- News from the nation's capital.
Angry wife’s wild brothel protest after husband’s sex binge
A furious wife is threatening to protest outside a Gold Coast brothel after her husband spent $6000 on a seven-hour sex-bender there.
This was on the Australian www.news.com.au under Lifestyle > Relationships > Sex
Please watch the video of the sex worker by Melrose.
Given everything about the attacking of men, I find this extremely interesting given that a wife is upset, fair enough and the other woman is a sex worker who is making money..
Please tell me if this is totally inappropriate here and I will delete it.
I just watched an interview with Pauline Hanson from a few months ago when she said she told Graham Perret a labor Member of Parliament fathers should have an equal role in the parenting of their children and he said "No they shouldn't. Mothers make far better parents!"
I have just written to him via his website.
I did some research and found that in the past ten years mothers have murdered 133 children and fathers 81. This debunks the feminist and government lies about this new bill being about the safety of children.
I know the stats on neglect and abuse show something like 70% of this abuse is perpetrated by mothers. The whole narrative is one big lie..
During the campaign for the Voice referendum, I often thought that there should be a referendum on men's rights. Or put another way, there should be a referendum to put gender rights in the constitution, with a view to the rights of men. The Labor Party is a vehicle for feminism and various other ideologies, but not for men as fathers and citizens with equal rights.
Advocacy for the constitutional rights of men could easily be phrased in a neutral tone, to represent equal rights for all. There could be 10 proposals. The right of children to equal time with both parents, as a principle, but with exceptions in special circumstances. The right of men to be anonymous in rape trials, until a verdict is made. Similar to laws in some other countries. A right for heterosexual men to equal representation in government committees that especially affect their welfare.
There needs to be a more aggressive stance in regard to the Labor Party, to the left and to the maniacal medusas who are employed by the state to stir up anti-patriarchy, anti-male sentiment. Ironically the commanding heights of society are controlled by those who despise men, and use public money to belittle and berate those who have sacrificed the most. But that scheme I imagine will probably not work, because men are so servile and so focused on sport and distraction that they are never organised, never conscious of their interest, until the moment when they are utterly alone, and powerless, laughed at and scorned by the harpies (in universities and govt departments) who are given taxpayer funds to scorn the patriarchy.
Nothing has changed in 30 years. I cannot see things changing in the future.
That’s not the way I would express it.
Family law is complicated, and Labor has disingenuously created the false impression the 2006 ‘shared-parenting’ reforms increase the risk of post-separation family violence. In fact, the very opposite is the case, with the 2006 reforms dramatically reducing post-separation dispute and conflict.
I expect Dutton could readily contest the 2023 ‘reforms’ on the basis of facts, and win, but at the expense of being labelled soft on family violence, or pro-fathers and anti-mothers. In reality, the now-abandoned 2006 reforms are pro-child, and parentally, gender-agnostic, but despite all the words, this counts for little. Kids dont vote !
The 2006 reforms mandated the child’s conditional entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting. The 2023 reforms abolished the child’s entitlement, with the Attorney General misleading the Australian public into believing this was in their best interests. It is not. There is plenty of scope for the opposition to factually challenge the 2026 ‘reforms’, but they need to have a very solid understanding of the facts, and the courage to pursue it. All they have to do is adhere to the ‘paramountcy of children’s welfare’, and the rest will fall into place.
In comparison to men, women are a tad more complicated. They initiate the vast majority of divorces, which probably means either men are lousy partners (ie, in comparison to women), or women are more demanding of the relationship, or feel trapped in a uncomfortably dependent manner. Its a somewhat habitualised malaise . In times of yore, men were principally judged on their ability as primary breadwinners, without necessarily having to invest in the emotional needs of their other half. Times have changed. From an evolutionary perspective, the infatuation only has to last as long as it takes to procreate, but thereafter relationships are increasingly optional.
Perhaps the bonds that tie men to women is deeper because it has maternal connotations, albeit this depth does not necessarily extend to fidelity.
I doubt women concoct justifications for ending a marriage. The love/infatuation has gone, and whats left is not enough to sustain it. Bottom line, you need to be best friends, and invested in each other.
The concoctions you refer to are more a feature of custodial contests where a relatively small percentage of mothers fabricate evidence either as a means of circumventing the now defunct post-separation shared parenting provisions, or extracting a more favourable property settlement. It is these fabrications which have been overwhelming the court, not the presumption of parental equality/responsibility.
Greg, it was a ridiculous situation. Couples had to go to court to prove infidelity, and tear each other apart before getting a divorce. Children were a consideration. Indeed, the concern for children was the impetus for the 'paramountcy of children's welfare'. Great in theory, but a complete shambles in practice. Instead, the court administered a sole-custodial paradigm practicing the indivisibility of mother and child's welfare, whilst subordinating the role of fathers. In effect, 'the paramountcy of mother's welfare' This was largely resolved by the 2006 reforms, which have now been abolished by the present Labor government.
The new Parliament House is more remote, but I suspect the bigger ‘problem’ is email. As opposed to pre-digital days, it is so easy to contact MPs, they tend to be overwhelmed by the volume.
In my childhood, the LNP was essentially the centrist party, whereas today Labor (+ Teals) are more the centrist party, with the Greens are on the extreme left. Labor’s family law policy is an aberration being pushed by an ideologically-driven zealot.
The LNP drifted to the far right under Howard, and lost its centre. The more the country changed the more he stayed the same. He needed a dash of Whitlam in him ....just as Whitlam needed a dash of Howard. The LNP centrists then made the big mistake of acquiescing to Abbot, before finally switching to a moderate, much smarter, but ill-fated Turnbull, and finally ‘Robo-debt’ Morrison. Its been a bad few decades for the LNP. But, this is also true for Gillard and Rudd governments. In regards family law, the LNP has got it dead right, and Labor has it dead wrong. Reason being, the LNP has the progressive policy (adopting a continuum between pre-separation and post-separation shared parenting), whilst Labor has adopted the conservative policy of preserving an outdated, inequitable, gender-discriminatory sole-custodial paradigm. The LNP have driven family law reform, whilst Labor has resisted it at every turn. The Gillard and Albanese governments even reversing LNP reforms. The greatest clarity and sanity in family law came in 2003 with the inquiry chaired by Kay Hull (Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation), which government has just scrapped. Its a template which should have been preserved at all costs. The 2023 ‘reforms’ will inevitably fail and have to be reversed, but they will cause enormous damage in the meantime.
Dutton sat on the Kay Hull committee, so understands the subject matter. Will he come out and support fathers, if it creates the impression (and that’s all it is) of being anti-mother, or soft on family violence? I rather doubt it. The 2023 ‘reforms’ have been 5 years in the making, and he has been fairly silent on the issue.
Moreover, the Teals (the former moderate wing of the LNP) voted for Labor’s 2023 ‘reforms’, so its hard to imagine Dutton being highly motivated. If history is our guide, both the LNP and Teals will more likely wait until all the damage has been done, and then act to ‘fix Labor’s mess’.
Politicians believe that collectively, men don’t sway elections in the manner that women do. So, they treat us accordingly. The same applies to the media, who are terrified of losing their female readership.
For example, The SMH/Age did not touch this subject for fear of alienating women. Its a complete nonsense, because a well reasoned argument will sway women just as much as men, but editors are terrified of being dragged over the coals for losing their female readership. That is, unless the numbers demand it, or their conscience gets the better of them, they are risk averse in family law. Politicians are the same.
Ken, its difficult to imagine, but we are talking pre-digital, pre-Internet, pre-computer days. Politicians were less accessible, but more responsive. Some of my missives to them were hand-written, others typed by a secretarial service. In my mind, Qwerty was as mysterious as family law itself. I still have the signed reply letter from PM John Howard, and hundreds of others. Mostly non-committal. Gareth Evans at least considered my proposal, before knocking it back. Ruddick was the only other one who expressed interest. Obviously I was not convincing enough because it took 30 years to happen. Either I was naive or they were just too obtuse to understand. Of course, the Family Court eco-system strongly resisted reform because it threatened their 'rivers of gold'.
Gough Whitlam (and Lionel Murphy) had the right idea in 1975 in terms of divorce, but (whilst in this revolutionary state of mind) they should have also mandated the child's entitlement to equitable post-separation shared parenting - as finally occurred in 2006. Murphy took the adversarial out of divorce, but this simply encouraged hostilities to be transferred to custody and access, which remained adversarial.
For many years, the Labor Party represented the interests of working men. When they deserted the unions, the party deserted them. They now represent working women, and men are barely an afterthought. Particularly when it comes to family law. In fact, I do not believe that most mothers agree with their family law policies, but it matters little to the party. They are more interested in the impression they create. They figure men are so hopeless at representing their own interests, they can get away with it anyway.
In the late 1970's I wrote to all parliamentarians on multiple occasions requesting the Family Law Act be amended to include the concept of post-separation shared parenting. Gareth Evans advised me I appeared to be proposing 'a novel presumption of shared parenting', but declined the invitation. Whilst he redeemed himself in 2006, John Howard had no idea what I was taking about (instead rattled on about fathers responsibility to pay maintenance), Phillip Ruddick was more attentive, but also declined the invitation. It took 30 long and destructive years for sanity to finally prevail, and to think that 17 years later Labor is unraveling it all defies comprehension. To be frank, I dont expect the vast majority of 2023 mothers would support the bill if they understood what is really all about. But what really puzzles me is the deafening silence from the media (where is Nick McKenzie when you need him), and how the independents have fallen for this. In effect, parliamentarians were deceived into believing they were voting to protect children from post-separation violence, which is complete nonsense. 97% of parents mutually agree on post-separation shared parenting, 70% 'amicably'. Only 3% of parents litigate in the Family Court, 2.4% make allegations of violence, abuse or neglect, and just half of these succeed in convincing the court. That is, under 1% parents are deemed by the court to be unsuitable shared parents. Because of 1% of problematic parents, the government has abolished the mandate which conditionally entitled the other 99% of children (and thereby fathers) to more equitable post-separation shared parenting! Following the 2006 reforms the AIFS comprehensively researched outcomes. A 50% reduction in the use of lawyers (ouch!) and 60% reduction in Family Court litigation. Inevitably, the 2023 'reforms' will return conflict, dispute and litigation back to levels experienced between 1975 and 2006, .....and daresay, the risk of violence. It would have to be the worst legislation in the past 50 years. For sheer stupidity, exceeding Abbott/Turnbull's copper NBN, and similarly, and without a single redeeming feature.
In the media last week 50 women killed each year in Australia because of Domestic Violence situations. How many of 2500 male suicides are caused by women lying about Domestic Violence.
I wrote this article a while ago after listening to you have a "discussion" with Merrick Watts regarding the appointment of a female as the first National Suicide Prevention Adviser.
I also included an article about workplace deaths which appeared in the Herald Sun as a perfect example of the way male suffering is either deliberately diminished or made invisible by the way in which it is reported.
The article was of a reasonable length and the word men or man was not used once . Workers, Victorians and Aussies were dying in their place of work every day.
I wrote another article regarding the appointment of Julia Gillard's as Chair of Beyond Blue. I included the transcript of her first speech about suicide in which she also failed to use the word men.
I likened such a feat to a speaker talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg of an essay on the Battle of Waterloo which doesn't mention Napoleon.
One might forgive those who prefer to speak in more gender-neutral terms when discussing societal issues if this approach was taken every time any social issue was being discussed but I was able to contrast Gillard's approach to an issue overwhelming negatively impacting men to another speech on an issue which impacts women slightly more but where the gender gap is far less pronounced than it is in suicde or workplace deaths.. She spoke exclusively about women being the victims of DV and announced the millions being poured into ending violence against women. Men were not mentioned.
It is such a stark contrast and makes it clear that it is a very deliberate tactic used to remove the idea that men are in any way disadvantaged in our society.
Our mental illness approach to suicide prevention actually increases risk for men
The engagement process with men starts with me conveying this to the man or his wife/mum/sister
1/ I am not a shrink 2/I am not a wanker and 3/ If you/he does not like what I have to say he can 'piss' off. This tells the man 1/I don't think you are mentally ill 2/ I will be practical and use language you can understand 3/ You remain in charge of the process and can leave at any time. I have never had one walk out.
To assess risk in men I do not use the clip board and depression indicator tests favoured by mental health services. This approach makes the man feel you think he is mentally ill and men are often not prepared to be that open with someone they don't know or trust yet.
What I look to assess risk of suicide in men are
1/ A real or perceived injustice 2/ A failure by other services to recognise the magnitude of risk for the man 3/ An expressed desire to do something decisive and 4/ Negative contact with figures of authority.
I was at the starting point of the suicide prevention shambles prior to the drafting of the first National Action Plan in 1997. I saw the mental illness industry, the drug companies and women's health bureaucrats salivating at the prospect of 'rivers of gold.' 23 million prescriptions for antidepressants p/a in Australia provides the profit to buy a lot of influence but they are most often useless.
The women's health lobby can never allow recognition of the need to be skilled and empathic with men. I have found much of that lot not much good at engaging distressed women as well
Thank you Bettina Arndt. TRUTH needs all the help it can get. You, Alexandra Marshall, Paul Withall, Michael Jose and Senator Pauline Hanson each deserve applause and respect. Most of all, you all deserve more allies. Bettina Arndt subscribers and supporters are invited to receive free PDFs of the Unchain Australia books at www.unchainaustralia.com. A Bettina Arndt chapter promoting TRUTH in Unchain Australia 2023 will be wonderful. With admiration, Michael Darby
Another great initiative Bettina. All this confirms what I've suspected for a long time and that is we are conditioned from a very young age to not value the lives of men in the same way that we are conditioned to value the lives of women. The latest example of this has been the media coverage of the recent October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians where I struggled to find any reference to the fact that a large number of victims were innocent men (as babies, women and "the elderly" were included in the death count the clear implication was this wasn't a routine everyday massacre where only men get killed). The revelation from the ABS about the previously suppressed number and reason for the outsized suicide toll for men in Australia and its direct links to family issues demonstrates in stark terms what I suspect we have all known for a very long time: that domestic violence has taken a far higher physical toll on men than it has on women, yet we hear absolutely nothing of this anywhere.
My apologies that my comment resulted in your banning a commentator. That is an extra headache I didn't intend for you as I appreciate greatly your work. This weird hatred of men is still astonishing. A woman recently railed against 'white men' in her industry. I tried to derail her politely that I didn't agree, but she felt so emboldened she wouldn't stop. Essentially what she and others are calling for is collective punishment for the actions of a few. At one time we would have viewed this as barbaric, but now it is accepted sport.
There are rightly punishments for physical domestic violence. When will men be protected from threats to use false accusations of domestic violence and telling lies to the children to turn them against their father (non physical violence)? These methods are not only USED but also threatened if the man so much as expresses a point of view which does not suit his partner.