Targeting the Boys
In early January, when Australia was still reeling from the Bondi Massacre, all the talk was about violent extremism. We watched the Albanese Government desperately trying to avoid naming Islamic extremism as the ideology which inspired this appalling event.
How convenient that on January 7th, the day before Albanese finally agreed to a Royal Commission, our media was diverted by a news story reporting on a Melbourne University study into what they claimed was another driver of violent extremism. You guessed it – misogyny.
“Almost 40% of Australian boys support violent extremist ideologies while more than a third have misogynistic attitudes towards women,” spluttered outraged headlines. Newspapers quoted Dr Sara Meger, the lead researcher, who said her findings revealed strong and significant correlations between misogynist attitudes and support for violent extremism. Apparently “disturbingly high” anti-feminist views were held by the boys aged 13 to 17 included in the study.
Sara Meger has been targeting boys for many years now and this was an ideal moment to attract international attention. The feminist scholar is a lecturer in feminist international relations and international security, and this new research is simply the latest round of her ongoing project on ‘Misogyny and Youth Radicalisation Leading to Violent Extremism’.
Feminist ideologues in our universities have been linking misogyny to extremism for nearly a decade. Check out the Australian Institute of International Affairs, a respected thinktank precluded under its own charter from promoting ideology. Yet from 2018 onwards this organisation has been publishing articles identifying misogyny as a form of violent extremism. The most recent example, by Deakin University lecturer Dr Shannon Zimmerman, quotes the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which claims “conflict and war have a disproportionate impact on women and girls”. Hmmm, apart from all those dead soldiers, who are almost all men.
Zimmerman argues that it follows that “special effort is needed to be taken to ensure the protection of women and girls from violence” and this requires addressing gender-based responses to extremism.
There are dozens feminist academics across Australia pushing this line, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, arguing that misogyny is a cause, sometimes even the cause, of Right-wing extremism. And they are packing a punch.
Our key intelligence organisation, ASIO, has fallen into line, acknowledging links between misogyny and violent extremism, especially in the context of radicalisation among young people. Mike Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, has referenced “violent misogynists” as part of the evolving threat landscape.
This is simply the latest product of the endlessly inventive domestic violence industry. The violent extremism they are talking about is rebadged violence against women – a remake of the relentless campaign which has dominated public dialogue for the last half century, morphing from protecting women from genuinely dangerous men to claiming victimhood for women confronted with a raised voice or refusal to pay a credit card bill.
The industry’s inspired new move is to repackage violence against women as the very latest, sexiest of bogeymen – terrorist extremism. Not bad, eh? A telling example of the feminists’ incredible chutzpah and inventiveness.
After nearly a decade of propaganda carefully preparing the ground, the scene is set. They are coming for the boys. The feminists now say the time has come for prevention, which means targeting boys in schools.
We’ve had the first announcement. At the National Men’s Health Gathering in Brisbane last October, Ged Kearney, the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, announced classroom anti-misogyny training for boys would soon be introduced into both junior and senior schools.
So here we go. Australia is scrambling to catch up with feminists elsewhere who’ve been going great guns pursuing this new agenda. In Canada, New Zealand and some American states there are moves to follow the UK and Scotland, which recently announced anti-misogyny classes for boys in schools, spending £20 million to empower teachers, families and pupils to tackle these issues. Children as young as 11 exhibiting “misogynistic behaviours” are to receive targeted interventions.
Jess Phillips, who bears the ominous title “Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls”, has repeatedly described misogyny as needing to be treated like “any other extremist ideology”.
Sure enough, her safeguarding has already begun. In early January, Laurelhill Community College in County Antrim, Northern Ireland suspended 19 male teenage pupils after the principal raised concerns about “toxic masculinity” on display during a school assembly. The parents of the 19 boys, along with children at the school, have spoken out against the suspensions believing them to be unfair, saying they have damaged the boys’ mental wellbeing after being made out to “be villains”. There were claims that the girls’ behaviour was just as bad, yet none were suspended, naturally.
Let’s return briefly to the Meger research used to support the latest claims about misogyny and violent extremism. What we didn’t hear about is the fact that this study also found more than a quarter of the teenage girls surveyed expressed misogynist views about women and girls – “minimising violence, excusing perpetrators and mistrusting their own gender”. That’s according to the Victorian Commissioner for Gender Equality the Public Sector, Dr Niki Vincent, who wrote about the unpublished study on her LinkedIn page.
So how is it possible that so many girls were lured to the dark side? Well, look at the inane questions included in the Megel project:
Sometimes a woman can make a man so angry that he hits her when he didn’t mean to.
Women often make sexual assault accusations as a way of getting back at men.
Women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence.
It is easy to see why so many girls as well as boys would agree with these often factual statements.
But naturally most of our compliant media trots out the latest feminist talking points rather than examining the research and asking the hard questions. And boys remain in the crosshairs – a very convenient distraction from the real threat of violent extremism.
As one of Australia’s first sex therapists, Bettina Arndt started her career talking about sex on television and teaching doctors and other professionals about sexual counselling at a time when such topics were largely taboo. Her current, even more socially unacceptable passion is exposing Australia’s unfair treatment of men with the relentless weaponisation of laws and policies that see women only as victims. Her decades of advocacy of fair treatment of men in the Family Court included serving on key government inquiries. Bettina makes YouTube videos and blogs on Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Elect mediocrity, get mediocrity.
Unelected academic mediocrity often funded by morons.
The people pushing this nonsense won’t be happy until they have completely erased boys.
According to Worldometer ( https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ ) the fertility rate is below replacement levels everywhere except Africa.
Could ‘feminism’ play a part in this? I’m not particularly concerned at the fall in population and fertility but…
If misogyny is to be treated as any other extremist ideology by having special anti-misogyny classes, are we getting anti-communism and anti-Islamism classes as well?
Well exactly. Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if there wasn’t this constant animosity, this need to demonise, disrespect and scapegoat the opposite sex? And i mean this from the standpoint of both sexes because it’s people from both sexes who are guilty of this behaviour. And that we could actually demonstrate unity because we acknowledge who the real common enemy is, who is actually threatening our way of life, erasing our culture and fragmenting our societies, pitting one citizen against another.
Femininsm, and the walking contradictions that are the adherents of this ideology, is just one string on a much larger and more powerful bow. It’s my opinion that most women who identify as modern day feminists are Socialists, Marxists and Communists. That’s where the main drivers of all agendas responsible for the ruination of our society come from, in my view, and the culprits are very much available in both male and female form.
If we put the early years and achievements of courageous activists to one side, feminism nowadays is to women’s rights what Keir Starmer is to free speech. It can’t even be called a veneer or pretence anymore because their objectives are so blatantly transparent.
This constant animosity exists here, meaning, in the self-selected set of people who donate to this web site and write comments. I don’t usually encounter it in the real world where things are essentially normal — men being men, women being women, and both generally happy – minus to occasional bitching – with letting the respective other be whatever they are.
Correct. Of course it exists here. It’s only the likes of me and you ( the forever outliers ) that have the balls to stand up and draw attention to the naked Emperor.😁 Everybody else turns a blind eye or resorts to gaslighting.
I also don’t notice it in the real world. What normal person, who doesn’t go through life bearing an irrational grudge or holding some deep-seated perceived sense of being wronged, goes about their day to day business immersed in self-victimisation with a default viewpoint that the opposite sex is to blame for every ill or misfortune? It’s not a normal or healthy mindset to harbour, is it?
I work with both men and women, I have a female boss and the one above her is male and I’ve no issues with any of them. Just my experience, for what it’s worth. I judge people on their personalities or actions, not which sex they are. You get tossers or inept work colleagues in both camps.
What we read and read about online does seem to be an exaggeration/extreme end of “normal” attitudes. Or people are only honest online. But yes, my experience is the same as yours – pretty much everyone I meet, talk to, see, overhear, has fairly moderate views in this area – women moan about men being men, men moan about women being women, but they marry, spend time together, realise they need each other even if they won’t admit it.
anti-Islamism classes = anti-misogyny classes
Only in theory. Beliefs Muslim men hold about women, eg, that they ought to be killed when the dishonour the family by sexually liberal behaviour, mostly affects Muslim women and not white, female fulminatists. Hence, questions on Muslim attutides wrt violence of men against women weren’t included.
And “Anti-Misandry”, as well?
“Apparently “disturbingly high” anti-feminist views were held by the boys aged 13 to 17 included in the study.”
Well, I hold anti-feminist views too because in my opinion feminism is predominantly about hatred for men. Which is not good for men or women.
To make matters worse, this is also the view of my wife and she reached this conclusion independently of me, before we even met.
This is only going one way and only going to get worse – as education and the institutions get more and more feminised, they will use their increased power to discriminate against boys and men. This is classic female behaviour, compete against rivals (in this case males) not by performing better, but by eliminating them.
This is absolutely ‘classic’ behaviour for people of all sexes who play power games in a civil non-violent society. For instance, it’s widely employed by male left-wing politicians.
This is not research. It’s a socio-political opinion poll and a particularly bad one because 1020 people where queried and the group was constructed taking only age, sex, location and religion into account. Further, questions included
Q40. It is understandable that young men who are
rejected by women and starved of sex resort to violent vengeance.
Q42. Feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.
which both already presume that what this so-called research was supposed to establish actually exists and which are both widely open to different interpretations. Eg, I once was subject to a rather comical feminist attack when some woman (unprovoked) jumped onto my back and starting pulling my hair. I didn’t really resist by force but if she had gone significantly further than that, ie, actually started to hurt me, I’d certainly have. But this is probably not anywhere close to the definition of resisting feminism by force if necessary the authors of this paper had in mind.
Even for so-called social science, this is spectacularly bad.
The title is wrong. It should be corrected to “TARGETING THE WHITE BOYS”.
Should be emphasized. The so-called ‘Incel VE’ (Q40) and ‘anti-feminist VE’ (Q41) are specific to white culture while something like:
Qxy. Women who dishonour their family or husbands with un-islamic sexual morals and behaviour ought to be violently punished.
which could, within the limits of the general idiocy of this study, have been used to capture Muslim support for violence against women, wasn’t included despite the underlying phenomenon (Muslim men killing Muslim woman they’re related to for sexual transgressions) is rather well-known.
Yes, self-styled “Sex Therapist” Bettina Arndt conveniently avoids talking about Muslims. Or the whole vast African continent.
I was referring to the study which was specifically designed to trip white/ Christian people up in a way which may interpreted as support for violent misogyny and which contained no such traps for people who support ‘traditional’ Muslim violence against women despite that’s probably (I have no numbers but news reports about this seem to be more frequent) more of a real-world problem.
As a grandfather of 6 children between 3 and 17 the girls generally dislike (“hate” is too strong a word) boys and the boys dislike the girls. Both seem afraid of the other.
I put this down to a natural in-built attitude to prevent early sexu@l activity in children – obviously there are exceptions!
Absolutely spot on, you are!
And of course a large percentage of the small percentage of the 40% who actually are misogynists are Moslem. So get rid of the Moslems and get rid of most of the problem.