There’s great excitement here, now that we have reached the final few days before our conference next Saturday. It looks like we will have over 200 people attending – a large, lively crowd for this important event.
We were delighted with this last-minute interview with Avi Yemini from Rebel News, talking to me about his own experiences of false allegations, which are very relevant to the conference. Avi is one of the very few well-known men in Australia to speak out about the devastating impact of having false domestic violence allegations used to try to stop him seeing his children.
So, here is a man with skin in the game and it is wonderful that he has decided to live stream the conference on Rebel News.
Coincidentally, the comment below from Bettina Arndt’s substack arrived today. There is reference to Micaela Cronin’s man-hating rant (see previous comment).
*****
Movember is a fake
– New plans to fight back and properly support men
How do Australian men get out of bed every morning? I just can’t imagine how men cope with the endless vilification, the constant betrayals by those in power.
This week we saw another example of men being conned. Every year in this country many thousands of men grow moustaches in November, fondly imagining that they do this to raise money for men’s health.
Don’t kid yourself. Movember, the organisation roping in the millions of dollars from these poor suckers, has always sold men out by avoiding controversial issues and pandering to the feminist narrative. They run suicide prevention programmes, for instance, which studiously avoid any mention of what our Australian Bureau of Statisticsnames as one of the major causes of male suicide – relationship breakdown.
Now Movember is handing over $3.2 million of the money raised by these men to the male-bashing Albanese Government “to help young men and boys foster healthy, respectful relationships as part of efforts to end gender-based violence.”
Stealing money donated by ordinary blokes and using it to shame boys and vilify men. How disgusting is that? And this comes even after key domestic violence policy makers have admitted that programs to change misogynist attitudes are unsuccessful in reducing domestic violence.
Movember’s $3.2 million is a pittance compared to the $3.4 billion the Albanese government has committed to “women’s safety.” Yesterday Albo’s DV Commissioner poured out the usual anti-male propaganda to the National Press Club but naturally the media responded with the women’s group complaints that the money is still not enough.
We all know our governments have been captured and only ever dance to the feminists’ tune. But it is an absolute tragedy that so many of our key organisations claiming to help men are really working against them. It’s only going to get worse… unless we get out there, expose what they are doing, and find ways to stop them.
New plans of attack
That’s what makes our conference even more important. The assault on the presumption of innocence in our courts is simply one of the most telling consequences on this toxic culture – which our speakers will expose at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference on August 31.
Justice Michael Lee in his defamation judgement attracted much attention with his pronouncement that, “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.” This smug comment was naturally greeted with glee by the salivating media, who revelled in Lee’s harsh decision to declare Lehrmann a rapist (on the balance of probabilities).
Well, now Zali’s coming back for his hat! The colourful Sydney criminal lawyer Zali Burrows has announced she is presenting Bruce Lehrmann in his appeal. She’s quite a reputation for handling tough, high-profile cases.
But the really exciting news is Zali is now one of the speakers at our Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference, to be held on August 31.
This promises to be a very lively session. Zali has called her talk – “The verdict goes to… the best actress.”
The frank-talking woman is keen to expose how feminist ideology is influencing our justice system, with complainants routinely referred to as “victims” and police investigations seen as irrelevant as women’s statements are deemed sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. She will speak for many criminal lawyers who are alarmed by what’s happening. She’s a rare breed, with the courage to tell it as it is.
We’re updating the program – see the latest draft here. Details of some key speakers are being withheld and therw will be talks that aren’t live-streamed. Given the sensitive nature of some of the revelations at the conference, certain speakers need to avoid the hostile media attention that comes with appearing online.
We must be thankful for Bettina Arndt who does the heavy research work to bring together the facts of feminist control over just about every aspect of our society.
That a woman fills a position of power and authority is not the problem. It’s only a problem when that woman who does not have the skills and experience to fill that position, is chosen on a quota system, and – worse – uses that position to promote the feminist agenda – which is just about always.
A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at this line-up, showing all the ACT Supreme Court judges. This formidable female-dominated bench wouldn’t exactly inspire confidence if you were a poor sucker facing a last-ditch appeal of a guilty verdict following a false rape accusation.
All the more so when the bench is led by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum who recently grumbled in a newspaper interview about the “intractable problem” of “ensuring an accused person has a fair trial.” Women’s groups are working hard to solve her problem, with all sorts of inventive solutions that do away with any notion of a fair trial – like an alternate court system with a lower standard of proof.
Whenever there’s a big job announced in Australia, you can bet your bottom dollar that the prize will fall to a woman – even when that means the newcomer is decades younger and less experienced than her predecessors.
Gender is the trump card wiping out all other merit-based considerations. It must be rather maddening to be a high achieving Australian man clawing your way up the ladder knowing that the top rung is no longer available.
Often the result is just absurd. Here are the governors of the six Australian states – once again, there’s just one token man. The recent announcement of “equity advocate” Sam Mostyn as Governor General really took the cake, particularly when Albo announced this week he was proposing an astonishing $200,000 increase in her salary.
Perhaps none of this would matter if we could be assured that this new breed of female top dogs would simply do their jobs, without using their positions to constantly promote women at the expense of men. But across the board we see women in power misusing their positions to stitch men up or grind them down.
Queensland Chief of Police Katarina Carroll was forced out of her job when officers began to revolt. The police service had been found by the state’s anti-corruption watchdog to have engaged in “corrupt manipulation” to achieve a 50 per cent female hiring target. The report found 200 meritorious male applicants missed out on joining the force due to this corrupt practice.
And it is hard to forget that Australia’s very first female top cop, Christine Nixon, also ended her career in 2009 thoroughly disgraced when it was found she spent the morning of Black Saturday, Australia’s worst bushfire, with a 90-minute appointment at the hairdresser followed by a 45-minute meeting with her biographer. In the evening, as the town of Marysville burned to the ground, she was having a leisurely meal in the pub.
And then there was NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb who desperately needed a reset after a series of unforced errors plagued her leadership. She was renowned for being an appalling communicator, failing to promptly address the media when police officer Jesse Baird was murdered, and following the tasering of a 95-year-old grandmother. Luckily, she was given a reprieve when she was able to bask in the glory of a female police officer’s heroics in the Bondi Junction attack.
Now she is making a name for herself tackling the scourge of domestic violence. She’s launched a series called Operation Amarok – where so far more than 3,500 domestic violence offenders have been rounded up and arrested. Nothing like scooping up thousands of wife batterers to win applause from the media. No one is going to bother to ask about the evidence supporting these arrests.
Clearly our female top cops haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory; and it is interesting that men have been slipped back into the job in Queensland and Victoria. Right now, Webb is the only remaining female chief.
As the toxic sludge of feminist claptrap seeps through the academic world, there are many principled researchers grinding their teeth at this blatant ideology and poor scholarship. Most don’t dare put their head above the parapet. But now there’s a lone warrior calling it out, well aware he is likely to implode his academic career in the process.
James Nuzzo (pronounced ‘NEW zo’) is a Perth-based exercise scientist who grew up in rural Pennsylvania keen on sports and weight-lifting. A high school anatomy and physiology course inspired him ultimately to pursue a PhD on the neuroscience of strength training at the University of NSW, followed by several successful years researching the physiology of muscle strength and fatigue. He’s currently affiliated with Edith Cowan University, busily churning out academic articles on topics like exercise neurophysiology, physical fitness testing, the history of exercise research and strength training equipment, and sex differences in exercise preferences and performance.
Men’s health has also been one of his key interests and he wasn’t happy to see his discipline infiltrated by gender ideologues whining about women missing out while totally ignoring the health outcomes of boys and men.
He came across one article which took this bias to a whole new level. A bunch of mainly female exercise physiology students from UNSW cooked up the dubious argument that “gender-based violence is a blind spot for sports and exercise medical professionals.” That was the title of their journal article published in Sports Medicine, an articlewhich could be used as a primer for feminist tunnel-vision.
The ideologues started off with a position statement from the peak American sports medicine body alerting healthcare providers to the health impacts of sexual violence. But then they did a neat pivot, without any explanation, to devote their entire article to regurgitating all the usual dogma about gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV). All the familiar cherry-picked data is there showing women as the only victims – the only mention of men referred to their “socially determined privilege,” an alleged cause of violence against women. No mention of young male victims of abuse by coaches or fellow athletes, of which there have been plenty, nor of lesbian perpetrators of abuse (lesbians top the chart of rates of IPV). And not one word about the decades of research showing men and women are victims of IPV at roughly equal rates.
Nuzzo set out to put them straight, seeking to get the true facts published in a letter in Sports Medicine. And he succeeded, but only after nearly a year of back and forth with the journal. It helped that he combined forces with Deborah Powney, the University of Central Lancashire psychologist doing work on male victims of coercive control, and John Barry, from the Centre for Male Psychology in London.
It was revealing that Sports Medicine took the unusual step of submitting the letter to peer review but, amazingly the three reviewers all concurred with the critique by Nuzzo and his co-authors. Next, the original authors were given a chance to respond – but after months, they declined that option. So ultimately the letter was published – one small victory for proper scientific inquiry.
Their published comment proved it was the UNSW academics who had the blind spot, by providing a summary of some of the best research showing equal gender rates of IPV victimization, which also applied in sports environments.
In a brilliant column recently published in The Australian, Henry Ergas summed up 2023 as “the year of living angrily.” Describing the successive waves of outrage and hatred dominating the year’s public discourse, he made the point that the Greeks believed rage differed fundamentally from ordinary anger: “anger had a defined focus; rage, a sign of fury at the world, was labile, readily shifting from one object to another.”
“Characteristic of personal immaturity, it was by its nature opportunistic, rushing to the target of the moment, like a child rushing to a new toy,” he explained.
One of Australia’s greatest haters has a new toy. For nearly two decades, feminist Clementine Ford has been spewing out her hatred of men. Now she has revealed herself to be also a zealous anti-Zionist who is stirring up her quarter of a million followers to attack Jewish women on social media.
She started her man-hating campaign in media appearances back in 2007 but attracted widespread public attention in 2015 due to this infamous tweet:
From then on, she was regularly promoting outrage with her anti-male views. In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?”
In 2020, complaints were made about a funding grant she was receiving from the Melbourne City Council after she posted the following tweet:
The Melbourne City Council continued to fund her.
During a public address made when her only child was a newborn, she introduced the following comment with loud gagging noises: “Euch. I have a male baby and it’s just, all the time: Feed me! Pay attention to me! Engage me!” she said, before gagging again. “Euch. So boring.”
There have been few feminist projects more irrational and unfair to men than the bundle of consent laws got up around Australia. Fundamentally, the laws say with punitive clauses that if a woman says ‘no’ while the sex act is underway, the man must immediately stop what he is doing – no matter what. In the article below, Bettina Arndt convincingly argues the insanity and nastiness of it all. What do I think?
At the risk of having the feminist thought police at the door, I think that once the act is underway – that is, the woman has allowed penetration – that’s consent enough. If for some perverse reason, the woman suddenly wants to stop, then good luck. If the man completes the gargantuan task of stopping, well and good. Otherwise …
That’s the experience of the ages.
*****
Coitus interruptus
– When a woman presses the eject button, men can’t be expected to immediately withdraw, says human factors science.
Frozen, Disney’s highly successful animation series, captivated little girls across the world. So too, the feminists have had huge success in promoting their own version of “frozen” – instilling in criminal courts everywhere the notion that rape victims often suffer a physiological state known as “tonic immobility” which renders them incapable of resisting their plight.
No matter that the science behind this theory is problematic – as Emily Yoffe explained in her article on bad science supporting prosecution of sexual assault. “I froze” has become the uniform description covering every oddity in the rape victim’s behaviour and flawed memory of events – a description that’s invariably accepted, totally unchallenged.
But men’s physiology is seen as irrelevant. There’s zero interest in examining men’s capacity for response in varied sexual situations let alone any pressure for science on male bodily processes to be considered in criminal investigations and proceedings.
Yet this issue is central to determining guilt or innocence in a critical area of criminal law – the issue of revoked consent. With the introduction of affirmative consent laws, not only is consent required throughout sexual activity, but women have the right to pull the plug whenever they feel like it. And men are expected to immediately snap to attention and withdraw.
Easier said than done, you might say. Well, that’s the issue. Most judges seem to assume that there’s no problem in expecting an immediate retreat from the male in response to the female red flag. Never any consideration of whether he even noticed the flag, or realised what it was, or whether she was waving it clearly, or maybe that he might have been frozen, rendered immobile due to surprise and shock.
There’s a fascinating article on the legal issues at play here – Consent Interruptus: Rape Law and Cases of Initial Consent, by University of Western Australia law lecturer, Theodore Bennett. He spells out the legal arguments resisting any notion of allowing a reasonable time to withdraw after revoked consent, with feminists objecting that this “primal urge’ argument perpetuates the myth of the unstoppable male who can’t be responsible for his rampant sexuality. Kansas State feminist scholar Lois Pineau says the claim that men don’t have immediate control is “factually unfounded.”
Not so fast, says an expert in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) – which is the science of how humans behave and interact with each other in various environmental contexts. I’ll call this Australian expert “Anton Crabtree” – unfortunately he’s decided he needs to disguise his identity due to the tricky ideological climate in today’s academic world.
Dr Crabtree also has expertise in aviation medicine which is precisely the area we usually associate with HFE, given its vital role in investigations of human error in situations like plane crashes. Crabtree makes a compelling case that this type of examination of neurocognitive and physiological limitations also has bearing on whether men crash and burn in the bedroom.
“The absence of the rigorous assessment and well-established scientific considerations of Human Factors analysis is a glaring omission to any claim of a fair system of justice for persons accused of sexual assault after revoked consent. Ignoring the science inevitably risks further miscarriage of justice which can be catastrophic to individuals and families and damaging to society,” writes Dr Crabtree in an academic paper he is preparing for publication on the subject, which examines case law revealing this ongoing deficiency in our justice system.
I’m including a draft of this groundbreaking research article here and hope you will help circulate it and ensure it receives proper attention – particularly in legal circles where there is such a dire need for education to address the ongoing injustice occurring in these cases. This research should also have a place in the sexual consent courses being taught in our schools and universities.
Kate Jenkins may have retired from her job as Sex Discrimination Commissioner, but she’s done a brilliant job in ensuring her future employment. Late last year she was boasting on Instagram about her masterstroke:
“Having recommended the new positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, sex discrimination and other unlawful conduct, I’m now focused on helping employers to meet this duty,” she announced cheerfully.
She’s quite shameless in spruiking masterclasses for teaching corporate boards and executive teams to toe the line, asking, “Who best to fast track your compliance than the people who wrote Respect@Work?”
Respect@Work was the report responsible for pushing all this into workplaces. Jenkins and her team create a fiction of workplaces as cesspits of groping men intent on keeping women in their lowly place. The Jenkins team shifted the goal posts to include discrimination rather than just harassment and then redefined sexual harassment as “gender-based violence,” skilfully bringing the huge domestic violence industry on board. They then came up with 55 recommendations they claim would put things right.
That was back in 2020 and the Morrison government, under siege from the Higgins et al claims of their “women’s problem”, dutifully gave the nod to most of them, only baulking at the really crazy stuff.
But along came Labor’s white knight, Attorney-General Dreyfus, who has shown great enthusiasm for tilting the scales of justice against men – the Family Law Bill being a case in point. Making life impossible for the corporate sector is an extra bonus – hence he embraced all the recommendations including the “positive duty” requirement that the former government had rejected and pushed them into law with great alacrity.
What is this positive duty all about? Well, it places an onus on employers to “take reasonable and proportionate measures” to wipe out sex discrimination and harassment in their workplaces. No tall order, eh?
The public sees it time and time again – twenty-something female activists going wild, threatening people, often violent, obstructing the public – and getting away with it. These young women are another sort of prima donna, relying on their status as young women to sail around society’s accepted rules and often what is criminal behavior.
Bettina Arndt made a video of the violent demonstrations attempting to shut down her lecture tour of Australia’s universities. The video isolates a few ringleaders of the demonstrations who are paradigm examples. The video is five years old but one could make exactly the same video featuring the current crop of young feminist ringleaders.
There really must be a lot more exposure of these political prima donnas.
