2019 02 20: Added links to related articles.
2019 05 20, to add reference, introductory paragraph and image of battered husband.
This commentary concerns feminist hijackers who usurped the status of victims of violence from men, defying common sense and objective evidence to the contrary.
By Gerard Levesque
I just came across a fascinating article published, a little while ago, in a newspaper from my (almost) hometown: the Ottawa Citizen: “
We can’t help the victims of violence if hatemongers hijack the agenda.” (Published: Sunday, May 25, 2008) [2018 05 10: The link no longer functions. The article cannot be found on the Internet, and the Internet Archive does not contain a copy of it. —F4L]
The author, Janice Kennedy, informs her readers that an American study, from the Group Health Center for Health Studies, dealing with the “discomforting issue of domestic violence’, is, get this, “breaking new grounds”.
There would be a bizarre thing, “a strikingly less familiar notion” are the words she uses, such as men, “VICTIMS” of domestic violence.
Hold the presses!
LIFE DISCOVERED ON PLANET VENUS!
(life of intellectual kind)
Ms Kennedy must inhabit a parallel universe. The wonderful world of left-wing “progressive” journalism, perhaps? The Canadian feminized media? The Venusian feminist society?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have known, in a science based way, for at least THIRTY years now that men are victims of Domestic Violence at the hands of their women folk. Even worse, they are MORE victimized than their women.
In practical life, we have “always” known that women beat their men. The angry wife wielding a rolling-pin as a weapon to keep her husband in line is a perennial icon of the “battle of the sexes”. In the Middle Ages, a man who let himself be ruled by his wife ran the risk of being paraded in the street, riding backwards on an ass, as an object of public ridicule.
In a feminist state, such as Canada, the relentless propaganda instructs people to deny their own common sense. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” (George Orwell)
As regards science, according to Murray Strauss, the “primus inter pares” of the authorities on DV in the world,
By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners.
By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming.
There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of Partner Violence perpetration (Fiebert, 2004).
In fact, it is Suzanne Steinmetz who first suggested that women were as equally violent as men in “The battered husband syndrome”. She published it in 1977: THIRTY ONE years ago.
According to Fiebert’s meta-analysis of DV studies:
This bibliography examines 219 scholarly investigations: 170 empirical studies and 49 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 221,300
Strauss, along with Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles had, in 1980, already informed anybody willing to listen in their “Behind Closed Doors”:
There are as many, and possible more, couples where the female partner is the only one to use physical violence as there are couples where the male partner is the only one to use violence.
Women initiate acts of intimate violence as often as men.
In fact, as Straus readily admits, there is evidence than women initiate MORE than half of the domestic violence:
The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.
Or in the words of J. Archer:
Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.
The evidence has been so overwhelming that even the feminist researchers at Statistics Canada cannot block the publication of the evidence anymore:
One-year rates of spousal violence from the 1999 General Social Survey indicate that an estimated 220,000 women (3%) and about 177,000 men (2%) with a current spouse or ex-spouse had been the victim of some form of spousal violence in the past twelve months. Men and women are exposed to this risk in almost the same proportions.
That men are victimized by their women folk has, for decades, become so clear, that some honest feminists (there are a few), noticed.
Cathy Young (a Canadian, by the way) tells us, in “Ceasefire” (1999) that
The 1975 National Family Violence Survey, concluded that by both men’s and women’s report, women hit their mates as often as did men. Half the violence was reciprocal — Similar surveys in 1985 and 1992 — found just as many men assaulted by wives and girlfriends.
Confronted with these figures, women’s advocates typically cry “backlash”.
Here is another honest feminist, Patricia Pearson (also a Canadian?) in “When she was bad”, a book published, IN Canada, in 1997:
— research began to reveal that violence in the home actually claimed victims of both sexes. The most significant data came from a survey published in 1980 by three highly respected family violence scholars in New Hampshire, Murray Strauss, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmetz.
— violence was also on a par, with 11.6% of women and 12% of men reporting that they hit, slapped or kicked their partners.
At this point, people working on the subject of family violence had a choice. They could expand the field to include male victims — or they could do what they did: devote an extraordinary amount of energy to shouting male victims down.
SHOUTING down the male victims is what Ms Kennedy is, hypocritically, doing.
Because it has become impossible to deny that women beat men, Ms Kennedy sheds a few crocodile tears on the male victims of female DV. Nevertheless, she stills attempts to minimize the extent of DV against men: women, she claims, would still be MORE victim than men:
“figures (would not be) on the same scale as the ones that tell us about female victims of domestic violence — in cases of spousal homicide, for example, women are victims 84 per cent of the time”
Ms Kennedy attempts to occupy the moral high grounds: these numbers’ games would be “beside the point” as we are supposed to be living in a “civilization where all violence is unacceptable”. “This should not be about comparative figures. Nor should it be about gender gamesmanship.”
Of course not — now that the feminists are starting to lose the game — let’s move the goalpost.
The reader will notice than Ms Kennedy does NOT call for the equal repression or punishment of DV. She knows full well that women are the “favourites of the law” and are literally “getting away with murder”: angry young men’s rightists call this, rather crudely but adequately, the “p—-y pass”.
Ms Kennedy then launches onto her real objective: vilifying the men who have been, for at least two decades now, snapping at the heels of the feminist Leviathan. Such men, she claims, will be “manipulating” the report (the American one she has “just” discovered)
These men, the usual suspects, would be (shudder) vile misogynistic — “hate mongers”.
— that male subspecies — a minority, but a noisy one — that preaches hatred from some deep inner anger that fuels a messianic misogyny.
One would think that Ms Kennedy only interacts with another kind of male sub-species: the neutered Canadian male journalist. Among the “many public purveyors of misogyny”, she says, there would be “one colourfully venomous Canadian example (that) sums them up. Kirby Inwood (who) operates a website ostensibly offering a lawyer-referral service”.
Well thank you Ms Kennedy for letting me, and the rest of us, discover a fellow MRA. That is the ONE useful thing you have done for men. Mr. Inwood’s site can (I think) be found here: http://www.canlaw.com/
Ms Kennedy continues: Inwood, the “hatemonger”, would have observed that he “consistently found women lawyers to generally be the scum of the earth”.
Let me see.
Most female lawyers are feminists making a “killing” in the corrupt Divorce Industry. In his latest book “Taken Into Custody”, Stephen Baskerville describes
“its destruction of families, its violations of the Constitution, its disregard for due process of law, its voracious appetite for children, parents, and families. This — a thoroughly documented study of the most repressive government machine ever created in — (western societies).
Baskerville tells us that the corrupt Divorce Industry has become a
“a multibillion-dollar industry” (composed of) “judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, and bureaucratic police. All these people have a professional and financial stake in divorce. In fact” public officials at all levels of government—including elected leaders in both parties—now have a vested interest in increasing the number of single-parent homes.”
The Divorce Industry’s view of men is, well — feminist:
“Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” New Jersey Judge Richard Russell told his colleagues at a training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around…. We don’t have to worry about the rights.”
Most female lawyers are feminists, a misandrist ideology based on the hatred of men. The feminist view of men has been codified decades ago:
The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.
The above is from the SCUM Manifesto which has been for decades a basic “reading in colleges and universities for women’s studies courses.”
Thus, that Inwood has found that feminist lawyers are SCUM should surprise no one. Neither am I surprised to read that Inwood “has long been a favourite target of Militant Feminists who work very hard to suppress him and his views”.
This is, dear reader, what Ms Kennedy is shamelessly attempting to do by shouting “hatemonger”. She is attempting to suppress and censure and, more importantly, scare away her readers by claiming that “Inwood was convicted nearly 20 years ago of assault on his wife and infant son.”
Really? That may be true, or untrue, but…
Ms Kennedy is a nimble feminist demagogue. She knows that fear works. Indeed the whole feminist ideology is based on creating fear. She also knows that false accusations of assault are THE prime weapon women use when they want to rid themselves of their husband AND keep his money. This is the first advice they get from their feminist lawyers.
Their lies and perjuries are then accepted by the corrupt legal system. Ms Kennedy has, no doubt, turned a blind eye to the endless stories of men, exonerated by DNA analysis, only now being released, after spending decades behind bars. They were condemned and jailed solely on the basis of false accusations of rape by a WOMAN. Nothing is happening to the lying and perjuring females who put them in jail, and destroyed their lives.
NO THING! See “p—y pass”, above.
Ms Kennedy tells us that “ordinary people of good will, men and women alike” (she means those of her readers still hoodwinked by feminism) will :
” just dread how the Kirby Inwoods of the world, the “men’s rights” activists, are going to gobble it up and spit it out again in a malignancy of poisonous deceit. They know how the researchers’ findings and recommendations will be drowned out by a cacophony of cries about how this proves bad things happen to men at the hands of Militant Feminists, who conspire in covens to spread their misandry.”
Poisonous deceit, he? Well Ms Kennedy engages in some of her own.
She tells her reader that the “respectable study that should open new eyes to a serious issue, one that has not been discussed nearly enough.”
Ms Kennedy seems to be “truth challenged”!
Feminists have shouted down this topic for decades. It has just, recently, become too obvious for them to deny it.
She also says that
“As a society, we can look at the nature of violence within homes and start addressing some of its broader causes. We can speak up for the principle of equality before the law (which, yup, even Militant Feminists cherish), insisting on zero-tolerance around domestic violence, no matter who the perpetrator.”
Ms Kennedy seems to be suffering from a “veracity handicap”.
She is NOT demanding a stop to the “arrest the man” policies, punishment for female perjuries and equality in punishment of women guilty of DV.
Ms Kennedy then sheds a few more crocodile tears on male victims of DV:
“cultural norms … have” added an extra layer of shame and difficulty to male victimhood. “(with) increased awareness, we can introduce increased supports — counselling, programs, avenues of escape — for men caught in what has to be a version of hell.”
But she then goes for her real objective: DON’T YOU DARE TOUCH OUR BOOTY!
The new programs should NOT
“happen at the expense of the well-developed awareness and programs that already respond, albeit inadequately, to the tragedy of domestic violence against women. It should happen alongside them.”
Of course. Money will come out of thin air — like it did for the feminists.
Better still, let’s tax the males some more; they only pay 70-80% of the taxes. God, what I am saying, this is ALREADY a feminist proposal.
All the feminist programs finance the lives of the multitudes of feminists who toil (sic) in “women’s shelters” and other parasitic women’s groups, which have covered the West like a plague of locusts for the last three decades.
Ms Kennedy does not want the “latest thoughtful exploration of domestic violence as a piece of gender politics.”
Of course not.
When men were portrayed as the only culprit, there was no problem of describing this as gender politics. Now that women find it difficult to lie their way out of DV, Ms Kennedy wants to move the goalpost.
Of course! Of course!
Ms Kennedy tells her readers that if we don’t do as she says, we “will have missed its point entirely”. It will “become a marginalized rallying cry for rancorous misogynists.” Thus we will “have failed those in the shadows who are finally asking for help.”
What Ms Kennedy really wants is for men demanding that their rights be respected, those she deems “hatemongers” and “misogynists”, to stay marginalized, to stay in the shadow, to stay quiet, to remain deferential to their feminist rulers. She wants men to be content, and grateful, for the crumbs that, perhaps, may fall off from the public-financed table where the feminists have been feasting all those years.
Fat chance of these happening!
Janice Kennedy’s has a column in the Ottawa Citizen
Various emails to the Ottawa Citizen can be found here: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/info/contactlist.html
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, by Murray Straus (14 July 2007)
#Health #OrganizationalNews #PaternityFraud #Suicides
- Herbivore men, MGTOW or MGTOWWW
- The death of feminism at British universities
- Capital offences proliferate under political correctness
- Divorce causes escalating suicide rates
- Flawless flawed — What about children?
- Sheep People Comparisons – Are people sheeple?