Let’s examine this hidden detail in Australia’s family violence response training | HBR Talk 211

If you listen to feminists discuss the issue of intimate partner and sexual violence, you’ll get a very polarized view. In discussing female complainants who describe experiencing this type of violence, you’d be advised that “victims have a right to be believed,” and admonished that “their victimization is never their fault.” This is the feminist explanation for gaps between crime statistics showing female victimization, and the survey results feminists use to claim that “most of these types of crimes against female victims are unreported.” The alleged failure in reporting among feminist-defined or self-described female victims is blamed on the failure of “the patriarchal system” to treat their trauma and fragility with sufficient deference; an unfriendly environment where they feel doubted, questioned, or blamed. 

This perception is used by feminists to create a false dichotomy between automatic, unquestioning belief of female accusers, and automatic, unquestioning, impeachment of the accuser. No room is left for uncertainty in the face of a serious, unverified complaint. Even the expectation that it should be supported by evidence other than the accuser’s own description before the accused is prosecuted is treated as too much skepticism, an imputation of fraud, an attack on the alleged victim’s very humanity, and an unfair burden to place on such a delicate martyr.

After all, according to her story, she’s been through so much trauma that the very act of having to provide any evidence to prove the guilt of the man she has accused might do her irreparable psychological damage. According to feminists, it is better that innocent men should have to prove their innocence, while simultaneously burdened with heavy restrictions on the types of evidence they can use, the ways in which said evidence may be presented, and the timing of their presentation. Unlike less serious crimes such as deadly arson, school shootings, and terrorist attacks on your nation’s own soil, men accused of intimate partner and sexual violence are, according to feminists, excluded from any nationally or internationally recognized right to due process, including the right to advance a robust defense against any criminal charges they may face.

So… what if the accuser is male, and the accused is female?

Suddenly, feminists discover the value of skepticism, and victim blaming is not such a major issue. Ask about the gap between crime statistics showing female perpetration, and survey results in which men and boys relate incidents of victimization by female perpetrators, and you will not get the same advice feminists offer when discussing female victims. Their recommendation that you should automatically believe and the admonition against victim blaming are replaced with a narrative that blames their exclusion of male victims from victim’s services on the alleged male condition of being fundamentally flawed as a characteristic of their sex: Toxic Masculinity.

Toxic masculinity is magic. It entirely discharges the responsibility to crime victims that would otherwise be incumbent upon any personnel within the criminal justice and victim’s advocacy systems, transferring it back to the victim. According to this narrative, male victims are obligated to be capable of dauntlessly facing and overcoming any personal fear of the disadvantages that are usually blamed for female victims’ failure to report. It is their fault, by virtue of their sex, if they do not. 

We are told by feminists that male victims don’t report only because they hold stereotypical beliefs that men should avoid talking about their weaknesses, their feelings, and their experiences as victims. If they report and are not believed, feminists assure us that the cause of that failure to believe is not policy, but the prejudices of other men, who don’t view men as potentially vulnerable to abuse, or women as powerful enough to be abusers. They dismiss men’s advocates’ concerns about the impact of gendered language in national and international law and policy on how personnel within criminal justice and victim’s advocacy systems might view victims and perpetrators. We’re told this is covered by minor gender-neutrality clauses. 

This includes our complaints over personnel training that is funded under these gender-specific laws, and is itself gendered as ordained by the most popular feminist model for administrative policy in response to these phenomena. The Duluth model regards them through a filter of feminist patriarchy theory and prescribes standards and procedures based on the presumption of female victimhood, male perpetration, and patriarchal domination. For noting these issues, we are accused of paranoia, and of manufacturing controversy to undermine law and policy intended to protect victims of abuse. 

We are admonished to stop opposing feminist efforts at helping male victims, and instead encourage men and boys to confront all aspects of toxic masculinity in order to protect both sexes from gendered violence, which we are told is almost exclusively perpetrated against female victims by male perpetrators, as proved by the very crime statistics that feminists won’t accept as evidence that overall, these crimes are not as common as they claim.

Are they right? Are we wrongly imputing malice and mendacity upon an innocent human rights movement, or is there evidence within the system itself to support our allegations? How about we take a look, and find out?

This week, HBR Talk is joined by domestic violence researcher Deborah Powney to examine the entry on Responding to men who claim to be victims of family violence, along with some other entries, in the Judicial College of Victoria’s Family Violence Bench Book, presented online in the form of a wiki publication. According to the book’s page on purpose and principles, the publication describes “purposes and principles” laid out in Australia’s Family Violence Protection Act of 2008, developed to “meet perceived inadequacies in the justice system’s response to family violence because the particular dynamics and effects of family violence are poorly understood.” Will it validate or discredit feminists’ dismissal of our concerns that these policy statements and the associated training are gender-biased as a result of reliance on feminist dogma? To find out, tune in to badger livestreams on youtube at 7:30PM EST, or find other listening options at honeybadgerbrigade.com.




Opening Monolog transcript


Want more?


Support the badgers: http://www.feedthebadger.com

Patreon us on patreon: http://www.patreon.com/honeybadgerradio

Subscribe to us on minds https://www.minds.com/HoneyBadgerRadio

Follow us on twitter! https://twitter.com/HoneyBadgerBite

Join our Facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/honeybadgerradio

Watch us on twitch! https://streamlabs.com/honeybadgerradio

Brian – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkcDcML9oLV9oVat54Qp7uw

Max Derrat – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8orMezFWVcoN-4S545Wtw

Hannah – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_7Bt0vnvdJqAwF8Ow8iT0g

Prim Reaper – https://www.youtube.com/user/Aceticacidplease

Karen – https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

Alison – https://www.youtube.com/user/Genderratic

Anna – https://www.youtube.com/user/AnnaCherryOnTop

Mike – https://www.youtube.com/user/DoctorRandomercam

Aydin – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUowFWIWGw6Pv2JqfEj8njQ

Deborah Powney – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DOT_N7Ib0Pwi4m4XbX04A

Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at https://www.minds.com/Oneiorosgrip

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather