The demonisation of men – Mark Latham

Spectator Australia

Latham’s law

Much of the current political campaign about women is actually an expression of Left-feminist hatred of men.

In truth, 99 per cent of men are protectors of women. We see this in natural disasters when man after man puts the safety of his wife and children first. Husbands and fathers would ‘take a bullet’ for their family loved ones. This is the natural male instinct — to be a protector, not a violator of women’s safety.

Is this fact ever recognised in the media, or the reports of Left-feminist government agencies like Our Watch and the Human Rights Commission? Never.

It’s a relentless concentration on the one per cent of men who do the wrong thing, intended to give the impression this is typical of male behaviour. It is not. And the question is never asked: if just one per cent of men are doing the wrong thing, what is it about them that produces this aberrant outcome?

Instead, the Left-feminists have created generalised theories, ones that slur all men in society.

For instance, much is made of the role of Kate Jenkins, the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Scott Morrison has appointed her to conduct an inquiry into the workplace culture of Canberra’s Parliament House.

She has produced a series of other reports on sexual harassment. Her main technique has been to redefine and trivialise the meaning of sexual harassment, so that the survey figures are always inflated.

In Jenkins’ world, sexual harassment includes staring at an attractive woman (we had better build extra jails if that’s the case), ‘sexist’ jokes (such as three blondes walk into a bar…) and even so-called ‘erotic gifts’ (I suppose this includes a replica of Michelangelo’s David brought back from Florence).

In other words, she has turned the whole notion of sexual harassment into a meaningless joke. Other government bodies, such as the man-hating Our Watch have done the same.

It’s not helping women combat genuine sexual harassment (from one per cent of men) to reduce the problem to trivia, to take regular social behaviour and turn it into a crime.

This is the problem with proposals for new workplace tribunals (kangaroo courts) to handle sexual harassment complaints (instead of the legal system with its well-established rules and procedures for natural justice). It’s impossible to effectively rule on things like how long a man was looking at an attractive woman. Or the contents of a joke, an attempt to make people happy.

These kangaroo courts would realise the Left-feminist goal of ensuring that every allegation against a man is assumed to be true, ruining his reputation.

This is the new Salem, a new Star Chamber we have entered, where anonymous slurs on social media are automatically given the status of truth (like the schoolgirl complaints website now being taken ultra-seriously by the NSW Police and Education departments).

No one ever checks for truth and evidence. The anonymous slur is enough for woke governments and media to condemn all males.

Therein lies the irony. Workplace and school standards of respect for women and girls are miles ahead of where they were thirty or forty years ago. Yet the relentless drive for male demonisation is now at its peak in 2021.

For years the Left-feminists have been frustrated by their failure to popularise the #MeToo movement in Australia. They missed out on jailing actors and celebrities, so then they turned their guns onto politics in Canberra.

The Kate Jenkins and Our Watch slogan is to believe that ‘Violence against women is caused by gender inequality’. But where is the evidence for that? There is none.

In fact, the evidence points the other way. In the past decade in Australia we have seen big, important workplace professions become female-dominated, such as lawyers, GP doctors, vets, teachers, office managers and the federal and state public service. It’s been a huge and welcome surge in gender equality.

Has it reduced rates of domestic violence and sexual assault (as the Jenkins/Our Watch theory would say)? Not at all. Billions of government dollars have been spent in these areas pushing nonsensical Left-feminist theories for no positive result. None of the rates have dropped, as the NSW government recently admitted at Budget Estimates. If the theory is wrong then, of course, the outcome will be disappointing.

The real problem lies in the one per cent of men doing the wrong thing, the blokes who display mutant bad behaviour. Among them, the most accurate predictor of domestic violence is a man (particularly Aboriginal) who has a prior criminal conviction. They are part of a criminal culture, invariably linked to poverty, that causes the great bulk of these problems for women.

Do you hear the Left-feminists and their woke male apologists (like the NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman) talking about this reality in trying to protect women from harm? Of course not. It doesn’t fit the Leftist narrative for the demonisation of all men.

How pathetic. The problem is obvious. The solutions are clear. But the wacko world of woke is running a hateful, intensely political campaign based on gender.

They would rather have a gender war than a war on poverty. And endanger Australian women in the process.

This is the real crime: those who march, wave placards and yell in the media about the rights of women then do everything possible to ignore the available evidence on how to make society safer, for all Australians.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Posted in Discrimination, Feminism, Hot Topics, Men as DV victims, War on Men | Leave a comment

‘Why would you sue?’: If you’re being hexed by an ex – or three – don’t turn to the law for help

OPINION

Jenna Price

Sydney Morning Herald

After months of misery, Australian women had a little laugh at the law’s expense last week. Banking IT consultant Constantine Arvanitis is suing one of three former girlfriends, Selina Holder, for defamation. The three exes “allegedly banded together to send a letter to his [current] fiancee telling her to leave him”. The case will be heard in the Victorian County Court in May. The letter, which Holder denies sending, claims Arvanitis is dangerous, a cheater, spent $220,000 on cocaine, sold Viagra at his workplace and juggled relationships with multiple women while claiming to be monogamous.

I’m exhausted just reading the list.

It’s very unusual for a case like this to reach court, says solicitor Amy Carr O’Meara, who gets approaches from men to represent them in defamation cases such as this regularly. “It happens far more than you would expect but I don’t take them on.”

Constantine Arvanitis has lodged a defamation lawsuit against his former partner.
Constantine Arvanitis has lodged a defamation lawsuit against his former partner. CREDIT: SUPPLIED

“Why would you sue?” she asks. Which is a strange response from a solicitor yet also an admirable one. “Those personal defamation cases are often associated with an ugly family law battle … you do more harm to your reputation than good.”

But the banding together of the exes to write a letter to the current girlfriend is a new one on me. I mean, who among us has not contacted our former partner’s current partner to spill the tea? But collaborating with other exes? That takes a particular kind of sisterhood, the expression the three women used to describe themselves.

They wrote: “We are the sisterhood. We have to expose him. He will take all your money. He has to be stopped. You must contact us so we can protect you from this evil person. We all want to help you. We are in Melbourne together so please meet with us.”

Turns out it’s quite the thing with the younger set. They use Facebook and Instagram and are adept at tracking down formers using Google images and other excellent detection work. And then they set about letting new partners know what experiences they had. Truly a public service.

Here are some fascinating examples. One young man told his “one and only” girlfriend he was going away on a golfing holiday with his mates. A day later, the girlfriend received a text message from an unknown number, a woman who was on the “golfing holiday”. The woman had a bad feeling about the bloke, went through his phone messages, discovered he had a girlfriend, felt she ought to let the girlfriend know and left the “golfing holiday” midway. (Oh man, phones, text messages, privacy, I have a million conflicting thoughts about this but really lying and cheating deserve exposure. Utilitarianism for the win.) This was the ultimate act of the Travelling Sisterhood of Unravelling Pants Men.

Another young woman was contacted by Facebook messenger with someone wanting information about her former boyfriend. “Well, I got an STI and he tried to strangle me but otherwise good,” she replied wryly. A message came back quickly: “Oh God, that’s it then.” Both women have survived and thrived. Kept in touch. Chat about their narrow escape and have promised each other to keep an eye out for other women who fall into this man’s grasp.

Another woman tells me she is cheering on the women in the sisterhood. “I’ve always thought some kind of register of men to be avoided would be very helpful.” Which is kind of what this is, albeit on Insta messages and on the engrossing Bad Dates of Melbourne.

Top-tier firm lawyer turned full-time comic, now at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, Alice Fraser, says this kind of conversation among women has gone on forever.

“But now it is entering the legal realm and we know the law is not great for dealing with interpersonal shit. This is an area where it falls short, just doesn’t function. Women have done this since history began – they tell other women, this guy’s, ah, a bad egg.

“You can and should protect yourself and each other with the power you have,” she says.

And she too engages the sisterhood. “Comedy is full of whisper networks, and I’d never do an out of town gig without asking a colleague about the men involved.”

Anyhow, I totally – totally – accept Arvanitis’s claims all the allegations are false but in case he hasn’t met her, I want to introduce him to glorious chanteuse Barbara Streisand. She sued aerial photographer Kenneth Adelman for displaying a photograph of her home in Malibu, California, but lost the case and gave rise to the Streisand effect. As Mike Masnick, who coined the phrase, wrote back in 2005, “How long is it going to take before lawyers realise that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see . . . is now seen by many more people?”

That’s just a useful note to those suing for defamation everywhere – maybe don’t sue if you don’t want the whole world to know all your exes want to hex you.

Jenna Price is a visiting fellow at the Australian National University and a regular columnist.

Posted in False Allegations, Feminism, Hot Topics, War on Men | Leave a comment