As conservative commentator Bettina Arndt continues to make headlines with her controversial claims about domestic violence, it seems that women who campaign for men are becoming a hot topic for debate.
Crikey takes a look at some of Australia’s more prominent figures and asks: what motivates them?
Modern feminism in the crosshairs
Online conservative commentator Sydney Watson is one such men’s rights activist.
Watson, who lists her personal interests on Facebook as “cups of tea, good books, freedom and guns”, told Crikey that men’s rights aren’t given enough attention. “I lend my voice to men’s issues because there are so few people who do,” she said.
The young American-Australian made a name for herself as a campaigner for men’s rights by organising the first “March for Men” event in Melbourne following the murder of Eurydice Dixon in 2018. She was against the message stemming from reactions to the murder that men needed to change their behaviour.
Watson takes issue with third-wave feminism, which she believes revolves around “man-shaming, blaming and hating”.
“[Modern feminists] promote the subjugation of men or the superiority of women over men,” she said.
Her shift toward supporting men’s causes was gradual, beginning in university when she struggled to digest feminist-based classes.
“I started to resent the narrative surrounding the sexes,” she said.
It’s a similar story for Daisy Cousens, a freelance writer and conservative YouTuber who regularly appears on Sky News’ Bolt Report.
Cousens says she subscribed to feminist ideology as a student at the University of Sydney but turned into a staunch critic while working as a research assistant at the Liberal Party-associated Menzies Research Centre.
“I realised the feminist view did not reflect my life experiences. I grew suspicious,” Cousens said in an interview with Arndt. “I couldn’t believe that somehow in Western society women were paid less than men or had fewer rights than men. And given my experience of men, I refused to believe there was an undercurrent of misogyny among all the wonderful men in my life.”
Cousens has covered topics ranging from Meghan Markle’s “cruel” and “catty” behaviour, to “why pretty women should NEVER be feminists”.
“Feminism has morphed into an idea for women who are not conventionally attractive,” she said in one video, which has over 109,000 views.
Cousens declined an interview when contacted by Crikey.
‘False allegations’ take the stage
Along with a disdain for feminism, many activists are motivated by what they see as rampant false allegations of rape and abuse by women — a claim which has repeatedly been debunked by a variety of studies.
It’s this misconception which drives One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson’s rhetoric. Hanson has controversially been appointed co-chair in Parliament’s Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System, which she sees as an opportunity to further men’s rights.
“I am hearing too many cases where parents are using domestic violence to stop the other parent from seeing their children,” she has said, following up on previous claims that women are “claiming domestic violence because they’re told ‘I don’t like the colour of your dress'”.
After the recent murder of Brisbane woman Hannah Clarke and her children, Hanson appeared on breakfast TV arguing men are “driven” to domestic violence, saying “these things happen“.
Watson has similarly argued that the Me Too movement perpetuates false allegations. “It’s emboldened people to use abuse allegations as leverage in a range of situations, including, but not limited to politics, family court, divorce,” she told Crikey.
Crikey can find no evidence to support this claim.
NSW Senate candidate Jewell Drury holds similar ideals, and is fighting for a place at the table. Jewell, who represents the Australian Better Families Party, has called current domestic violence policy “state-sanctioned discrimination against male victims”.
“I stand for the fathers who will take their lives today because they have lost their relationship with their children due to false allegations,” she said in an interview.
Jewell’s Facebook page shares stories of women who murder their children or partners, as well as examples of false allegations. Drury was unavailable for an interview when contacted by Crikey.
Fishing with click bait
It’s no secret that controversy gets clicks, with many commentators cashing in on outrage.
News Corp’s Miranda Devine is one such writer: The Daily Telegraph columnist recently moved back to the US to write for the New York Post, another Murdoch-owned publication.
Arguably her most controversial piece, published in 2015, claimed domestic violence is concentrated in “impoverished rural towns … where welfare has emasculated men”.
“If you want to break the cycle of violence, end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men,” she wrote.
Devine, along with fellow commentator Andrew Bolt, believe convicted child sex offender George Pell is innocent, calling the criminal justice system “broken”.
Devine has also called NSW’s recently-passed decriminalisation of abortion “radical” and has told women that to avoid being murdered, they should “don’t walk across a dark park at night”.
Motivations, whether monetary, moral or based on misconceptions, seem to be the same among the women who campaign for men. Watson told Crikey that “it’s important to give men a voice on issues that have historically been dominated by women”.
It must be coincidental, then, that issues “dominated” by women seem to often involve their ability to live safely.
Regarding “false allegation”: I suggest you don’t cherry-pick your studies. Also, using the word “misconception” in this context is at best misleading, and certainly displays bias on your part.
Your claim that Crikey can find no evidence to support Sydney Watson’s claims about leverage in the family court etc, I’d have to suggest that Crikey didn’t look very hard. Or perhaps the author is using Crikey incorrectly.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with Jewell Drury’s comments, I can see why she was unavailable for an interview with this author. Once again, using Crikey inappropriately.
Finally, I am very pleaesd to see that Miranda Devine is no longer in the country. That’s a good deal less ignorant stupidity we have to put up with. I do agree with her, however, that men aren’t given enough of a voice on these issues. As for “coincidence”: well no, not at all and I do see the irony. But it’s true that the few men who appear on the various panels are carefully hand-picked and very likely have been given very strict instructions, and none of the problems being discussed will ever be resolved if that keeps happening.
Click bait is right. In my experience somr men need to straighten up and fly right some women are loose with the truth. There are cases of parties being told that if they can get a DV order suvsequent custody matters may be assisted by that fact. This being the advice given at the time by a solicitor
This treatment seems a bit shallow. Beyond repeating these women’s offensive allegations, where’s the in-depth examination of their motivations for doing so?
Agreed.
I mean the dissonance featured here is insane – in one breath Cousens says she didn’t see any ‘misogyny’ and in another she says feminism is for ugly chicks and pretty girls shouldn’t do feminism. (I’ll take Misogyny 101 for $100 thanks Greg).
What I’m interested in – and didn’t see in this article – is an exploration of why such dissonance and self-contradiction exists.
I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with wanting to feel powerful, resenting language or ideas that make them feel less powerful and refusing to accept that life isn’t as good for all women as they like to think it is. But I’d like that guess tested and explored.
Very good observations VK, herein lies the issue of making such statements with little to no real backing, in regards to real evidence, it’s no better than opinionistic journalism, especially in regards to the likes of Miranda Devine, she’s just working from a position of an echo chamber, that many that think like her can continue to not only position themselves in, but also reinforce the nonsense she insists on commenting about/spouting as the truth…
When will people call a spade a spade. Gender problems are inherently based in religious dogma that was developed by men to protect their territory and their tribes. You will probably find that the majority of female apologists have been indoctrinated from birth to hold the religious line against all odds.You only have to look at Devine and Arndt to know where they have come from. The female of the human species has an enormous mountain to climb to wind back centuries of male misogyny.
@NAP …I would have thought property rights/wealth/power & the body defined as property had the bigger base role in gender . But the religious line and property/wealth/power could be considered one & the same.
10+
“Gender problems are inherently based in religious dogma…” – it really is that simple.
Religious indoctrination of children should be illegal.
Yes Arndt is blinkered by self interest in her wish to be friend and part of a male and empowered cognoscenti; its all about power and money aint it.
If one looks at how older women are these days universally made to feel less than or invisible in the right and left of society.
True it is other women and men who are doing well both politically and socially who seems to keep vulnerable women back.
The rate of homelessness and poverty of women over 45 in this country is sky rocketing
We must be careful not to point the finger just at simpletons on the right.
Look at the dearth of women in media in senior roles.
Look at the dearth of women in politics in senior roles.
Look at the dearth of senior (older) women in technology .