Female Friendly Australia

In 1996, the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare first published figures on the gender and biological relationship of the perpetrators of abuse against a child victim: 968 men and 1138 women.

In the following year, 1997, the AIH&W stopped publishing the figures delineated by gender and biological relationship to the child. Other than parent or non-parent there is simply no information on the gender and the biological relationship of child abuse perpetrators. -- e.g., biological mother, biological father, uncle, auntie, brother, sister, step father, step mother etc.

The reason given was at best flimsy, especially considering the period in question is a full decade. The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished figures and a lack of publishing space.

I asked the researchers on the fathers4equality for the answer to a simple question after reading study after study from abroad:
Where was the Australian evidence that women are as abusive as men? The answer is in the words above.

That decade corresponds with another significant event in contemporary Australian politics. It is the term in office of John Howard.

No one in a free society wants to believe that their leaders lie to them, although they know that one of the duties of leadership is to withhold certain information from the public. We all want to trust our leaders, and that they will tread carefully and lightly when dealing with the principles of representative government. Principles of informed consent, where an informed public votes for leaders because they believe those leaders will not mislead them.

You can almost hear the whispers

If you listen, can you hear the whispered seduction? The words that may have seduced an average man lusting for power ten years ago...

"If you will abandon the core principle of informed consent, John, and prevent the public from hearing or seeing these facts, we -- the radicals in the feminist movement -- will deliver to your coalition the all-important Women's Vote.' "
"We don't care about the principles of the 'Patriarchy', and neither do you, John. We know that. Women trust us, John, and so do many men, as you know."

"If you and your people can prevent these reports from becoming public, from being discussed in public, .. We will build a power base for women by the same methods that have already proven so effective." A moment here as speaker's and listener's eyes meet and hold; the unspoken threat to turn the same methods against the listener in the quiet.
"We don't care if the primciples of democracy are gone; nor do we care if the core principles of western law disappear. We want power, not equality. -- If we give you power, John, will you give us what we want?"
"We want a 'Female Friendly Australia', John."

Petty cowardice and lust for power have turned average men to treason in the past.

That John Howard lies to Australia about important issues has become common knowledge. He has given too many examples for anyone, even the common citizen, to ignore. The comments are in the paper daily.

Is this the Big Lie that explains why Mr Howard remains the Prime Minister of Australia? Is it not because of a grand lie told publicly, but because of what he has omitted to tell?

And the decade ran its course. Hundreds of millions of government money went into periodicals, websites, and publications to disinform the Australian public, making them believe that women were never violent; that women would never harm their own children; that women always strike out in self defense; and that all Australian men were ignorant brutes.

Money drove the whispers. Family Law became extraordinarily profitable for some law firms. Universities, TAFEs, even secondary schools found that there was always money available to propagate the disinformational themes.
But there was nothing for those who attempted to show differently. Not only was there a dearth of funding, but there were no Australian sources to dispute the radical ideals and ideas.
From abroad -- the US, UK, and Europe -- came literally hundreds of studies disputing the claims, from ever larger sample sizes, longer terms of study, and prestigious universities, institutes, and professionals.
But nothing from Australia.

Slowly, imperceptibly, the cold poison dripped ever deeper into Australian society. At first there was pain -- having to admit that such a beautiful country could be so sick -- then determination on the part of those who sought to right such wrongs, -- from young minds, average people, and into the judiciary and whole universities joined in the effort.

Personal Safety Survey

Then, for reasons still not explained, came the Personal Safety Survey of 2005 -- and the drought lifted from the land. Despite clearly biased submissions from a stream of groups seeking to ignore the harm done to men in Australia, the authors chose to include their own survey information.
It matched almost perfectly with the broad range of international scholarship (over 260 studies) from the past decade.
And it denied the claims of hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer money that had been spent to keep Australians disinformed, frightened and angry. It put the lie to the Big Lie perpetrated on the Australian public.
The greatest question is: Why?
Why did it take over a decade for this sort of information to come out? Why is this information in the Personal Safety Survey suddenly? -- Was someone getting too close to the truth?

There is an old saying that real politicians only move when they are forced to move. They stay away from failures and cling to successes. When a success becomes a failure, the real politicians are nowhere to be found.
Is some truth about to be revealed? Is this why Howard and company seem to be dissembling over Telstra and Medibank in such a mad rush? Are there political debts that must be paid before the facts unfold?

What is the tautology of the 'Female Friendly Australia' plan? Who made these decisions within the government? Who are the strategists outside the government who orchestrated and executed this plan?


There is that old saying going around these days: A great society first destroys itself from within.