Australian Politics Forum - Funding for women's refuges in doubt

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #1 - Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:24pm

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

'Influenced by inappropriate ideologies', how does this sound coming from the 'Male Hate Movement' (feminists) that I understand to be behind the running of many women's refuges.

And why is it that these refuges need to be run by women only? that is unless they really are anti-male establishments. I mean how does the assault of a women by a particular individual who may be a male, disqualify all other men from having a part in looking after victims of domestic abuse? All funding should be cut to these divisive dykes until non-partisan establishments can be set up, religious organizations do mostly qualify, even though they too have been infiltrated to a degree by feminism.

Quote:

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 13^th, 2014 at 9:12am by GA »

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85619
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #2 - Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:36pm

GA wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

'Influenced by inappropriate ideologies', how does this sound coming from the 'Male Hate Movement' (feminists) that I understand to be behind the running of many women's refuges.

And why is it that these refuges need to be run by women? that is unless they really are anti-male establishments. I mean how does the assault of a women by a particular individual who may be a male, disqualify all other men from having a part in looking after victims of domestic abuse? All funding should be cut to these divisive dykes until non-partisan establishments can be set up, religious organizations do mostly qualify, even though they too have been infiltrated to a degree by feminism.

Quote:

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

While I agree that there is a Male hate Industry - my cousin works in a shelter on a voluntary basis and I would hardly call her a feminist.

It always concerns me when such things are run without clear oversight by women's groups,which are in many cases infiltrated by the hate movement. I have had personal knowledge of a dear friend attending a rape support group and being left totally out of her tree - she cannot answer the phone now without fleeing into paranoia, and sight or sound of a man petrifies her. Tragic.

These things need to be overseen properly lest they become nothing more than an avenue for hate groups.

Also - let me add this - most women do not arrive at these places while fleeing violence - they arrive there due to poor circumstances, though often are encouraged to say they are fleeing a 'bad' relationship in order to get priority and placement.

Trouble with all that is that the current 'definitions' of 'domestic violence' as applied against men only, are just about anything without requirement for proof. Refusal of credit card to gamble is being violent to a woman since you are controlling her expenditure. A woman can also decide to leave an impoverished relationship because she can't take it any more - reminds me of that song - "I beg your pardon! I never promised you a rose garden!". In any case that is hardly the fault of the man and most certainly he is not 'violent' in any way.

People with nothing often do desperate things and learn very quickly that there are no rules in reality.

I think a VERY careful oversight of such things needs to be in place to ensure that honesty and truth prevail.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30182
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #3 - Jul 12^th, 2014 at 6:02pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

GA wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

'Influenced by inappropriate ideologies', how does this sound coming from the 'Male Hate Movement' (feminists) that I understand to be behind the running of many women's refuges.

And why is it that these refuges need to be run by women? that is unless they really are anti-male establishments. I mean how does the assault of a women by a particular individual who may be a male, disqualify all other men from having a part in looking after victims of domestic abuse? All funding should be cut to these divisive dykes until non-partisan establishments can be set up, religious organizations do mostly qualify, even though they too have been infiltrated to a degree by feminism.

Quote:

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

While I agree that there is a Male hate Industry - my cousin works in a shelter on a voluntary basis and I would hardly call her a feminist.

It always concerns me when such things are run without clear oversight by women's groups,which are in many cases infiltrated by the hate movement. I have had personal knowledge of a dear friend attending a rape support group and being left totally out of her tree - she cannot answer the phone now without fleeing into paranoia, and sight or sound of a man petrifies her. Tragic.

These things need to be overseen properly lest they become nothing more than an avenue for hate groups.

Also - let me add this - most women do not arrive at these places while fleeing violence - they arrive there due to poor circumstances, though often are encouraged to say they are fleeing a 'bad' relationship in order to get priority and placement.

Trouble with all that is that the current 'definitions' of 'domestic violence' as applied against men only, are just about anything without requirement for proof. Refusal of credit card to gamble is being violent to a woman since you are controlling her expenditure. A woman can also decide to leave an impoverished relationship because she can't take it any more - reminds me of that song - "I beg your pardon! I never promised you a rose garden!". In any case that is hardly the fault of the man and most certainly he is not 'violent' in any way.

People with nothing often do desperate things and learn very quickly that there are no rules in reality.

I think a VERY careful oversight of such things needs to be in place to ensure that honesty and truth prevail.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #4 - Jul 13^th, 2014 at 11:07am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

GA wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

'Influenced by inappropriate ideologies', how does this sound coming from the 'Male Hate Movement' (feminists) that I understand to be behind the running of many women's refuges.

And why is it that these refuges need to be run by women? that is unless they really are anti-male establishments. I mean how does the assault of a women by a particular individual who may be a male, disqualify all other men from having a part in looking after victims of domestic abuse? All funding should be cut to these divisive dykes until non-partisan establishments can be set up, religious organizations do mostly qualify, even though they too have been infiltrated to a degree by feminism.

Quote:

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

While I agree that there is a Male hate Industry - my cousin works in a shelter on a voluntary basis and I would hardly call her a feminist.

Feminists represent an insignificant percentage of women, numerically so small that they have in effect a little more than zero 'direct' negative effect on society as a whole. The real problem is that this small effect has been magnified in and by the vector provided by modern media such as TV. So it's not that I'm blaming feminists, or for that matter the natural competitor to, and adversary of, all males, the bull-dyke. Ideologies have every right to exist no matter how extreme (not that feminism is all that extreme) as do 'variants' who through no fault of their own arise naturally. And as I've argued many times before, it's not any particular group, but it is our 'soft-side' that is driving what is in effect an attack on our 'Y'/hard-side. Besides, if there is any one 'group' that can be singled out to blame for societies problems, it's 'us' here, who see a problem but fail to do anything about it other than to 'gripe' or comment.

Quote:

It always concerns me when such things are run without clear oversight by women's groups,which are in many cases infiltrated by the hate movement. I have had personal knowledge of a dear friend attending a rape support group and being left totally out of her tree - she cannot answer the phone now without fleeing into paranoia, and sight or sound of a man petrifies her. Tragic.

'Infiltrated by the hate movement', are you kidding? Women's refuges would be the most overtly (if we care to look) political establishments that have ever existed. These are in effect the indoctrination camps of the new-age. Any 'care' handed out is there to win over a potential recruit, and is not for any other reason, that's despite the good intentions of the volunteers etc . Because you may believe your cousin is not a feminist, and that she may believe she working to help abused women, does not change what is in effect happening. But once again, don't get me wrong, refuges mostly fail if their agenda is to turn women into feminists. But where they do succeed is in the goal of helping destabilize relationships between men and women (& boys an girls too).

Quote:

These things need to be overseen properly lest they become nothing more than an avenue for hate groups.

Also - let me add this - most women do not arrive at these places while fleeing violence - they arrive there due to poor circumstances, though often are encouraged to say they are fleeing a 'bad' relationship in order to get priority and placement.

Trouble with all that is that the current 'definitions' of 'domestic violence' as applied against men only, are just about anything without requirement for proof. Refusal of credit card to gamble is being violent to a woman since you are controlling her expenditure. A woman can also decide to leave an impoverished relationship because she can't take it any more - reminds me of that song - "I beg your pardon! I never promised you a rose garden!". In any case that is hardly the fault of the man and most certainly he is not 'violent' in any way.

People with nothing often do desperate things and learn very quickly that there are no rules in reality.

Back to top

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #5 - Jul 13^th, 2014 at 11:26am

Continued:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 2:36pm:

Also - let me add this - most women do not arrive at these places while fleeing violence - they arrive there due to poor circumstances, though often are encouraged to say they are fleeing a 'bad' relationship in order to get priority and placement.

Ironically it is the feminine upbringing of girls that play straight into the hands of the MHM. THat is, a young girl is raised accepting she is special, and needs to be preserved at an expense. Which of course all comes back to her being the 'child bearer' society needs to protect, to preserve the species.

Quote:

Trouble with all that is that the current 'definitions' of 'domestic violence' as applied against men only, are just about anything without requirement for proof. Refusal of credit card to gamble is being violent to a woman since you are controlling her expenditure. A woman can also decide to leave an impoverished relationship because she can't take it any more - reminds me of that song - "I beg your pardon! I never promised you a rose garden!". In any case that is hardly the fault of the man and most certainly he is not 'violent' in any way.

Applying 'domestic violence' against women would be counterproductive, further re-enforcing the division. That is to avoid 'both' instances of DV, the women would be advised not to enter into 'any' relationship at all with a male. The blame aspect has to be eliminated, both parties are adults, they have to learn to accept some responsibility sure. But ultimately the bigger problem is something for government to handle. They fail to do this because they themselves, too, are representations of our 'sides'. In other words, they would only exacerbate the situation. For example the Gillard government expectation that single parents should work, in effect further forming a wedge that prevents a regular family from being formed.

Quote:

People with nothing often do desperate things and learn very quickly that there are no rules in reality.

I think a VERY careful oversight of such things needs to be in place to ensure that honesty and truth prevail.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 13^th, 2014 at 11:39am by GA »

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #6 - Jul 13^th, 2014 at 12:56pm

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

It's being naive believing that most women go to these places because they feel unsafe, when instead they are there in many instances for mistakenly believing that the police were going to be on their side in the fight with their partner. That is the police had the power to pass judgement, declare the partner guilty, win the 'fight' for the women by TKO. As for kids, they should never be allowed into what are in effect indoctrination centers. Besides, unless we accept that the women generally should get the care of the children by default, we too are taking sides. As for not wanting families reunited, how outrageous is that? I mean, should a child not be kept with its family because it had received a smack at some time or another. We are talking about 'domestic' issues, not strangers assaulting each other after-all.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85619
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #7 - Jul 13^th, 2014 at 7:45pm

GA wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

It's being naive believing that most women go to these places because they feel unsafe, when instead they are there in many instances for mistakenly believing that the police were going to be on their side in the fight with their partner. That is the police had the power to pass judgement, declare the partner guilty, win the 'fight' for the women by TKO. As for kids, they should never be allowed into what are in effect indoctrination centers. Besides, unless we accept that the women generally should get the care of the children by default, we too are taking sides. As for not wanting families reunited, how outrageous is that? I mean, should a child not be kept with its family because it had received a smack at some time or another. We are talking about 'domestic' issues, not strangers assaulting each other after-all.

"It's being naive believing that most women go to these places because they feel unsafe, when instead they are there in many instances for mistakenly believing that the police were going to be on their side in the fight with their partner. That is the police had the power to pass judgement, declare the partner guilty, win the 'fight' for the women by TKO."

Yes that is the expectation and one reason why the current mode of 'domestic violence' law needs to be outlawed as it always should have been. Far too many men have been accused and abused under these 'laws' and there is a strong move and predilection to find guilt on accusation - totally anathema under Law.

The primary reason women leave relationships is that they 'do not feel validated' in them. WOW! That's a reason to destroy your children's family?

There is a serious fallacy in the 'primary caregiver' rort - that women somehow should be the sole possessors of children simply because they bore them and breasted them. Men have just as much right and in many case are and remain the 'primary caregiver' in fact since they continue to pay for their children etc and try - often desperately - to ensure their well-being and welfare even when they can be assaulted by the 'law' in seeking to do so.

Disgusting all around.

HERE! ( flings a rotting whale carcase in the ring to get your attention)...

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Funding for women's refuges in doubt
Reply #8 - Jul 14^th, 2014 at 12:55pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

GA wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Apparently there is a new funding process in place for various welfare institutions in NSW, by which larger organisations have successfully tendered for the provision of the services.
The result, according to spokespersons for women's refuges, is that the community based organisations run by women may find it difficult to survive.
The view has been expressed, and I find it a convincing one, that these "original" women's refuges are the most sought out by women fleeing domestic violence and that refuges provided by churches etc may be influenced by ideologies not appropriate to the circumstances.

I imagine such a reorganisation of funding follows a philosophy of efficiency. It seems to me though that efficiency has more than financial or accounting attributes, such as "fit for purpose". I don't particularly care if many refuges are run by lesbians or man-haters. All that matters imho is that the women and their children who turn to them feel safe in an environment where they are not put under pressures such as to seek family reunion, which it has been suggested could be the case where they are operated by major charities.

It's being naive believing that most women go to these places because they feel unsafe, when instead they are there in many instances for mistakenly believing that the police were going to be on their side in the fight with their partner. That is the police had the power to pass judgement, declare the partner guilty, win the 'fight' for the women by TKO. As for kids, they should never be allowed into what are in effect indoctrination centers. Besides, unless we accept that the women generally should get the care of the children by default, we too are taking sides. As for not wanting families reunited, how outrageous is that? I mean, should a child not be kept with its family because it had received a smack at some time or another. We are talking about 'domestic' issues, not strangers assaulting each other after-all.

"It's being naive believing that most women go to these places because they feel unsafe, when instead they are there in many instances for mistakenly believing that the police were going to be on their side in the fight with their partner. That is the police had the power to pass judgement, declare the partner guilty, win the 'fight' for the women by TKO."

Yes that is the expectation and one reason why the current mode of 'domestic violence' law needs to be outlawed as it always should have been. Far too many men have been accused and abused under these 'laws' and there is a strong move and predilection to find guilt on accusation - totally anathema under Law.

The primary reason women leave relationships is that they 'do not feel validated' in them. WOW! That's a reason to destroy your children's family?

There is a serious fallacy in the 'primary caregiver' rort - that women somehow should be the sole possessors of children simply because they bore them and breasted them. Men have just as much right and in many case are and remain the 'primary caregiver' in fact since they continue to pay for their children etc and try - often desperately - to ensure their well-being and welfare even when they can be assaulted by the 'law' in seeking to do so.

Disgusting all around.

HERE! ( flings a rotting whale carcase in the ring to get your attention)...

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-...

Yes, I've read it, it's a great site you've set up there. But it does kind of look like somehow you're suggesting women might be in someway to blame for the situation, something that would be at odds with 50/50 ratio that exists between males and females. I mean, all things being equal, how does a disproportionate force arise? There should be no slant one way or the other, is what I'm saying. And should we really be dwelling so much on the 'problem', and instead start formulating a solution? To me there is only the one, and that's patriotism, as it has the potential to encompass all solutions, social, environmental, and economic, and is a counter to nationalism, at the same time, as I've pointed out before, allows an equal degree of recognition for males. To summarize, don't we really have a 'problem' because we've failed to implement a solution? And if we continue to fail, males, already partly redundant, will one day be completely eliminated. The idea isn't to punish anyone, but is instead to keep relationships together, for the benefit of the family as a whole, and in the long run for society too.

These are things that once again the Americans are miles ahead of us on. But they are also at the same time fighting a losing battle, why, because Americans are dying, being replaced by the offspring of a new age.

From the Wiki:

Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly born August 15, 1924) is an American constitutional lawyer, conservative[2] activist, author, and founder of the Eagle Forum. She is known for her staunch social and political conservatism, her opposition to modern feminism and for her campaign against the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 14^th, 2014 at 1:00pm by GA »

IP Logged