Ms Goward said many government and non-government agencies share responsibility for responding to domestic and family violence.

"That is why we are comprehensively reviewing the current response framework which will be finalised in 2012, providing a clear direction for improving services.

Ms Goward has also encouraged men to become White Ribbon Ambassadors and take the oath 'to never commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women' at www.myoath.com.au.

Further information - Domestic violence

Domestic and family violence was the number one issue reported to the Child Protection Helpline for children at risk of significant harm in 2010, with over 30,000 reports received.

Anyone looking for help or information on domestic violence can ring the NSW Domestic Violence Helpline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on 1800 656 463.

The NSW Domestic Violence Line received 22,073 calls in 2010–11. The majority of these involved verbal, physical and psychological violence, and 7,666 calls involved 15,643 children.

Anyone looking for help or information on domestic and family violence should visit www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.auwhich contains the latest information, resources, referrals and contacts and is not only helpful for people directly affected by domestic violence, but for friends, neighbours and family members.

Link to Goward's sexist article..

Establishing the Feminist Mafia..

2011-11-17T02:23:00.001-08:00

Inside agitators: Australian femocrats and the state

By Hester Eisenstein

Go to this link and read what we have been up against for the past forty years. Feminists learned it is ineffective to interview candidates about their views on the issues. The route to power was to infiltrate and become entrenched in the "permanent bureaucracy", the people you pretty much can't fire.

Here's the link to Google Books, where you can preview parts of the book. The first preview is Chapter 3, Establishing the Feminist Mafia.

http://books.google....itators&f=false

Qantas and Virgin Airlines claim "All Men Are Potential Pedophiles": Time to Ban..

2011-11-12T15:42:00.001-08:00

Qantas and Virgin's Sexism and Discrimination Against Men

This particular issue has been resurfacing for some time. British Airways cancelled their misandric policy when a Father sued their arse last year and succeeded in removing that sexist and discriminatory policy. Qantas Australia and Virgin Airlines still continue with their policy of automatically assuming that all men are pedophiles and thereby try and justify this misandry in the usual false claim of "for the sake of the children" which is even a greater lie than feminist's " women are victims" mentality..

It will be almost impossible to ban both airlines as they are prominent in Australia, so another tactic must be used. Anyone got a spray can ?

Qantas Australia - Contact Us Link..

Virgin Airlines Contact Site..

As sample of a possible letter to send or make up your own. This discrimination and sexism has to stop..

Letter..
I am disgusted by " Airline Name" policy concerning Fathers, Uncles, Brothers or Grandfathers being banned from sitting next to children. The men you ban under this biased policy do have their own children or brothers or sisters, Uncles have nieces and nephews and Granddads have children under their control as well. Your sexist and discriminatory policy make the assumption that ALL men are potential pedophiles.
Unless this policy is changed, British Airlines have already removed their bigotted policy. I will no longer travel on your airline or use any of your services.

Regards
Name..

Boycott Virgin and Qantas Airlines

Qantas and Virgin airlines today admitted that they WILL CONTINUE to discriminate against MEN.

Men's Health Australia had a spokesman on TV this evening ( a few minutes ago - WIN TV 6pm News) protesting the blatant discrimination against men, with both Virgin and Qantas declaring that they will not allow men to sit next to an unaccompanied child on their planes.

Women, of course will be allowed.

The Men's Health Oz spokesman said that he knew of NO INCIDENT of a man doing anything untoward to an unaccompanied child on a plane.

But ALL MEN are assumed to be just waiting for a chance.

Write to Qantas and to Virgin. They are unlikely to do anything to change.

PROTEST.

Write a complaint to the Discrimination Commissioner (a woman, of course) who is unlikely to do anything about it.

PROTEST.

If someone should take a can of red paint and throw it on the windows and doors and check-in counters of these airlines, I would cheer. Not that I recommend it of course.

If someone should lie down on a runway when one of their planes is on the approach, I would cheer. By crikey that would get the news wallahs excited. Not that I would recommend it of course.

soMENi

Bigoted Airlines

Here is a site which lists the airlines who carry that same sexist and discriminatory policy as well as those that do not..

H/T Percy..

Australian Misandry

Julia Gillard: The Professional Lair..

Gillard Employing More Monkeys..

ART FOR LABOR’S SAKE

Tim Blair

Australia abandons its children to abuse..

Australia abandons its children to abuse

THE EXCLUSION OF CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

Important Message for ALL MEN: Please Read..

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights..

Australia launches “The Plan” and the end to civil rights

Written byPaul Elam

Share viaSocial Media

The ABS and the Feminist Lies and Misinformation..

Turning Aus. into Sweden, Radical Feminists in AUS.

A path to Australian apartheid

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

Radical Feminist Shiella Jeffreys and the Aus.Gov.

Sheila Jeffreys a “real” concern Down Under

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

The Colour Stupid..

THE COLOUR STUPID

Tim Blair

Australia’s path to radical feminism..

Australia’s path to radical feminism

Written byKyle Lovett

Share viaSocial Media

The Rise in Female Lawbreakers..

Radical Feminists Dictating Government Policy..

SCUM Feminists Files..

Scum Manifesto Participants and other radicals..

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2011

SCUM Conference Participants and other Radicals..

RAPE, Rape and more rape..

Radical Feminists Advising Government Policy..

Radical Feminists Advising Government Policy..

Verizon's Cowardly Ads on DV, Removed..

Identifying Radical Feminists In Australia..

Ms Beth Tinning

Field Education Coordinator

Student/Staff Liaison School of Arts and Social Sciences, Cairns Campus

Relationships Australia : An Anti-male, Biased ,Sexist, Fallacy..

Radical Feminists and their Scum Manifesto Plan..

Radical Feminists in Australia..

Women see red on White Ribbon Day

Gillard, lying again..

Pru Goward : More Discrimination and Sexism Against Men..

Pru Goward

Further information - Domestic violence

Establishing the Feminist Mafia..

Inside agitators: Australian femocrats and the state

Qantas and Virgin Airlines claim "All Men Are Potential Pedophiles": Time to Ban..

Boycott Virgin and Qantas Airlines

Student/Staff Liaison
School of Arts and Social Sciences, Cairns Campus