On the Matter of Feminism and Domestic Violence
Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 23, 2009
“- Please be aware that in the midst of a serious discussion on gender issues, posting cruel or mocking humor tends to escalate things and upset people. What seems funny to you might seem very offensive to someone else, and in any case distracts from the seriousness of such a discussion.” (From a Group’s guidelines on how to conduct a discussion on the matter of f.i Feminism)
– The guide lines were updated after “The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism” (posted below) was posted and resulted in one woman sarcastically attacking a man’s sources of statistics and generally belittling men who are abused by women and another man pointing out to her that sarcasm is a form of verbal abuse and that he would not feel safe with her given the level of prejudice she exhibits through that use of sarcasm and belittling.
The addition to the guide lines of that Group was clearly made to make sure that status quo is maintained – i.e women remain innocent victims of male abuse, and men remain monstrous perpetrators of such abuse in the minds of people – women are not perpetrators, because she has never seen any men, in her practice as a doctor, that were abused by women. And if they exist, despite her professional experience that they don’t, (she used her professional experience as leverage – it’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” in the discussion so people will be convinced as to why she is right and the men’s statistics is wrong…so it’s only fair that this is called into question – her professional opinion.) they (implied) do so in such a small number compared to the number of women abused by men as to be (implied) negligible.
What does the number have to do with anything? Men are abused by women – they just don’t tell her about it, probably because they instinctively know that she’s not safe, despite her profession.
The fact is that women abuse men just as much as men abuse women, the methods of abuse just look different, and in the case of physical abuse the severity of the damage will differ between the genders, generally due to difference in physical strength – if a 200lb male boxer beats his 100lb photo model wife, she is likely to be both bruised and broken, but if a 100lb photo model beats her 200lb boxer husband, she isn’t likely to cause more than bruises, unless she uses an implement (skillet, lamp, baseball bat etc), which means that she (if he beats her) needs to visit a hospital, but he (if she beats him) probably won’t have to do more than put on a band-aid and take a couple of painkillers. This doesn’t mean that some men aren’t seriously injured by women in domestic violence situations – a baseball bat will kill also in the hands of a woman. Add to this that men rarely hit back if they are hit by a woman, because despite what feminism claims men are still raised with the value that one does not hit a smaller or weaker person.
The amount of physical damage doesn’t determine whether abuse has taken place or not – whether the victim had to seek out the emergency room or not is irrelevant to the question of if abuse has taken place. If I steal a $100 from someone I am just as guilty of theft as if I had stolen $100.000 from some one.
Domestic violence is not a gender issue – it’s a serious issue, and it needs to be dealt with, but it’s not a gender issue, it never was and it never will be. The victim’s gender is and should be irrelevant – however, in the mind of the general public this is not acceptable reasoning, all because of what Feminism have taught about men and about women throughout history.
The Sweet Pink Rules of Feminism
1. Feminism requires you to talk about “equality” for both sexes but some sexes are more equal than others.
2. God could be a womyn, but the devil is most certainly a man.
3. We’re equal to men, and this makes us morally superior to them.
4. We are equally capable of doing anything a man can do and men can’t do anything right.
5. We must scorn behavior which is associated with stereotypical masculinity while whooping with praise when the same behavior is exhibited by womyn.
6. We must demand that womyn be allowed into military combat because we’re equally capable of smashing-in the faces of vicious terrorists. But we also laugh at the idea that a husband could be the victim of a wife’s physical abuse because everyone knows that women are never violent.
7. We seek to stop “violence against womyn” but girl-on-girl violence and lesbians who batter their partners don’t bother us quite as much.
8. We attack the gender-stereotypes that portray womyn negatively as we gleefully embrace the ones that portray womyn positively. It’s customary to invert this rule for “you-know-who”.
9. Helping womyn succeed is not nearly as satisfying as seeing men fail.
10. “Power” in the hands of men is always destructive, selfish, tyrannical and harmful. This same “Power” in the hands of womyn is always democratic, nurturing, honest, good for the environment and good for humanity.
11. Men of quality support womyn’s equality but womyn never have to do anything to prove that they are “of quality”.
12. Finally, us feminists are absolutely not anti-male and that’s why we rarely have any positive things to say about those penis-having bastards.
13. Women are just as good at everything as men are, except for things at which women are better.
14. We feminists are equal to men, and that gives us the elevated authority to pass judgment upon them.
15. If you’re not female then your opinion doesn’t count, you sexist bastard.
16. Any criticism of feminism is a form of Hate-Speech. A feminist’s own speech is allowed to be as hateful as she wants it to be.
17. If somebody has the temerity to criticize the behavior of feminists, you should dismissively sneer that they’re attacking “strawfeminists”– absurdist caricatures who don’t exist. Feel free to resume your usual attacks on strawpatriarchs every day of the week.
18. The only feminist you are officially allowed to criticize is Valerie Solanas. That’s because a feminist has to literally advocate the extermination of half the planet before the rest of us start to wonder if she’s got a screw loose.
19. You have 10,000 years of grudges to seek vengeance for in your single lifetime.
20. Collective guilt and collective punishment are anathema to a society which fulfills the feminist goal of treating people as individuals, which is why us feminists must constantly intimate the collective guilt of men and suggest that they need collective punishment.
21. You must demand that a father shoulder half of any effort to raise “his” children as you simultaneously demand that a mother be granted automatic sole custody of “her” children after divorce.
22. Whether or not you feel “offended” is the central principle to how the world should be re-organized.
23. A feminist must say “Patriarchy” at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy” you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize.
24. As a feminist, you are opposed to the spread of stereotypes. But don’t let that stop you from constantly stereotyping men as being an over-privileged class of dimwitted exploiters who always get everything they want.
25. Ovaries good, testicles bad.
26. We believe every woman should have unrestricted access to any kind of abortion, no questions asked. We also believe that abortion should be tightly restricted in China to prevent millions of potential girls from being robbed of their lives.
27. We feminists must demand aristocratic levels of deference while never behaving with aristocratic levels of gentility.
28. We must grouse continuously about traditionalist expectations of women while we conveniently forget to pay half the check on our dinner-dates.
29. Men avoid us because we’re too gosh-darned smart.
30. If a man works 60 hours a week to support a wife who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
31. If a woman works 60 hours a week to support a husband who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.
32. If the majority of women do not call themselves feminists, the root problem lies with the majority of women and not with feminism.
33. We demand respect for all women and their diversity. That is why we dismiss, infantilize, mock or denigrate stay-at-home moms, traditionalist women, pro-life women, Republican women, Catholic women, Protestant women, Mormon women, Orthodox Jewish women, Muslim women who don’t object to hijab standards, Hindu women who don’t object to dowries, women who care about their weight, women who wear cosmetics, female researchers who study innate behavioral sex-differences, women who look forward to marriage, women who warn about giving birth after the age of 40, sorority sisters, cheerleaders, girls who like playing with dolls and any other woman who doesn’t slavishly dance to our tune. Except for them, we demand respect for ALL women and their diversity!4. Falsely accusing a man of rape is a great way of raising his consciousness.
35. If a teacher were to beat black boys more than white boys, we’d excoriate him for hateful discrimination. If the same teacher beat only boys, that’d be fine.
The above list may seem to be tongue-in-cheek – but it really is not. It very accurately depict the ATTITUDE towards men (and women) fostered by Feminism.
While there was a time when Feminism was needed to get rid of some very basic injustices and inequality between the genders, it has now come to a point where it is damaging both men and women, and have in fact created injustices and inequalities, and we now need to get rid of Feminism.
Feminism has created some rather weird concepts, that have snuck into how various societal institutions operate in regards to men:
When a woman is taken to hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental and domestic violence is suspected (which is the rule) it is assumed by the medical staff that the perpetrator is male – despite the fact that the perpetrator could just as well be another female or the result of a mutual/reciprocal violent situation where the assumed victim was the instigator or a voluntary fight with another female.
Evidence it taken of all the injuries automatically, to secure DNA and photographic evidence, and most often a rape kit is used to determine if a sexual assault occurred.
When a man is taken to the hospital due to physical injuries that are clearly not accidental, it is assumed that he was in a voluntary fight with another male, domestic violence is rarely suspected, and no evidence is secured unless the man requests this, no DNA or photographic evidence is secured, and there is no assumption of sexual assault – there are no rape kits made that works sufficiently for male victims of rape/sexual assault.
When the police is called out to a domestic violence situation they automatically assume that it is a male who has beaten a female – in fact the expression “domestic violence as ” is so strongly wired into the very fabric of society that when one thinks “domestic violence” the images that it conjures up are of a man beating his wife. There are no neutral words for domestic violence in Swedish – it’s called ‘wife-beating.’ The term “domestic violence” was coined by Erin Pizzey in her 1974 book “Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear”. While she never intended it to connote or denote ‘male-on-female’ domestic violence exclusively – which is evidenced by the fact that she is the patron of of the charity Mankind Initiative and “has expressed her dismay at how she believes the issue [domestic violence] has become a gender-political football, and expressed an unpopular view in her book Prone to Violence that some women in the refuge system had a predisposition to seek abusive relationships. She also expressed the view that domestic violence can occur against any vulnerable intimates, regardless of their gender” – the term has nevertheless become synonymous with male-on-female domestic violence.
If one uses the term ‘domestic violence’ and is talking about a woman beating her husband, one has to qualify this or one’s audience will automatically think “husband beats wife”.
Police, social workers and medical professionals are trained to assume that all domestic violence is ‘male-on-female’ – they have no training in how to get a male to speak the truth about his injuries or even open up enough for the authorities to be able to establish what happened, so that he can be treated adequately. This of course leads to charges never being brought against his abuser, who can keep on with her (or his) abusive ways.
Medical professionals are trained to assume that if a woman seeks out psychological counseling for depression, anxiety, panic disorders etc., the reason is her husband, and that is basically the first question they will ask – they will also assume that she is lying about being abused to protect her husband, they are also trained to encourage the woman to leave her husband, and will pressure her, coerce and manipulate her (if she stays in ‘therapy’) in such a manner that they eventually get what they have been trained to do, or she ends the counseling.
This is all because of the skewed view of men (and women) that feminism has imprinted on Western Society in the last 30-40 years.
Half of you who found this blog entry using the criteria ‘domestic violence’ did so because you were looking for information on ‘husband beats wife’, and I think that perhaps half of those are rather pissed at me right now 😀 for daring to rock the pink boat of feminism.
Here are some numbers for you:
In Finland, in a 2007 survey among men and women, the researchers found that 60 % of the victims of domestic violence are women, 40% are men and in half of the cases where the man was the perpetrator, the victim was equally violent. 60 % of the safe houses’ visitors/clients are violent in situ or have been violent in their relationships.
In a report to the Irish Department of Health and Children (March 2002) Kieran MacKeown and Phillippa Kidd found – going back as far as 1975 in Canada, UK and the US – that the number of female-on-male perpetrators of domestic violence was higher or significantly higher than the number of male-on-female perpetrators of domestic violence.
The Blog “Dads and Things” which is citing this report, with a link to the report in its entirety, then goes on to say:
“The report is based on an examination of a good number of DV studies from all over the world. It confirms what those with open and objective minds have known for decades: inter spousal violence is not a male monopoly. It is at least as often committed by women as it is committed by men.
That the myth of men having a monopoly on that aspect of interpersonal violence persisted for so long in the face of so much evidence from reputable and even government sources is nothing less than evidence of the power of feminist propaganda promoted by people in thrall to an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”
In a Finnish online discussion about domestic violence the topic of female on male DV was discussed and the Feminist view was declared:
“It’s just a question of that in the marriage where it’s the woman who beats, the woman has taken on the male role between the partners. It’s a question of men’s power in society and the oppression of women which has forced itself in to the family in a way that differs from the usual.
It’s the same phenomenon in lesbian marriages. In those too there is domestic violence, it’s the perpetrator has taken on the male role in the society. This can occasionally happen also in heterosexual relationships”
“So the woman must first take on the male role before she hits? weirdly one managed to turn this thing too into men’s and male society’s fault..:”
“And I thought domestic violence was because the perpetrator was a little sick case, nervous, stressed, can’t deal with things, has few tools, so one tries to solve problems with violence. But it’s a male model? A real man model? Wow.”
“One must deny the explanations where the domestic violence is due to the perp’s psychiatric disorders. It’s a question of how, in society as a whole, men oppress women as a group and the tool of that oppression is family and domestic violence. That’s why in Sweden it is forbidden to treat domestic violence with the help of therapy. The societal culture and societal structures are seen as the cause and as that which oppresses women.”
The last quote there, I can, as living Sweden vouch for – some 10 years back the then Minister of Equality, Margareta Winberg suggested, in all ernesty, that men should be obligated by law to pay a gender tax. That’s right, Swedish Feminists have so thoroughly indoctrinated Swedish Society that it is seen as an axiom that ALL men oppress ALL women, and therefore should be collectively penalized on the grounds of their gender. Fortunately the Proposition was voted down in Parliament, but it made it there and it was a serious Governmental Proposition. Which says a lot about just how Feminism have hi-jacked not only the gender debate, but Society in general.
Just a week ago the Hot line and Shelter Center for Men – the only one in all of Sweden – was closed down because of a lack of government grants – no Hot lines or Shelters for Women have ben closed. Interestingly enough the Shelter Center for Men didn’t just help some 50.000 men during its 3 years in existence, it also worked tirelessly among young men at risk and convicted perpetrators to prevent violence, domestic and otherwise from occurring or reoccurring in their lives.
Acknowledging that men are abused too and that women abuse too isn’t enough, especially not if we doctor the statistics in such a manner that they show that female-on-male violence is the exception to the rule of male-on-female violence or create legislation that discriminates one gender.
We have to move beyond the false premises of Feminism and realize, deep down, that domestic violence is not a gender issue, that women and men are equally perpetrators and victims and that moving towards a thinking where victims of domestic violence are qualified not by their gender, but by the fact that they are victims, is a necessary measure if we are to land in an equal society. I believe that without a mutual acknowledgment of suffering (without dragging along the measure tape to see who has suffered the most) we cannot find reconciliation between the genders, and thus no true equality.
Somehow we have to move from ‘feminism’ (and its implied gender discrimination) to ‘equalism’ – where it doesn’t matter what gender a victim of sexism, violence and discrimination is, and where its our humanity that empowers us, not a perceived gender.