Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous. For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”
Are things really that simple? The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women. All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence. Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.
Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it. The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.
Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated. To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)
Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.
I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that. The following is from what I sent to her.
What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination. Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.
I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.
— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001
Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.
That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following. As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.
Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).
With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately. I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.
That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.
I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years. Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.
Here is another item that will interest you. It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).
Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.
I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking. Here is a book review.
It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?”. The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not. Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.
See also Richard Stephens’ analysis of the myth of female innocence with respect to the fairly recent denial (but not all that long ago widely acknowledged prevalence) of the phenomenon of female serial killers.