Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

by Rogers

A new report from the University of Melbourne indicates that radical anti-feminism could be the most prevalent form of violent extremism in Australia.

It also suggests that nearly 20 per cent of Australian men support a violent response to feminism, that sexist attitudes are a strong predictor of violent extremism, and that there is an urgent need for security services to address misogyny in Australia.

These shocking findings are the result of a survey of 1,020 Australian men and women, a representative sample of the population by age, sex, location, and religion.

The report author said:

‘It is imperative that misogynistic attitudes be treated as a serious predictor of violent extremism.’

Fortunately for society, it is my view that the poor design of the study and a misinterpretation of the responses reveal that these conclusions are not supported by the data.

Sloppy Definitions

The study defines ‘violent extremism’ (a phrase that appears 143 times in the 13-page report) as support for one or more of a series of conditional statements of the general form ‘violence is justified if…’

The conditions on which violence is ‘justified’ are based on naïve stereotypes of religious, ethnic, racial, and political group beliefs.

The single statement used to identify anti-feminist violent extremism (and only that statement among the seven groups), for example, doesn’t mention violence or any justification for it at all:

‘Feminism is damaging to our society and should resisted by force if necessary (sic).’

What does ‘if necessary’ mean here? And is ‘force’ supposed to be a synonym for ‘violence’? Why not use the word ‘violence’ if that’s what the study purports to measure?

Having identified 19 per cent of the male population (and 8 per cent of the female population, incidentally) who believe that feminism is damaging to society as ‘radical anti-feminist violent extremists’, it’s a short step to the report’s shocking conclusions.

Conflating Issues

The study presents a series of statements ‘designed to measure attitudes permissive of violence against women’. For example, take the following statement from the report: ‘Women going through custody battles make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence.’

The 51 per cent of men (and 31 per cent of women!) who agree with that statement are classified as having an attitude supportive of ‘violence against women’. 31 per cent of Australian women support violence against women! That should have been the headline.

This is a correlational study, not an experiment, and thus cannot support claims of causality (Social Science 101: Correlation does not imply causation). Despite this, several causal claims are made, such as ‘the evidence presented in this brief shows the significance and causal influence of misogynistic and racist attitudes for nearly all forms of violent extremism in Australia today’.

There is no indication, in my opinion, that the statement items presented to the subjects were tested for validity or reliability. The wording of the items suggests that the study asserts agreement with vague sentences implies a deeper trait. This is done, I believe, without sufficient justification.

The publication states ‘the urgent need for a holistic approach to redressing racist and misogynistic attitudes as a matter of security urgency’ – and refers to ASIO, the Department of Home Affairs, the security services, along with state and federal police.

If misogynistic attitudes ‘predict’ violent extremism, as this report claims, then surely, for everyone’s safety, Australia needs legal sanctions against misogyny: criminal penalties for disagreeing with feminism…?

Legislative Lacuna

We have seen a similar fallacious correlation/causation argument support the criminalisation of coercive control in New South Wales and Queensland: the claim that 97 per cent of intimate partner homicide was preceded by emotional and psychological abuse as a form of coercive control.

As Queensland Premier Steven Miles said in March, ‘Coercive control is the most common factor that leads to domestic violence murders.’ It may well be that coercive control is correlated with homicide, but surely, it cannot be true that the action of coercive control causes homicide.

The problems related to amendments of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 (to proscribe coercive control) are manifold, not least the fact that it does not define ‘coerce’ or ‘control’, except circularly: ‘a course of conduct against another person that consists of abusive behaviour’ (54D(1)(a)); abusive behaviour includes ‘coercion or control of the person against whom the behaviour is directed’ (54F(1)(b)).

This failure to define coercive control is illustrated in a 2021 article in the Canberra Law Review arguing for the introduction of a coercive control offence in the ACT. The author makes the point that ‘behaviours of coercive control appear innocuous to outsiders, particularly when viewed beyond the context of the relationship’.

Clearly, the successful prosecution of an offence for which evidence cannot be observed by those outside the relationship must depend entirely on appropriate testimony from the complainant. The woman does not need to identify a specific threat; the legislation does not require one. A statement such as ‘he wanted me to do this thing, and I felt like I had to’ might be sufficient.

In Queensland, coercive control is punishable by up to 14 years in prison, and a government website states that a sign of coercive control is that ‘they prefer you to stay home with them’.

A more immediate and effective defence against coercive control might be to learn how to say the word ‘No’. If saying ‘No’ gives rise to a threat of violence, or to actual violence, there are already suitable laws in place to address it. In this respect, the legislation addressing coercive control is similar to the recently legislated requirement for affirmative consent before sexual activity: to alleviate the need for a woman ever to say ‘No’.

Abuse of the Law

In the aftermath of the murder of a woman involving an ex-boyfriend out on bail for sexual assault, NSW passed changes to the Bail Act 2013. Anyone charged with certain domestic violence offences – including coercive control – must either be remanded in custody or, if they are released on bail, fitted with an ankle monitor.

The combination of these recent developments strengthens the entitlement women have to exercise state-enforced power over men – state-sanctioned coercive control, in effect – and there are no negative consequences for women who choose to do so due to malice, anger, jealousy, mental illness, or any other inappropriate reason. ‘Be nice to me, or I’ll call the police and have you fitted with an ankle monitor.’

What could go wrong?

Whatever the ‘underlying’ causes of domestic violence – we hear it might be disrespect for women, or gender inequality, or alcohol and poverty – it’s self-evident that the immediate proximal cause of domestic violence is male anger. Are we supposed to believe that these changes to the law will reduce male anger?

The proportion of female representatives at all levels of Australian government is close to parity overall and continues to rise. All of the political parties recognise the importance and influence of the female vote – after all, women comprise a little over 51 per cent of the voting population. There does not appear to be any constraint on the enactment of further feminist legislation, by which I mean legislation that is intended to protect, support, or advantage women over men in some way.

Legislation is usually expressed in gender-neutral language, of course, but occasionally, the intention to protect women and punish men is made explicit, as in the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, 9(3)(b): ‘Domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children.’ This must be true – it’s the law.

And how do we all feel about this? Divided.

A 2023 IPA study asked young Australians whether women today receive preferential treatment; 56 per cent of women said no; 59 per cent of men said yes. A 2020 VicHealth study found that of those who expressed an opinion, 67 per cent of men and 45 per cent of women – 56 per cent of the population as a whole – agree there is a ‘feminist war on men’.

If there really is a feminist war on men, as most people believe, there is no doubt the feminists are winning. The State holds the monopoly on violence, and if the democratic numbers – of voters and representatives – continue to support feminist legislation, as seems likely, then the ‘war on men’ is almost certain to be victorious.

In the words of the Joe Jackson song Real Men: ‘And if there’s war between the sexes, then there’ll be no people left.’

Personally, I value our society as it is and has been. I fear for its future if violent confrontation between the sexes continues, and I want us to find a way to end hostilities. I say we need to reach an armistice, a peace treaty. A way for men and women to live together in (relative) harmony. Historically speaking, a truly herculean task. But if the alternative is more bloodshed and possibly even an end to stable society, it is worth attempting the near impossible. The relationship between men and women in Australia needs a reset.

___

Rogers, MA, MSc is a psychologist and founder of Protect Women, a movement seeking to forge a new cooperation between men and women.

Republished with thanks to The Spectator Australia.