From: abarron []
Sent: Monday, 8 August 2005 12:28 PM
To: Family Responsibilities
Subject: Striking the Balance - a male perspective

Importance: High
From Alan Barron,
Convenor, The Memucan Institute,
24 Beltana Street,
Grovedale  Vic  3216

Phone (03) 5243 0205

Dear Sir/Madam,

We read with much interest the discussion paper,  " Striking the Balance - Women, men, work and family - Discussion Paper 2005 ", and would like to make the following response.

Women are now favoured elite - it's men who are getting a raw deal

Having read the  the discussion paper, we are quiet frankly, stunned.  Despite the fact male workers contribute some 70% of the total income tax take, men are virtually invisible to the government.  Women receive much bounty from the Government's largesse while men receive less than 1% of what is spent on women. 

Going on what we could find in the budget figures, $3,276,000,000 ($3.276 BILLION ) or $819,000,000 a year will be spent on women over 4 years.  This is in addition to current funding of equality for women programs and women's policy initiatives, which we estimate to be over $2,400,000,000 ($2.4 BILLION) – this includes running the Office For Women.

However, this figure excludes the funding of Equal Opportunity officers required by law in each and every federal government department and all companies with over 100 employees (some 17,000 odd going by our figures) with their attendant staff and running costs. 

In addition, on top of that there are the vast sumps of money spent by State Governments in their jurisdictions on enforcing and promoting equal outcomes for women - as well as funding the gravy train for WEL and their cohorts.

All we could find for males specifically was $4.2 million for Prostate cancer, and $7 million or the Boy's lighthouse project.  In other words in terms of gender spending, women get over 99 per cent of the funding and men get under 1 per cent.

We desperately need an Office of the Status of Men to redress this ridiculous situation. 

Decision makers must realise that there has been much water flow under the bridge in the past 35 years.  Women are no longer a disadvantaged "minority" says Professor Bob Birrell from Monash University.  They have become the new ruling elite as he says, government initiatives over the past three decades has greatly increased the female participation rates at tertiary institutions which has had an enormous flow on effect as the female participation rate in the workforce has increased quiet significantly.

With all the government attention on women and girls, is it any wonder boys are underperforming at school?  Also, it is no coincidence that male suicide have risen  - along with male unemployment rates.  Males are over-represented in low income jobs with over 30 per cent of men aged 25 - 45 years earning less than $21,500 per year. This has meant that many men simply can't afford to marry - they can barely keep themselves on such a low income.

And as more and more women get allocated places at our universities this has a flow on effect at the other end as more and more women crowd out men from white collar jobs and in the public service.   Is it any wonder men are not marrying because their role of breadwinner is being undermined by the excessive funding of the feminist agenda?  

And is it any wonder women are delaying marriage, and having fewer children because the whole emphasis is for women to place her career aspirations first.  All the atteention is on increasing the female participation rate in the workforce and to negate familial responsibilities.

Hence Australia has a low marriage rate, a declining birthrate and a high unemployment levels.   (Unemployment is 15%, and not 5% as claimed by the government, going by figures supplied by Marcus L'Strange, the former CES head).   By pushing women into the workforce, we have created an over-supply of labour to the marketplace and unemployment figures are fudged by silly definitions such as that a person is "employed" if they have worked for more than 1 hour in the past reporting period (usually 2 weeks). 

` Striking the Balance' not representative of the average woman

The Striking the Balance report makes a critical error. It assumes that "the women's movement" speaks for the vast majority - if not all Australian women.  Striking the Balance reflects a feminist perspective.  Striking the Balance in our view does not reflect the aspirations of the average suburban housewife/mother/employee.

We would contend that the "women's movement" (in reality political feminism), only represents the aspirations of WEL and their cohorts - that is to say, the aspirations of dedicated careerist women, and ignores the needs of women who would seek to balance work and family responsibilities, and those women who want to be full-time carers for their young pre-kinder aged children.  In a free market economy there simply are not enough jobs for all adult males and females so why does the report give the impression jobs are plentiful and freely available?

We beleive the pursuit of feminist inspired ideals is hurting our Australian familial value system.  It might be helpful at this juncture to clarify what feminism - or the "women's movement" stands for.

What the "women's movement" stands for:-

  • Interventionist government policies which often transgress civil and personal liberties.
  • Individualism, Secularism, Humanism.
  • Elevation of the feminine above the masculine.
  • "Unisex" society, gender inclusive language,
  • Equal opportunity (No exceptions unless it suits feminist aims).
  • Special measures/affirmative action for women in employment, education, law and health
  • Disenfranchising the male provider role, and male leadership.
  • Fertility control, including abortion on demand.
  • Child care as communal and state responsibility.
  • `Sexual liberation' for women which being interpreted means promiscuity, defacto relationships, homosexuality.

What does " women's movement " reject?

  • The traditional family unit, and traditional male and female sex roles,
  • The true operation of democracy, and rule of law
  • Biological differences, (In fact all differences between men and women, except obvious physical ones)
  • Bible based Christianity.

The "women's movement" succeeded because:-

  • It had well defined system of belief AND plan of action,
  • Dedication of its rank and file, sense of common purpose.
  • It arrived at a very opportunistic time,
  • It filled a vacuum,
  • It had a slick, and cunning media strategy,
  • No organised opposition to oppose it,
  • It appealed to modern hedonistic lifestyle values.

The "women's movement" did not succeed because:-

  • Because the majority of women wanted it,
  • It was superior ethically to traditional values,
  • Community was calling for urgent reform.
  • Because it had the weight of empirical evidence to support it.

The hard questions such as:

  • "Do the majority of women want these changes?",
  • "Are these changes really called for at this time?",
  • "Can our society safely accommodate radical changes to the role of women?",
  • "What will be the effect be on family life by altering the role of women?
  • "By encouraging married women into the workforce, will this create an oversupply of labour to the marketplace and raise unemployment levels?",
  • "What will happen to the birthrate if married women work?",
  • What of men's rights? Are men entitled to equal consideration too?, were never asked.

Government spending going in wrong direction

Women are encouraged to be self-sufficient. This is touted as a worthy social goal.  What bunk!   Is it any wonder many couples divorce on a whim and interestingly women initiate nearly two-thirds of divorces.  Our divorce rate is too high - is it any wonder family life is in tatters and the governments welfare spending so high?

Both federal and state governments are pouring vast amounts of money into undermining the basis of a well ordered society, the stability of marriage and family life, under the guise of elevating the status of women.  It's time they stopped being controlled by ideologically driven bureaucrats and instead stood back and objectively assessed the situation.  Yes, some programs for women are fair and reasonable, but many are not.

Surely men do have legitimate needs which are currently been overlooked for political convenience.  Governments spend vast sums of money on women because they have a heavily funded and very effective grievance industry rooting for them.

In the interests of justice for men and family life, this unjust and unfair situation must not be allowed to continue.

Striking the balance Report is gyno-centric

Striking the Balance simply ignores that needs of men and boys -it is clearly gyno-centric.

For example, it ignores tthe fact that over 30% of men in the prime marrying age 24-44 earn below $21,500 per year.  Young men are being severely disadvantaged in Australian educational systems today which severely impacts on their ability to find suitable employment and or training.

Due to the gyno-centric focus of government policy, male self esteem continues to fall.  Thousands of young men are now failing to gain entrance to our universities due to affirmative action type policies.  Just to give you some idea of how much ground boys have lost, in 1970 males comprised approx 70 per cent of tertiary enrolments.  Today that figure has dropped to just 46 per cent today.  Females numbers have risen in the same time from 30% to 54%, a huge increase. 

1 - Boy's VCE results up to 20 per cent below female results.

2 - Males make up a paltry 44 per cent of university enrolments, females now dominate most tertiary courses,

3 - Boys than twice as likely as girls to drop out of High School,

4 - The overwhelming number of remedial students are male,

5 - Male unemployment rates for almost every category is higher than female rate,

6 -  Male unemployment rates for graduates is up to 40 percent higher than equivalent female graduate,

Men -  their sorry story in statistics.

Unemployement trends - men and women
  Men Women
1970 38,000 2,000 (note: At this stage more women unemployed.)
1982 183,000 168,000
1992 560,000 298,500 (note: male unemployment nearly three times female rate.)

Figures obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Statistics, 6101.0. Years 1975 through to 1992.)

2 Gender ratios in employment
(full and part-time)
  Men Women
1970 68% 32%
1992 58% 42%
2002 57% 43%


(2a) Equal opportunity/legislation introduced from 1975 (NSW). Affirmative Action mandated 1986 (federal Act).

(2b)  Between 1972 and 1992, male employment rose by 14% from 3,832,500 to 4,460,600.*

(2c)  Between 1972 and 1992, female employment rose by 45% from 1,789,300 to 3,258,399.*

(2d)  If the rising female participation rate in the workforce is superimposed over the unemployment rate chart, what is striking is the parallel rise in the female workforce participation rate - and the corresponding rise in unemployment rates. (2e)  Official unemployment rate was 2.5% in 1974. In 1992 it was 10.7% In 2002 the official rate was 6.3%. Marcus L'Strange former head of the CES says this is misleading. (If a person works more than 1 hour per week they are `gainfully employed' - ILO definition). He estimates real unemployment rate is triple that - ie 18%.

Figures obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Statistics, 6101.0. Years 1975 through to 1992.)

3 Education - Universities & places of higher learning
  Men Women
1972 70% 30%
1992 48% 52%
2002 45% 55%

Notes (3a) Boys receive no special treatment despite the fact that more boys than girls drop out of year 12. 77% of girls complete year 12 - compared with only 66% for boys.(3b) Boys are lagging behind girls in terms of academic performance. Boys results are - on average - 12% BELOW that of girls.

The declining status of men





Men as % of workforce




Men - places at higher education




- 22%

Men - as % of public service




- 22%

Men - proportion of unemployed




- 21%

Women - as % of Armed Forces




Women - places at higher education





Women - as % of workforce





Women - as % of Public Service





Women - proportion of unemployed





Notes:(i) In Australia women have increased their numbers in the workforce by over 100% BUT male numbers have declined 4%.

(ii) Women are generally employed in the expounding sections of the economy (service industries, health and education). On the other hand male areas are rapidly shrinking- i.e. manufacturing and primary industries.

(iii) Of the total 64,700 people who lost their jobs in 1981/82, 61,300 were men. (The Adelaide News 27/1/83, p4.)

(iv) On average men over 45 are unemployed for 15 months.

On average women over 45 are unemployed for 10 months.


Whether policy makers - especially male decision makers - will have the guts to stand up to femocrats, (equal opportunity bureaucrats) and say "enough is enough",  and to go into bat for a fair deal for men and boys - nothing will change.

It's time the political system recognised that men and boys (half the population) are entitled to have their concerns addressed.   After three decades of neglect - due to the implementation of strident feminist demands - men have some serious catching up to do.


1 - Retire all affirmative action programs for women and girls in employment (particularly in the federal public service) and education.  All affirmative action for women policies should be made redundant as such policies have served their purpose and gone past their use-by-date. 

2- That the Office of the Status of Women be abandoned. Human rights should include both female as well as male concerns.  Thus the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would look after all sections of the Australian community - and  not just the female half.