|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years of propaganda and disinformation initiated by the feminists has caused many people to think that violence against children is a different issue to "domestic violence"
It isn't. It is part of it. In fact, it is the worst part of it.
The reason that the seperation is so meticulously maintained is so that the feminists can hide their dark secret - and so make their propaganda against men more effective. They are in the buisness of getting women to attack "the Patriarchy" (by which they mean - all men). The way they do it is purly dependent on what works this week, this year, in this city or that country. The chosen subject is, for the most part, irrelavent to them.
So what is this dark secret?
Children are, by far, the biggest victims of domestic violence. Between twenty-five and thirty five percent MORE children are killed violently in a domestic setting every year than are women.
More than half of the young defenseless children are killed by women. That's right, most of the real victims are childrn. Most of the killers of young children are women. Deaths of men and children together FAR out-number the deaths of women. And yet, there is not even a hint of these things on the feminists' expensive glossy posters. If they cared about ending DV, these facts would be up there for all to see. But they care about attacking men, so they are censored - hidden away. The feminists know that no government, state, or city official will dare to challenge them. These officials dare not rock the PC boat.
Next time you hear a feminist spouting off about DV, why not stand up and say: "excuse me! Ms Feminist - but what about your dark secret?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some fun quotes from this interesting article (more interesting for its slant than for what it writes about).
"... (95 percent of abusers are male) ...." Correction. 95 percent of the abused that society cares about are female. The other (male) victims don't matter, so a large group of (female) abusers aren't on the radar screen.
"Our culture tends to react with sympathy toward the man who was robbed, but blames the woman who was raped." Sympathy? Toward men? Have I been missing something?
"You don't have to be married to be a victim of domestic violence, but you also don't have to be straight or female. In fact, studies show that domestic violence affects 25 to 30 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships -- the same as the estimate for the heterosexual community." Wonderful, isn't it? The author manages to believe that the proportion of abuse is the same whether it's man on woman, gay man on gay man, gay woman on gay woman, bisexual... well, you get the idea. But woman on man? Naaah... never happens.
What was most interesting (and most entertaining) about this piece is the way that Ms. (I assume that she's a "Ms." with a capital "M"!) Jennefer Block managed to pull in every objection to the ad campaign: that it spoke to the abused rather than the abusers, that it engendered feelings of victimhood, that it omitted gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered persons",... every objection except the big, obvious one: it ignores domestic violence directed against men. Oh, yes: there were two small mentions of this, the latter of which pointed out that there were a "few objections" phoned in about the ad campaign because it didn't talk about male victims. Hardly a sympathetic way to put it, and hardly comparable to the several inches of copy given to the "alternative lifestyle" community.
I suggest that we all remember the name "Jennifer Block." I would bet that a few years from now, when domestic violence against men is a hot topic, she'll be writing about it as though she had been an advocate for years.
At which point we can all throw her a collective raspberry.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
