Fiendish feminists' suicide gotcha

Funnily enough, it turns out that this notorious Ten to Men study is also responsible for one of the key statistics being used to underpin the claimed association between suicide and perpetration of domestic violence – namely the finding that suicidal men are 47% more likely than other men to become violent towards their partners.

So, lots of suicidal men later become wife-beaters, this research suggests. Note we are not usually talking about any sort of physical abuse at all. Most of the DV perpetrated by these men is emotional abuse. Nearly a third (32%) of men in the Ten to Men research reported they had made a partner feel “frightened or anxious”, while 9% reported “hitting, slapping, kicking or otherwise physically hurting a partner when angry.”

Get your head around that. Here’s this key statistic being used to introduce draconian measures which could push a vulnerable man over the edge. All based on the claim that suicidal men pose a risk – and it turns out that risk could simply be feeling anxious or nervous. Who of us could honestly say we have never made our partners anxious?

My partner plays double bass in a community orchestra and has suffered considerable anxiety wondering if I would explode during the endless Welcome to Country ceremonies that for years introduced their concerts. Anxiety comes with the territory of knowing a loved one all too well.

But getting back to the AIFS researchers and their Ten to Men research. Amazingly we now discover these zealots have done it again. Whilst producing that magical 47% figure, it turns out they left out inconvenient results which blur the ideological goal of targeting men for their violence. They forgot to mention that many of these suicidal men end up as victims of violent women rather than perpetrators.

You see, the study questioned all men about both perpetration and victimisation and found almost a third (30.9%) reported being victims, and 25% reported both – bidirectional violence. That data was not published, nor did the researchers choose to publish the likelihood of suicidal men experiencing abuse from a woman, nor to release the figures to allow others to make this calculation.

More bizarre still, this 47% claim is about suicidal men potentially becoming violent in the future when they weren’t in the past. AND YET… they use this cooked-up statistic to target suicidal men about their current and previous relationships. Asking the poor vulnerable blokes about beating up wives and partners, past and present. The whole thing is from Cloud Cuckoo Land.

At least there is one Australian professional who is brave enough to call this rubbish out. Stan Korosi is a Melbourne clinical sociologist who specialises in parental alienation and family conflict. His decades of supporting men alienated from their children makes him very sensitive to malicious intent of research he describes as “deeply flawed, best described as misleading, and gender-discriminatory for ignoring the roles women may play in perpetrating Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and coercive control.”

Writing on his parental alienation platform, Dialogue in Growth, Korosi asks: “How does the AIFS justify demonising suicidal men as IPV perpetrators using research bias to demonstrate its preconceived conclusion?” He concludes that AIFS researchers had already decided that men are violent because of their gender. “They were already addicted to the extremist gendered violence cult’s dogma, and their research program was designed to confirm their adherence to it.”

And it’s not just the AIFS’s research. That’s simply the latest data being used to justify this targeting of suicidal men. The 2021 MARAM Framework was based on research based on incomplete, often inaccurate coronial records, death reviews and police reports which include, of course, the current tsunami of apprehended violence orders, many based on false or trivial allegations. A rough estimate suggests that between 150,000 – 250,000 men each year are acquiring this stain on their record, with a cumulative total of almost 2 million men since these laws were introduced in the 1980s.

This entire policy edifice rests on remarkably shonky foundations: dubious and incomplete coronial and police records riddled with false allegations and misidentification, combined with the deliberately deceptive Ten to Men research.

The result is both tragic and grotesque. What was sold to the public as “protecting women from dangerous men” has been weaponised into a system that treats suicidal and distressed men not as patients who desperately need help, but as presumptive perpetrators who must be screened, monitored, and “kept in view”.

In the name of women’s safety, we are actively denying the most vulnerable men in Australia the simple human compassion they cry out for - and pushing some of them closer to the edge.