Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well.
So, in past week, Australia has seen one of the most extraordinary examples
of misplaced feminist rage I think I have ever encountered, and
believe me, I’ve encountered a lot.
Bettina Arndt; social commentator and virulent advocate for men’s issues, has been made
a Member of the Order of Australia.
The award was for significant service to the community as a social
commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men.
And from the moment this award was announced,
feminist minds all over Australia exploded.
You see, feminists think they have a monopoly on gender equity, because they believe it
only goes one way, that is, promoting the needs of women at the expense
of men.
Because they are neo-Marxists, they have this daft idea that there is
only so much equality to go around, and that therefore any
discussion of men’s issues detracts from the discussion of women’s
issues.
Ridiculous assertion of course, but hey, that’s modern
feminism for you.
This feminist outrage got to such a point that the Attorney General of
Victoria, Jill Hennesy, wrote to the Governor General of Australia,
imploring him to strip Bettina of her award, a move that was lauded
by feminists everywhere which is somewhat ironic, but whatever.
The reasons Jill Hennessy gave were that Bettina, apparently, blames
and shames victims of sexual violence, sympathised with a convicted
child abuser, and diminishes the devastating experiences of domestic
violence victims through her views and activities.
Now, those are some pretty serious allegations if true.
But, as anyone with even the smallest bit of experience with feminist
allegations knows, 99% of the time they’re not true.
They’re just fabricated claims strung together by out of
context quotes, hastily made assumptions, and outright lies, in order
to demonize someone they don’t like because they can’t get
them on the facts.
So how exactly does this apply to Bettina Arndt?
Well, before I tell you, I would love it if you’d subscribe
to my channel if you haven’t already.
I’m sure you’ve already watched one or two of my videos,
maybe even more, and you just haven’t hit that subscribe button yet.
So, if you like my content, now would be the perfect time to
subscribe!
I would really love to hit 200,000 subscribers by my
birthday in July, so pretty please hit that subscribe button now, I
would love to have you.
Right, so what does Bettina actually believe?
Well, in summary, this
Now, to your average person, all of that sounds perfectly reasonable.
But in advocating for men, Bettina has challenged two of the most
sacred and lucrative narratives presented by radical feminists.
First; that domestic violence is a women’s issue caused by gender
inequality, which of course it’s not, and two, that university
campuses are hotbeds of rape and misogyny, which of course they’re
not.
See the video description for sources
In typical feminist fashion; rather than argue their case to Bettina on
a factual, intellectual level, Australian feminists have tried every dirty
trick in the book for years to take Bettina down.
Their most recent attack was an article for an online rag called
New Matilda, co- authored by Chris Graham and a feminist journalist
named Nina Funnell.
Remember that name.
This article, which was released in perfectly timed fashion in the
wake of the announcement of Bettina’s award, and included parts of
an interview done with Bettina, was the result of a two years long
investigation not into Bettina’s sources, or arguments…but into her
university qualifications.
The article was billed as an expose of Bettina, who they imply has
been knowingly falsely representing herself as a clinical psychologist
for decades, when really she only has a Masters of Psychology which
she got in the 70s and isn’t registered with the relevant public body
so she’s been leading people on, so hah!
She’s not credible!!
Of course, none of that is the case.
When Bettina obtained her Master of Psychology from UNSW in 1973, that
was the newest, highest quality qualification for psychology
available, and it was not a requirement to register as a psychologist
in order to practice.
That was the situation for the first 16 years of
Bettina’s career.
When the requirements for being a psychologist in NSW began to
tighten up, Bettina stopped referring to herself as a clinical
psychologist, and instead as someone who is trained as a clinical
psychologist.
Which you can see here at the bottom of this 2018 article
written by Bettina for Quillette, which clearly states “Bettina Arndt
trained as a clinical psychologist before becoming one of Australia’s
first sex therapists.
She then had a long career as a social commentator mainly on gender issues.”
Also, Bettina’s CV is available on her website, and has been available
for years and years.
In addition, there have been complaints made by
activists about Bettina’s representation over the last few years to the
authorities, who have decided, every time, that she has breached no
rules and is doing nothing wrong.
As Bettina has also stated, there are numerous interviews with her
on the public record where she describes starting work as a sex
therapist, which was her major.
However, within a year she decided it was more effective to do sex education
through the media, hence the fact she didn’t register as a psychologist
when that become a requirement in 1989.
Because she mainly worked through the media, so had no interest in
promoting or updating her clinical psychology qualifications.
Nor did she seek any sort of business as a psychologist
during that time.
So, no, Bettina has not been wilfully misrepresenting
herself as a clinical
psychologist.
In fact, Bettina doesn’t actually like psychology as a
profession.
As she stated to New Matilda
“I gave up psychology quick smart because it bored me to tears.
I felt that psychology was useless when it came to
educating the community about sex….
They didn’t need one-to-one therapy to teach people about sex in the 1970s.
What was needed was basic sex education.
[So]… that’s what I did, from a very early age.
My job was using the media for sex education and that morphed then
into social commentary about gender issues.
“Psychology [does not do]a good job educating people… and it’s
misrepresenting a whole range of issues….
I have no interest in being associated with psychology.
I do my best to distance myself from that profession.”
So…if Bettina has had her CV on her website for years, has been very
open about her transition away from psychology early in her career,
stopped referring to herself as a clinical psychologist when the rules
got tighter, and doesn’t actually have a lot of time for psychology as
a profession…then how can anybody say she has been falsely
representing her self as a clinical psychologist?
Also, as Bettina has said, there are tons of people working in media
who are still referred to by their original qualifications as doctors, or
even psychiatrists, even if they haven’t practiced for years.
It’s a
mark of experience, not an insistence that they’re something they’re
not.
The only thing the New Matilda article really seems to maybe have is
that 80 or so media outlets have referred to Bettina as a clinical
psychologist when introducing her, and she hasn’t corrected them.
Apparently, that’s evidence that somehow she’s happy to let the
media misrepresent her because she’s some sort of fraud.
But, again, as Bettina has said to new Matilda
“You can’t start every interview by correcting your host.
I mean I do sometimes.
[I have done] many times.
Many times.
But I’ve done, I don’t know how many thousands of interviews
in my life.
When you have a two-minute television interview and
I have an important message to say I’m not going to spend the
first minute going through my qualifications, am I?
“I try to do so after the interview when I get an opportunity.
I’m always trying to be extremely honest about
what I do and how I got into this business.”
Now, the important thing about that New Matilda article is Bettina
was not told prior to doing the interview that Nina Funnel was to be
one of the co-authors.
That’s rather unscrupulous, particularly when
Bettina has said that had she known Nina was going to be part of it,
she would not have done the interview.
And here’s why.
Nina is an ambassador for End Rape on Campus; an initiative that has
sown the seeds of panic over an alleged rape crisis on university
campuses.
The organisation has pushed for a number of surveys to
be done in the hopes of finding evidence of some sort of scandalous
data about sexual assault, and is at least partly responsible for the
instigation of kangaroo courts at universities to assess allegations of
sexual harassment and assault.
They use a lower burden of proof than an actual criminal court does,
and operate on a “believe the victim” basis, which is reminiscent of
that old medieval adage, “guilty until proven innocent”.
In fact, these kangaroo courts are so regressive, a Queensland
Supreme Court in late 2019 found them to be illegal.
Anyway, Bettina has been a bit of a thorn in Nina’s side.
She has directly contradicted Nina’s rape crisis
narrative, by highlighting the fact that a survey commissioned by the Australian
Human Rights Commission, which was supported by End Rape
on Campus and other activists and was the golden hope with
which to prove the narrative of a university rape crisis, did
quite the opposite.
The survey found that only 0.8 percent per year of the 30,000
surveyed reported any sexual assault, even using the broadest
possible definition including “tricked into sex against your will” and
sexual contact with a stranger on the bus or train trip to university”.
Still too high, there should be zero, but nowhere near a crisis
situation.
In addition to that, Bettina points out that according to the
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, campuses are about 100 times safer
than the rest of the community for young women.
This result was not what feminist activists hoped for, which
Bettina made known with her 2018 fake Rape Crisis tour of university
campuses; an
initiative operating in direct opposition to the End Rape on Campus
organisation.
So, given Nina’s association with End Rape On Campus, there is a
massive conflict of interest with Nina’s reporting on Bettina, which
no media outlets have acknowledged.
According to Bettina, Nina Funnell has been instrumental in perpetuating
a lot of the fake news being circulated about her.
Like not-so-subtly implying Bettina is a child abuse apologist.
Bettina did an interview with convicted child abuser
Nicholas Bester in 2017 on her YouTube channel.
Using very select quotes, sliced and diced out of context, Nina wrote for news.com.
au that Bettina had said the 15-year-old victim’s behaviour was “sexually
provocative”, and that the interview was “highly sympathetic”
to Bester, painting him as the victim and the 15-year-old as
the aggressor.
This article was preceded by an episode of 60 Minutes making the
same allegations as Nina.
But of course, this was not the full story.
Here’s the context for the interview, as relayed by Bettina to Studio
10
So, very clearly not a child abuser apologist.
There were, however, some problems with that interview, which Bettina
has since acknowledged and apologised for.
She has also taken the video off YouTube.
But nowhere in that video did she sympathise with Bester’s
actions, or imply that his sentence was too strict, or blame the
victim, or anything like what has been asserted by Australian
feminists in the wake of her award.
Another way feminists try to smear Bettina is by accusing her of
being a rape apologist.
They do this by claiming the very existence of
her Fake Rape Crisis tour is somehow diminishing the horror of
sexual assault.
They also use a quote from an article she wrote in
2005 about the court case of another child abuser on trial.
Here she is with ABC commentator and known feminist
Virginia Trioli, discussing the offending quote
It's all such typical feminist behaviour, but Bettina really does seem
to cop it worse than the rest of us non-left wing women.
The main contributing factor to this rampant feminist
hatred of Bettina is that she has very successfully, with facts and
logic, critiqued and deconstructed those two core narratives of
the fourth wave feminist movement.
And, in the absence of facts themselves, feminists have no choice but
to try to beat her into silence, because they are terrified that not
only is Bettina correct on a lot of points, but that she is effective in
communicating, to the general public, information that feminists
simply do not want people to know.
Bettina poses an existential threat to the feminist movement in Australia,
and for that alone, she is being punished.