Australian Government pumps $150 million into false feminist DV Narrative

Augusto Zimmermann

7 hrs ·



The Australian government has adopted draconian measures that will lead to the death of numerous businesses, consequently, putting many lives at risk of financial destitution.

In a time where every taxpayer’s money counts, today Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced that his government will be funding “domestic violence support … to reduce violence against women”.

But what about male victims of domestic violence?

It appears that for the Morrison government men’s lives do not really matter.

After all, the Morrison government has announced this Sunday that it is allocating more than $150 million to an anti-male program which includes only men’s behaviour change programs, and not women’s behaviour change programs.

In other words, this taxpayer-funded program is attempting to place all the blame on men, assuming that no man can ever be a victim of domestic violence.

It puts at risk of further violence men who are regularly abused by their female partners, and it is based on a sexist assumption that every male victim of violence may actually be the perpetrator.

Contrary to popular opinion, women instigate most domestic violence and hit men more frequently and more severely than men hit them.

And violence is far more frequent in lesbian relationships than between husband and wife.

In a recent review of literature, the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2015) concluded that violence is far more likely to occur among lesbian couples as compared to heterosexual couples.

This literary review was carried out by Dr Colleen Stiles-Shields and Dr Richard A Carroll from Northwestern University School of Medicine. It concludes that, once analysed together, all the previous studies reveal that violence affects about 75 per cent of all lesbian relationships.

Such findings about female on female domestic violence have been confirmed by numerous other reliable surveys.

Research is also finding that women use far more emotionally controlling or bullying behaviour – coercive control – than men.

It is this that can lay the groundwork for physical abuse in a domestic relationship.

A 2014 University of Cumbria study has found that women are more likely than men to be aggressive and controlling towards their partners.

As noted by Dr Elizabeth Bates, a senior lecturer in applied psychology at the University of Cumbria:

“For years, coercive behaviour has been talked of as a tool men use to control women. But in my research, men reported experiencing significant coercive control. They often described themselves as ‘walking on eggshells’.”

This has a significant impact on the physical and mental health of emotionally abused men. The UK Crime Survey found that 11 per cent of British men abused by female partners try to kill themselves, compared with only 7.2 per cent of women who are abused by male partners.

One of these male victims reported: “She told me no-one would miss me if I killed myself and suggested I find myself a quiet corner and hang myself”.

Research has also found that attacks on a man’s self-worth may be especially debilitating. One of the victims said: “If I told her to stop hurting me, she’d say: ‘What kind of man are you?’ She’d spit in my face and say repeatedly that I was a spineless, pathetic excuse for a man”.

Indeed, controlling psychological abuse is very typical of women who abuse male partners.

Dr James Dobson is the renowned family therapist and the founder of Focus on the Family. He offers a “note of caution which is likely to be misunderstood by those who want to be misunderstood”.

Dr Dobson contends that some women deliberately resort to extreme forms of verbal and psychological abuse in order to deliberately provoke a physical reaction from their husbands.

According to Dr Dobson:

“I have seen marital relationships where the woman deliberately “baited” her husband until he hit her. This is not true in most cases of domestic violence, but it does occur. Why, one may ask, would any woman want to be hit? Because females are just as capable of hatred and anger as males, and a woman can devastate a man by enticing him to strike her. It is a potent weapon”.

“Once he has lost control and lashed out at his tormentor, she then sports undeniable evidence of his cruelty. She can show her wounds to her friends who gasp at the viciousness of that man. She can press charges against him in some cases and have him thrown in jail. She can embarrass him at his work or in the church. In short, by taking a beating, she instantly achieves a moral advantage in the eyes of neighbours, friends and the law. It may even help her justify a divorce, of if one comes, to gain custody of her children”.

The above quote comes from James Dobson’s “Love Must Be Tough” (Tyndale House, 2007), p 181.

Dr Dobson understands why such empirical analysis can be inflammatory. However, he remains adamant that “domestic violence has more than once source of motivation, and that fact should be admitted”.

Naturally, domestic violence inflicted on women is totally unacceptable. So it is unacceptable any form of domestic violence either by men or by women.

The Australian Prime Minister is effectively attempting to advance a radical feminist agenda at the cost of even more pain and suffering to countless of innocent people, men and children alike.

Above all, to use our taxpayer’s money in a time of such grave crisis in order to further demonise fathers and husbands is simply unacceptable.

Shame on him!

Prof Augusto Zimmermann PhD, LLM cum laude, LLB (Hons.), DipEd, CertIntArb.


Posted in Domestic Violence, False Allegations, Hot Topics, Men's Issues, War on Men | Leave a comment

‘More money in Sydney’ means higher family law fees

Sunday, March 29, 2020
Joint select committee on Australia’s family law system chairman Kevin Andrews. Picture: AAP
Joint select committee on Australia’s family law system chairman Kevin Andrews. Picture: AAP

The Law Council of Australia has defended a national hot spot of high legal fees in the NSW family law courts, including “disappointment fees” for cancellations and retainers for top lawyers to freeze out other litigants, partly on the basis that there is “more money in Sydney”.

Federal MPs and senators looking at family law court reforms have been inundated with complaints about exorbitant legal fees, cancellation payments — with the potential to charge clients up to $80,000 for “work not done” — and family court disputes where legal fees were more than the total assets being fought over.

Joint select committee on Australia’s family law system chairman Kevin Andrews, the federal MP for Menzies in Victoria, told The Australian: “The high cost of legal fees in family law matters has been raised with the committee in hundreds of submissions.

“There is a widespread belief among parties to family law proceedings that their costs have compounded as cases are unnecessarily prolonged.”

Last week the select committee examined the issues of high legal costs in the family law court, ­particularly in NSW, and quizzed senior lawyers about the Sydney practices of cancellation fees and retainers for top silks that were not routine in other jurisdictions.

Mr Andrews told representatives of the Law Council of Australia and the NSW Bar Association there were “constant complaints made to this committee in the written submissions and, indeed, in the hearings that we’ve had with individuals … about costs — about excessive costs and legal fees that are disproportionate to the total assets of the couple”.

The committee heard last week of a case in Townsville in far north Queensland where legal costs were $170,000 for a dispute over total assets of about $500,000, and another case of costs of $800,000 to $900,000 for total assets of just over $1m.

Mr Andrews said the committee heard of another case of total legal costs of $500,000 where the assets were only $200,000 and that family law court judges had raised “substantial legal fees” in a single case of millions of dollars.

When asked if cancellation fees, where lawyers were paid at a full rate if a case were delayed and couldn’t be heard in court, were “prevalent in the Sydney Bar” and contributing to higher costs than in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide, Law Council of ­Australia family law section chairman Paul Doolan said matters in Sydney, “in terms of financial matters, tend to have a higher net value”.

“They are more complex, in my experience, more so than in other cities. There is more money in Sydney,” Mr Doolan said.

He agreed the “more money” didn’t justify cancellation fees but said: “It’s what the money leads to. The money ultimately leads to very complicated arguments in some cases about tax, about valuations, about control of assets.

“Inter­ventions by third-party companies in the Family Court happen quite regularly in the Sydney registry. It’s a different practice, I must say, to other cities.”

Mr Andrews said the committee had heard of judges talking about the “unreality” of costs and said in one case last year the judge pointed out that “the parties agree that the potential property pool available for distribution is between $1,500,000 and $1,900,000, the parties will potentially be spending in the order of $833,539 on legal fees”. Mr Andrews told the committee the issue of legal costs in family disputes had “got out of hand”.

“Surely if you’re dealing with a situation where you know the value of the asset, which you ­surely do in most cases, there needs to be some realistic check on the level of legal fees that can be charged,” he said.

“I’m not talking about complex discretionary trusts or things like that but cases where there are clear assets — the family home, the car, the dog or whatever they may be — and some superannuation, which in most people’s ­experience is not a lot of money anyway.”

When asked about the use of cancellation fees in the Sydney Bar, which could amount to $50,000 to $80,000 for “work not done”, NSW Bar Association family law committee chairman ­Michael Kearney SC said it was not peculiar to Sydney but was charged “more routinely in Sydney than in other parts of the country”.

Political Editor
Dennis Shanahan has been The Australian’s Canberra Bureau Chief and then Political Editor based in the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery since 1989 covering every Budget, election and prime minister since the…


You can now update the display or screen name associated with your Subscriber account. Click here for details and guidelines.

Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively, but civil and respectful debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. You can read our comment guidelines

Posted in Family Law, Government Inquiries, Hot Topics | Leave a comment