Tag Archives: Feminist

News

How domestic violence against men is ignored by the feminist state

15 Comments

Article is from MSN Lifestyle. (H/T Andrew)

If your wife attacks you and the police are called, it is often the law that they must arrest the man:

Four Sacramento County Sheriff’s cars pulled up in front of David Woods’s house. He tried to explain to them what happened. But the lead deputy cut him off: “Yeah, that’s fine. Put your hands behind your back.”

David said, “No, wait, she stabbed me … there’s the knife. See the knife? See my neck wound? See?”

“Put your hands behind your back. Turn around,” the deputy replied.

“No,” David protested. “She stabbed…”

The deputies drew their weapons.

Women use the element of surprise and weapons when they assault men:

She had a serrated vegetable knife with a blade about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.

“I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance…the knife went right through my collar and gave me a little nick on my neck.

“She reared back to stab me again. I tried to block it again…I hit her in the mouth. She dropped the knife, ran to the telephone, called 911, and told them, ‘My husband is hitting me! I think he’s gonna kill me.’

State employees, including police, social workers and judges, have been brainwashed to believe that women can never be violent:

After 15 minutes, the female deputy returned from the bedroom after talking to David’s children. She told the other deputies, “It’s true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to stab him with the knife.”

They took the cuffs off David. “Your wife obviously needs help,” the lead deputy said. “She works for Kaiser, you’ve got health insurance that covers mental health, you need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment.”

David says there’s a double standard when it comes to charging men. “Now, isn’t that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue.”

Taxpayer money is spent used to fund feminist research and a bevy of social programs exclusively for women:

“The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power [financially]. I knew I had to get my kids out. I called the largest domestic violence shelter agency in Sacramento County several times. They told me, ‘Men are perpetrators of domestic violence; women are victims of domestic violence,’ and hung up.

“I had no way out. I had no money. Whenever we bought a car, Ruth insisted that the car be in her name only, so that if I took it and went to the movies without her approval she would call the police, and report, ‘I’m estranged from my husband, and he stole my car.’ She did that several times.”

Worst of all is what David’s children endured. One daughter says, “No one would help. Teachers, parents of friends, anyone I tried to talk to about what was going on at home told me I didn’t understand, that my mother couldn’t possibly be the violent party. When the police came to our home, they would always be ready to arrest my father, sometimes putting handcuffs on him. It was up to me to scream as loud as possible that it was my mom and not my dad, so they wouldn’t take him away and leave me alone with her.”

That was all just an example. The article goes on to explain the real domestic violence statistics and laws. In this country we have a massive budget to pay for a collection of social programs just for protecting women from violence committed by men. There is nothing remotely comparable for male victims of female violence.

All of these discriminatory programs are authorized by bills like the “Violence Against Women Act”. There is no “Violence Against Men Act”, and virtually no social programs for violence against men.

The take-home lesson for men is this: women have been trained by feminists for decades to view themselves as the victims of male discrimination. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-male behavior up to and including domestic violence. Every woman is a potential batterer.

Additionally, women have been trained to view unborn babies and their own children as parasites who restrict their careers. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-child behavior up to and including abortion and child abuse. Every woman is a potential murderer and child abuser.

Men: stay away from women until these anti-male laws and social programs are repealed. They have to learn somehow that hating men is not OK. Vote with your feet.

My previous posts on domestic violence are here.

News

The Canadian left equates honor killings with domestic violence

1 Comment

Barbara Kay writes in the Vancouver Sun. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Liberals deliberately conflate domestic violence with honour killing because they feel that making any distinction would “racialize” the crimes, indicting a whole culture. But in order to avoid offending the minority communities in which honour killings occur, they must then “genderize” the practice by force-fitting it into the category of all male-on-female domestic violence.

For theory’s sake — all cultures are equal — they willingly indict an entire sex for these horrific crimes. Clearly liberal ideologues consider misandry a lesser evil than racism (and to many feminists no evil at all, rather an entitlement and a pleasure).

Male-female relations are culturally determined. In reality, for a Western man to kill a girl or woman under his protection for any “reason” at all–let alone her sexual choices — runs so counter to our own chivalric tradition of honour (vestigial as it is), that such rare acts are always linked to psychological derangement. To misrepresent the impulse to murder one’s wife or daughters as a generically male characteristic is a misandric slander, and every bit as contemptible as racism.

I noticed that Muddling Towards Maturity had a feature on a new movie about Islam’s practice of stoning women.

Tune in at 10 AM Eastern today when I will be posting about male-female relations in Christianity.

Commentary

Why fiscal conservatives should support marriage and family

1 Comment

The Heritage Foundation has a post up about the social costs of the decline of marriage and family fore adults, children and society.

…nearly four of every ten babies is born out of wedlock and only half of all teenagers live in intact families. Cause for alarm is also found in a bevy of academic studies revealing the impact of the dissolution of the nuclear family on the life prospects and well-being of adults and their children. Research has clearly shown the physical, emotional, and fiscal benefits that married couples experience, as well as the devastating impact that the decline of the intact family has for the next generation. Compared with peers living with both biological parents, children and youth in other family structures fare worse in terms of academic achievement, mental and emotional health, and problem behavior. A father’s presence and involvement can make a lasting difference in a child’s prospects for life.

A married father is more likely to be involved with his children…while unmarried fathers are “soon out the door” when the demands of family life inevitably occur.

And then there is this troubling observation about the way the next generation destroys their ability to succeed in marriage, even though they would like to marry!

Surveys have indicated that American adolescents’ attitudes toward marriage tend to be hopeful (76 percent said that the institution of marriage and family life are “extremely important” and 81 percent said that they expected to marry), but trends in their favorable attitudes toward cohabitation and premarital sexual activity belie that hope. Research indicates that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience divorce in a subsequent marriage and premarital sex is likewise related to an increased likelihood of divorce.

When families break down, government must increase in order to deal with the fallout of divorce and of broken homes. That can mean more government control, more expensive social programs, more courts, more regulation, more police, etc. That is why fiscal conservatives need to stand up for social conservatism – and that means strong families raising well-adjusted children.

Marriage is a job. Certain skills and character traits are needed in order to succeed. The character traits have to be developed by studying in order to form a worldview that makes marriage rational. The worldview should rationally ground 1) moral obligations, and 2) self-sacrificial love. The rational grounding should not be based on self-interest- because marriage is tough.

People also need to study how marriage and parenting works. They need to study the effects of behaviors like pre-marital sex and co-habitation on their ability to have a successful marriage. They need to study the effects of focusing too much on education and career on parenting. The need to assess whether certain ideas (e.g. – feminism or promiscuity) help or hurt their ability to marry and raise children.

The vast majority of young people today have formed opinions and performed actions that make them incapable of commitment and parenting. If people really wanted marriage and children, they should have studied and acted differently. Attitudes can only change as people study these issues and understand the consequences of their decisions, before they make them.

When I think of a leftist, I think of someone who jettisons the wisdom of centuries of civilization, based on their emotions. These people are perpetually surprised by the consequences of their actions and public policies. They have no idea why moral rules are in place, and what consequences follow from disregarding these moral rules. They do not understand, they oversimplify, then they are surprised by failure.