Why Bother About the Domestic Violence Statistics?

When members of the public imagine, in general, a male being domestically-violent towards a female, they tend to recall the carefully-crafted propaganda images of carefully-selected scenes of horrific violence that have been shoveled relentlessly into their consciousness for the last three decades by a media subjected to the malign influences of men-hating feminists. And they see the allegedly domestically-violent male as a malevolent thug who needs to be punished.

When the public imagines, in general, a female being domestically-violent towards a male, they see a larger human being, being pummeled ineffectively by a smaller one, usually with 'good reason', or an absolute wimp who deserves little in the way of respect, let alone sympathy.

Either way, the man is seen to be responsible for what happens. 

Domestic violence is ALWAYS the man's fault or the result of his 'deficiency'.

And so it is that there is little point in activists currently wasting their time debating the relative incidences of gender-based violence or trawling through hundreds of different statistics purporting to shed further light on the issue.

It simply doesn't matter that much what the statistics show.

As far as the public is concerned, even where women are being violent toward their men, it is the men who will be seen as responsible for it, or who will be lampooned for it. 

Men are laughed at and ridiculed even when their penises are cut off.

And they can hardly be portrayed as more vulnerable than when something like that happens.

Women are held to be responsible for virtually nothing in today's western society. When it suits them, they portray themselves as nothing more than immature infants to whom unfortunate things happen - usually at the behest of men.

This, they have learned from a very early stage in life, as anyone with a large family will tell you.

In such a situation, the girls - statistically speaking - are pretty much at the mercy of the boys; who are generally far more physical and aggressive. In the typical skirmishes that develop between children, the girls have little hope of tackling their male opponents successfully and they soon learn that playing the victim (e.g. by crying) is often far more beneficial than direct opposition or retaliation because it usually brings about the direct intervention of an adult, who can then castigate the boys on their behalf. Further, of course, as we now know, young girls mature much more quickly than do boys in terms of their language and communication skills (and, hence, their manipulative skills) and it is not surprising therefore that the little angels use these to their advantage.

And who can blame them?

The same can also be seen in the playground where little girls soon develop far greater mastery of the art of blaming others than do the boys.

So, why waste time debating the statistics? Whatever they show, the males will be blamed for them.

It is the causes of domestic violence and the manner in which it occurs that need to be addressed - not the gender percentages of the perpetrators. When the topic is tackled from this viewpoint, the feminist arguments tend to collapse hopelessly, and their deceits become very much more visible to the general public.

... this very short piece in itself being an example of this.

Further, here in the UK, women's groups never duck an opportunity to publicise how aggressive and violent is the male gender - TV and Radio adverts, poster displays, campaign leaflets, talk shows, 'documentaries' etc.

But they never actually let the cameras into their spiteful little world.

When was the last time, for example, that the cameras were allowed into one of the so-called domestic-violence refuge centres for women, in order to show the public the hordes of abused women with their broken bones and their bruises?

Why aren't they there on pubic display?

After all, they could always mask the women's identities with their camera tricks.

Why do they so obviously want to hide what goes on inside these refuges?

Erin Pizzey, the VERY FOUNDER of the refuge movement for 'battered' women, had the answer many years ago. This is what she said.

"Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from."

Think about it.

If the cameras were able to portray what the feminists claim is actually the case when it comes to domestic violence, then the support for them and their goals would increase enormously.

So, why don't they let the cameras in? Why do they have to keep everything hidden from view?

In my experience, it is only those who are lying and deceiving who are at pains to conceal the objective evidence from the public.

21/10/02

Hi AH

I was attending a lecture on domestic violence by a feminist woman at my college who said that medical research showed that women were more badly injured than men. Also she said that women only resorted to violence to defend themsevles from male aggresion.

...

When it came to questions I asked if it wasn't true that the research showed that women were just as bad. She just laughed and so did the audience.

There seems to be no hope in challenging this because on-one will see women as being as violent as men.

How would you get round this?

G

Hi G

Yes. The feminists continually argue that when women commit acts of domestic violence they mostly do so in order to defend themselves - but we know from research that this isn't true.

Women are just as likely to aggress against their partners as are men.

Nevertheless, as you point out, the general public just will not swallow this. They believe that men can easily defend themselves from female aggression. And one of the problems for men is that when they do defend themselves they are likely to find themselves being labeled as the perpetrators.

However, in my experience, it makes quite an impact to keep pointing out that when men are domestically violent they are often defending themselves not necessarily only from aggression but also from the possibility of losing their homes and children.

Most men and women would rather suffer a cut lip, a bruised face and even a broken rib or two than lose their homes and their children.

Why should men not therefore defend themselves from the latter given that both genders agree that the latter is worse?

If it is acceptable for a woman to assault or even kill a man because she is defending herself against his blows, then why should the same not hold for a man who is defending himself against something which both genders agree is worse?

With the law unwilling to help men who are standing to lose what they hold most dear, what other option have they when it comes to defending themselves apart from using physical intimidation to try to prevent it from happening?

My point, however, is to emphasise the fact that when feminists claim that women who commit acts of violence are usually defending themselves (a falsehood) they shut up pretty quickly when you point out that men are mostly doing the very same thing.

Indeed, "Get out of this house I never want to see you again," said in the heat of the moment by a man to his woman, probably doesn't convey much of a threat these days. But when it is the woman who is saying such a thing to her man, it takes on a completely different complexion thanks to the fact that the justice system and those who work in it have become so thoroughly corrupt. 

For many men there is no alternative but to intimidate physically their women in the hope that they will encourage them to change their minds.

And the statistics bear this out; e.g. see Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence

Further, domestic violence against women is almost bound to increase now that men are becoming more aware of how discriminatory against them is the system. Quite simply, this awareness will lead to greater insecurity and, thence, to greater violence.

And the more that feminists manage to corrupt the justice system in order to discriminate against men, the more domestic violence there will be.

Tell that to your feminist lecturer while the rest of the class is listening. 

And point out to her that only fools would support an ideology that openly discriminated against half the population - the stronger half at that.

I would also remind her that an increasing number of men are beginning to resent the fact that they have to fund courses such as Women's Studies which do little but turn women against them, and that, while they might not be able to do very much about these right now, their forces are a-gathering, and pretty soon these arrogant, deluded and vindictive women who lecture on them, and who seem to think that women's concerns should always be paramount in the eyes of society, are soon going to find themselves under increasing and most effective attack.

Such musings may not shut her up. But they will certainly wipe away that oily self-satisfied smile that sits upon her face!

Best wishes

AH