|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this, Adam. Offhand I like Pizzey's recommendation for a three strikes rule: "She (Pizzey) has suggested to Premier Jennifer Smith that a 'three strikes and you are out' policy be imposed on mothers who deliberately stopped fathers from seeing their youngsters. She said if a mother was guilty of it three times, then the policy should stipulate that custody of the child automatically go to the father."
Actually, she doesn't strike me as radical. On a quick read, her statements seem quite reasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad we can't get all the feminists to Bermuda.
Because if we did we could throw them into that 'triangle thing'. (^_^)
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have spoken to Erin Pizzey personally and she is a wonderful woman.
Here is an article I wrote on a similiar subject I hope there is someone out there that can benifit from its citations.
Provoking
the
Power Advantage
the story of
Fred and Francine
Stop me if you've heard this before, common law couple break up. Girlfriend uses the police to get rid of boyfriend with bogus accusation?
Alright; but I'm going to tell it anyways. I will make the names up and if this story resembles your life in any way well get in line to sue because it resembles so many other peoples lives it may not even register as being socially *wrong*.
Take a regular couple like Joanne and David. Joanne a nice young girl somewhat pretty maybe a little beefier after the baby, who is now three, and David a regular guy hard working doing the dutiful dad deal.
The couple have been together for about 5 years, three of which as parents, 9 months as expecting parents, maybe 14 months as a happy go lucky couple with out a care in the world other than when the next social event is going to be. At this time Joanne is getting a little restless in the relationship. For whatever reason she has become bored with the man she is with or the life she has. Joanne thinks she can do better or yearns for the single life along with her friends. Joanne was pregnant fairly early for today's standards , maybe 22.
Joanne still attractive and about 25 is trying to get out of the relationship, but; here's the catch- little Ronald.
Now how is this a catch? Well the obvious issue is who is going to take custody when custody could very well be contested, who is going to keep the pad and who is frankly going to call the shots. Well here's how it starts to unfold. Joanne wants the upperhand in all proceedings and she knows the easiest way to get it, is to lay an assault charge then the state does things for Joanne free of charge. How does Joanne know all this? Well its all pretty much common knowledge for girls and women in Ontario these days. There are tons of information packages out there paid for by tax dollars as well as donations. There are councilors on every block. The schools are teaching girls this as early as they can among countless other organizations. Friends(even proffessionals) tell friends how easy it is for a woman in the courts to get her way with just a little hint at abuse. Some women just make the accusation plain and simple. No facts no evidence nothing; just thier word, which by the way is worth more than gold and as the average woman on the street knows their "word" is better in court than a man's simply because of biology. I have even gone to the extent of asking dozens myself, they know it and some use it.( Which reminds me, maybe some sort of political poll is in order here.)
The two have been arguing on and off for a while, but now, Joanne is really pushing Dave's buttons, really pressing him to strike her. I mean she has some morals she's not just going to make a false accusation outright, she wants the accusation to be based on something real. She hits him, pushes him, spits at him, yells at him etc.. What was that you ask? Oh; why doesn't he just leave or go to a shelter? Well that is what has been offered to Dave as advice so far. His parents told him to just hang low to walk away to get out of the house and if she starts yelling at him or hitting him that he in no way should ever hit her back otherwise "[he's] done for" , meaning of course she'll get the police involved. Well, Joanne overheard this advice apparently; and she then started to confront and corner David so that he would have to hit her. Inevitably what happens is David has to push Joanne out of the way so he can get out of the house and away from the abuse. This is the kicker. Joanne has been assaulting David for months now, spitting, kicking , slapping, verbal yada yada, whatever, and now she's the victim from one little push. A push primarily used to get out of the way of the punches, slaps and kicks etc... This is not the first time I have heard this type of scenario. In fact its become so common its really just a joke. A really big joke, where said guy was half the size of said girlfriend, said guy is still bleeding from his skull after being cornered and said girlfriend beat him with whatever object was near by. He pushes her for escape she calls 911 to gain the ultimate advantage. Said cops carry of said boyfriend still bleeding from skull where he will get three hots and a cot.
Quick description of three hots and a cot. Imagine a shithole where they serve you food. Where violence is at such an extreme Im surprised more people don't die from the experience. If you ask me its those places in perticular that make people repeat offenders. Every sip of your complementary tea is possible urine sampling from the kitchen boys. God knows where they get the shit they feed inmates not that anyone cares. Maybe you should when its your son being charged with assaulting his girlfriend based on her word alone knowing full well all along that your son has put up with so much crap already you know its a lie. And depending on if he made bail or you whatever the case may be. That will be your home for the next few months. Don't ask what they put in the meatloaf.
Back to Fred and Francine To my fault I had seen Joanne out in the bars looking to pick up guys about a few months before hand. I knew something was going to happen. I knew she was out looking for other guys and I knew her relationship with David was over. But it's none of my business and I was interested in introducing myself to her friend who was a talk dark haired cutey to her own credit. However in hindsight after seeing all of the injustices given to men in the courts these days (which is likened to Hilter's criminalization of Jews of everything they could possibly do to make them criminals) I should have said something. But really I know the guy and telling him his girlfriend is eventually going to leave him and probably going to use the system against him didnt really sound as cinematic in my head. Of course I only saw her out and Im only going by all my past experiences that told me something was up. Funny though she did exactly what I thought she would do, Its called 'abuse of power'.
Now why didnt Dave get the hint and go to a shelter? Oh ya, shelters don't help men, in fact there is not one shelter for abused men in Canada that gets any government funding However there are over 500 for women all government funded.
According to those propaganda masters men are almost always the abuser anyways. Therefore don't need government assistance. Which by the way is just an outright lie and probably the biggest lie in Canadian history or at least contemperary politics.
So I guess Dave could have gone to his parents , friends whatever. And he could easily just leave his child in the care of an agitated violent individual who is looking to get back into the 'single's scene'. What could go wrong?
David now has to attend court to answer for his abusiveness, Joanne now has to attend victim counciling. Dave has decided to "fight it", the charge. Not that it matters. I can pretty much guarentee you he will be found guilty only because he is a guy and no other reason than that whatsoever. The CAS (Children's Aid Society) is involved by now. No doubt to make sure that David does not harm his own son. Joanne is still the victim in their eyes and that will never change. In this case David never made a counter charge of assault which many men do of course after the fact. In many such cases it sounds like this. The women assaults him he assaults her back she calls the cops and he's charged. He says " well thats what she did to me, why isn't she being charged?". I have actually heard stories of the police telling men that "well it doesnt' work that way", what way? I ask.
This is almost futile but I'll go on anyways. So the guy makes a counter charge and they are both up on assault charges. Right now there are web pages and government funded institutes that are dedicated to making it appear as though women are never victimisers and are innocent of everything they ever do because a man made them do it blah blah blah. The statement I have read is that and I quote "In 95% of all cases when men lay charges of assault they are always counter charges". You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what they are trying to get at here. They are basically saying that men are now lying in order to escape penalty and or whatever. The key here is the balance structure. When we have over 500 institutes dedicated to women's only view of the story. Over 500 institutes out there peddling their little propaganda pamplets to women only , over 500 institutes dedicated to manipulating the Justice system to viewing it through their eyes and their eyes only ( which basically means women good men bad bullshit) , what you get is well informed women who know what they can use to their advantage and uniformed men who believe that the Justice system is still a fair and just place. You also get a large amount of men realizing that what they did is now considered a crime but they now also realize (because no body has reached out to them because of their sex) that what she did to him is also a crime (basically because she did the same thing that he is being charged with).
Currently David cannot see his own child. Currently David has no idea whether or not his estranged girlfriend his harming his son. (Neither do I but I just added that line to show how the propaganda machines use emotions to favour their cause. All you have to do is switch the sexes and you get the idea). Its also very possible that David may never see his child again (Which is not propaganda and is a very realistic view given the passage of bill c 117 sometimes quoted as the most man hating legislation ever written). I have heard of cases where the CAS has enforced such a thing and have fundementally forced the father out of the house completely and permanently.
My predictiction is, if David is on legal aid, he will fight this in court unless a very tangible offer comes up. He will most likely lose and the Judge will pretty much dissmiss his entire testimoney as being something like a science fiction novel, as being completely absurd and unrealistic, (there is a very good chance that the Judge has been indoctrinated by some social worker or victim advocate to see that David is just another lying man and should be shot and pissed on Unless things have changed and I haven't noticed). He will get probation for at least a year if its his first offence (which will probably piss off some women's advocates who are never satisfied and expect nothing less than life imprisonment or the death penalty). And if he's luckey and he agrees to counseling blah blah blah he may get to see his kid again. If he's not on legal aid and knowing his finances personally he will give up after paying a shitload to a lawyer. If the Crown knows of his finances it will be a battle of money useage which may not give David much of a great deal. Either way he will be found guilty and either way he will be overwhelmed by the state and its unbelievable brutality and either way he will have to suck dick and promise to god and say sorry a thousand times to maybe get a fair chance with his kid again and not go to jail for up to 12 months
Don't feel to bad just yet because I hear more and more men are playing this game as well. Maybe not in the thousands like women, but in the tens maybe even 20s. In either case it is wrong and all I can see coming from it is a race to call 911 when the "relationship" breaks up. The winners here is always the lawyers. Ya don't give me that crap about how the Judicial system is going bank rupt blah blah blah because it doesn't concern the participants, because; on either side of the justice system whether its the prosecution the defence or the judges those people are getting paid. Well except some welching defence clients.
How did this happen and how is it going to affect us and why should we care? Well we should all care about Justice in one way or another. I personally believe that this great unbalance is also causing more crime and more violence. People's lives are being destroyed whole sale because we are creating laws that the people *want* not laws that the people *need*.
I was watching the evening news most any night and in my opinion I was watching a great propaganda machine at work. Here's how it works. A woman was murdered in some neighborhood most anywhere (I think toronto in this case) and the reporters went from woman to woman asking them if they felt more afriad ( they did this specifically because of their sex) and asked them if they should have *more protection if it would make them feel more secure. I recall that all of them said 'yes' and I definately remember that not one of them said 'no' and not one man was asked if he was afraid (even though men are murdered at maybe even several times the rate of women). I have never seen them ask a man specifically because of his sex (let alone at all but I don't watch everynight) if men need special protection because of their sex. I think this is basically because of the male bravado that men are not supposed to be afriad. That women are used to being 'protected' and expect it. Well the deal here is (if I were a paranoid conspiracy theory guy) is that the Police- trade off tips and information to the news channels in return for such propaganda views making specifically women feel as though there can never be enough protection for them. Translation more money and funding for police and other agencies that send fear into women.
Politicians jump on this and prey on the most vunerable to hysteria such as the elderly and women. Mainly because men do not call the police and are the minority of voters is the reason the system works against men in all areas of the Justice system. If this continues it is my prediction that women will never be able to "Take Back the Night" mainly because it is the media that is training women to become victims. Men will be denied rights more and more and become victimized on the greatest level imaginable simply because there is so much money involved in destroying men's rights and absolutely no money in promoting how great men are.
I'd leave it up to the defence attornies to deal with this but it is my opinion they have no interest in fighting this injustice.
This is not the Canada I was born into, this is not the Liberal sence of foundation I was taught in school. The issues of violence against men being submerged for political propensity is not the fairest law in the land. I was raised believing that Canada was the fairest country in the world. That we would be protected at all expenses, that the Justice system would give us our day in court. I no longer believe this to be true. I believe that Justice is political pawn that is sacrificed at all key moments again and again. If you are worried about the "slippery slope" well don't be worried, we are sliding down the tube at mock speed and giving our rights and freedoms away just as fast as special interest groups can think of what they can take away, in my opinion.
I mentioned Fred and Francine earlier. The Judicial committe and whatever women's advocates made up a video to show in shelters etc... It was a total piece of propaganda film at its worst. In fact it was a hate film by all rights. And it is a prime example of what the standard models are of how they look at those situations. Men as jerks (except of course the Justices who are nice guys and are going to find in your favour if you are a woman of course). At the very end of the film a Judge flips a coin and the audience was asgasped at what they saw. The judge smiles a great smile and shows how things work in your favour now. Of course they call it fairness but the very notion of that is total bullshit, basically because of their depictions of all the males and all the females in the film. To me this type of film is about 90% of the problem in our society today regarding men and women. It is the lawyers that instigate this conflict because conflict is their bread and butter. None of them are opposed to the propaganda out there as it fuels the system and sweetens the pot, so don't count on defence lawyers to argue against the propaganda- I won't.
What I would do and Im not even sure I should mention this as it will probably tip off the attornies , but; I would ask for an imediate change of venue. I would argue that the Judge is not competant to hear the trial. I would argue that the Judge has been indoctrinated by an organization that is not bypartisan. By an organization that has an agenda and a pre-concieved outcome. That *systemic descrimination* is a very provable affair in these cases. (Though something tells me they have ways of surppressing this already).
The lawyers have turned men and women against eachother for financial gain. The politicians are milking this cow. Women are terrorized every day by misleading information and half truths. More and more boys are turning into men who are more and more becoming criminals. Men are being victimized by women by the state and by themselves and no one makes a peep. I ask the question- how can we reduce the violence against all of us male or female? I suggest that we once again aim for justice and fairness. I suggest that we look at violence as the *issue that we want to reduce not a *gender we want to destroy. In either case if we look objectively at the situation the right course of action can be taken. Men and women have a joint venture in the problem. What has been happening is that the system is oversimplyfying the matters and not aiming for a solution but a paycheck.
The situation is far more complex and oversimplyfying it won't help. In the case of Joanne and David I can not fully blame Joanne as being the evil bitch I have led my readers to believe. It is not entirely her fault. What she did was "human" nature. She wanted a power advantage in the relationship and she got it. It was right there waiting to be used. Like nuclear bombs in a conventional war when one side doesn't have them. When it comes to a stand off the nukes get dropped. Joanne did this with authoratative directiveness. Which means the government or the police or some advocacy group directed or inspired her to do it. Since those people are the policy makers and the law makers as well as enforcers (which proves its deliberatness and its continued abuses) she is not guilty. Don't waste your time telling me that those nukes are meant to balance the two parties because it doesn't add up. When research is being surpressed to show the otherside of the story, it doesn't add up.
I remember a time when we used to raise our children to believe in our country and to believe in the truth and to hold to integrity with all our hearts and all our minds. Those days are no doubt long gone. We are now raising them to be victims and perps. There is to much money at stake now (have I mentioned that yet?) but I will say that since women are now the voting majority that they do not have a greater *advantage but rather a greater *responsibility for forming responsible government. Women will now have to sift threw the crapola of whatever salespitch some sleazy politician is pulling the emotive strings on emotive subjects with bad stats and promise to make their lives better specifically because of their gender. They will have to protect children at a greater levity than ever before and they will have to protect children from themselves as a sex (which will be difficult to say the least). They will have to uphold the law and balance the fairness and cut threw the bullshit that tells women they are the victims of society and denies their culpability of crime because of biology. Because if they don't do this mandatory moral undertaking, society will crumble into the sea.
Special priviledge only leads to one thing and that is a class warfare. Men are killing their ex-wives because of false accusations. Most media outlets and crime dramas are telling women that its because the guy was so obsesed with the woman it was the only reason. That may be true in some cases but not all and certainly not even most. In many cases men are killing because of the violence perpetrated against them because of false accusations or because of the unfairness of the state enforcement against men. Men losing their houses their children and their lives in a heartbeat. I hear often that even if thats true its no excuse for murder, but our country does have excuses for murder you just have to be a woman to get it. The hypocracy is becoming stale. But this will continue for as long as they continue to convince women they have the short end of the stick and soft soap them for their vote. This isn't really about men and women this is about circumstance. Take a moment maybe even five minutes and look at yourself as an individual first then a gender or race second and ask yourself what you see. I have been fighting for women's rights , minorities rights and the rights of everyone since I can remember and I was a white male. I didnt fight for their rights until a few years ago and there was a great deal I did not know. What I fight for now is individual rights. The more and more our world globalizes the more and more it is necessary to protect and fight for individual rights. The protection of our individual rights protects everyone. Those balances will be difficult to achieve but they can be achieved.
A quote from the Dread Pirate Roberts "life is pain highness, anyone who tells you different is selling something".
In my opinion anyways. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was a very good article, a treatise even. I enjoyed most because it did not say women were evil, that they've taught themselves to be victims, and men to accept their persecution because they've been victimizers. It is a miserable situation that I hope both genders will work to alliviate - instead one blaming the other either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Cresentluna. You have hit the nail on the head with my article. Please feel free to pass this article onto anyone who you think would be interested in reading it. Again thank-you for reading.
Men and Women are allies. Do not allow them to divide and conquer us.
signed your Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my point of view, not bad for a former domestic violence shelter provider for the abused...
With the common anaesthetic of female-only families in Bermuda, we now need to link this observation [compliments of Ms. Pizzey] to the current ghetto populations in L.A. and New York to name a few...
mama kicks papa out
mama takes over family
mama penny pinches papa(s) for child support
mama sleeps with every man in sight
mama uses DNA to prove who's your daddy
mama has dozens of kids from dozens of men
mama inspires daughtas to be independent
mama rapes sons and lays waste of them
mama doesn't like mama's boys
mama declares her matriarch reign!!!!
in short, although pretty cute, that is the gospel these feminists have been preaching to black women...frightening huh?
but in Erin's case...yes indeed!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my own personal studies of this phenomenon, Emmanuel, I have found what you have said about the feminist influence on American black women to be too TRUE. And yes, it is frightening.
It is frightening because it destroys families, it destroys little boys and even little girls in some cases, and it destroys men. Which is of course the ultimate goal of this influence.
I guess as far as the feminists are conserned the children that are permanantly harmed are nothing more than collateral damage, or casualties of war, if you will. Just as long as they hurt, rend, tear apart and destroy men, That is all that matters.
Yes, frightening.
The feminists have also been trying this same tactic on my people. (American Indians.) They've had more than enough success, in teaching our women the same thing, primarily on reservations. (basicaly the Indian version of ghettos.)but so far their damage seems more severe on African-American families.
By the way, Emmanuel, ever notice that the National Organization of Women is comprised PRIMARILY of caucasian women? I know of few Black women in their ranks. Do they even have any Black-female leaders? They don't have any Indian-female leaders, to my knowledge.
I am getting ready to do some research on the N.O.W. and see just how deep their racial biases and prejiduce are. My bet is, I won't have to dig too deeply.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess as far as the feminists are conserned the children that are permanantly harmed are nothing more than collateral damage, or casualties of war, if you will. Just as long as they hurt, rend, tear apart and destroy men, That is all that matters.
Actually they don't see the children being harmed as their fault or collateral damage. In their eyes any harm they cause to the children is the fault of the patriarchy. It's the fault of evil men. If they could only exterminate all men then the children would all be safe and their best interest would be served.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb.
Yeah, I think you're on to something, there.
If we evil men would just lay down an be subjegated, no children would be hurt at all. So yeah, as usual it's all us evil men's fault.
We lousy bastards.
The feminists tend to forget something, (amoung alot of things.) and that is; 'You can't have a tug of war without someone on the other end of the rope.'
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neutralizing Hostility between the Sexes
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Solving the Problem of Domestic Violence
with the Bigger Picture
By Dan Lynch
Speech presented at
Toronto Mensa's Annual Regional Gathering
Novotel North York Hotel
Saturday, October 19, 2002
Hi, I hope everyone is doing fine today. My name is Dan Lynch and I am an expert in martial arts and self-protection as well as trained in mediation/dispute resolution and negotiation. I teach and train both privately and publicly. I have never felt a need to name my system but rather concentrate on its practicality for our everyday lives. I was always in and out of scrapes as a kid, and I started seriously training around the age of ten. That gives me nearly 22 years of experience in martial arts. I have felt that there are many facets to the martial arts that have been left unused. So I have tried to expand the field by developing my own style of martial arts.
Confidence in ourselves should be the ultimate goal, to make each of us independent and strong, courageous enough to meet the world head on and to strive for our heights as individuals, male or female.
Today I intend to cover some sensitive areas, and some people may feel offended or distraught by them. Because of that, I am going to ask that we put our objective hats on, to allow me to finish and to honestly look at the issues rather than the emotions. My intentions are to make some challenging statements against the current norm for ideals.
I am going to speak for about 20 minutes to half an hour. After that, you will have an opportunity to ask questions, and then I will demonstrate the mediation process. In any event, I’m hoping for some crowd participation. And feel free to bring up other areas of related interest not covered in my speech. I want to cover a particular ground-piece that I feel is the central focus that I think will branch off into other areas.
To an individual who teaches and practices Self-Protection it is important to look at all areas of our lives where violence can be found. For spouses and siblings and dating couples, violence can occur and does for many reasons. It is my opinion that violence in the home front happens in large because of coercive tactics. Simply put, people do not know how to negotiate for their own 'wants' and 'needs', as a result, abusive tactics develop
On that note, today I would like to honour one of my favourites, Erin Pizzey, and dedicate this speech to her. I admire Erin Pizzey for her objectivity when it comes to violence in the home and for her constant efforts to search for a solution by looking at the whole picture and not to create a 'blame game'.
Erin Pizzey is accredited with having opened the first modern shelter for abused women and is the founder of the women’s shelter movement. That was in 1971. She is the author of numerous books, including probably the first book on the subject of domestic violence, Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear, as well as Prone to Violence, which is now an online book that was originally published in paperback. The paperback is a rare find and, according to some, worth a tremendous amount. To my understanding it is now in reprint.
Erin has been doing her work in the field for over 30 years.
It's funny, you'd think we would be having an Erin Pizzey day, or parades in her honour, even memorabilia or a constant mention of her contribution, on television, radio or newspaper, each time the issue comes up. Hell; even mention her on all those numerous pamphlets that are circulated or on billboards about Domestic Violence that can be seen all across the U.K., Canada the US, right down to Australia and New Zealand.
What she got instead was ostracism and death threats. Erin was cast out of many circles because of her statements. She has been denied web space at nearly every Domestic Violence site there is.
You wouldn't think that people would be burning or trashing her books in every English-speaking country in the world to the point that it has been found that there are only about two known copies of her book Prone to Violence left in Canadian libraries.
How did this pioneer come to deserve such wrath from fellow DV counselors and feminists; what did she do to elicit such hatred? Erin stated that women, too, are abusers, that they are often violent, and not just in self-defense. Studies show that they are equally likely, or even more likely than men, to be the ones who initiate violence – the ones who attack and elicit a self-defense response from their partners.
During Erin's book tour, she had to have armed guards escort her across the U.K. because she was getting bomb threats and death threats everywhere she went. According to her, they were not by men or angry husbands trying to suppress Erin's work. They were in fact by the very counselors and feminists who were screaming the mantra of the day, that men were the sole perpetuators of violence and women the sole victims.
Erin was preaching that some women are prone to violence, that they hungered for it, and that they agitated their spouses for the thrill of it. Erin was pointing out how women were abusive to their own children and how she wanted to work towards a solution to help women, women who needed help to control their violence and anger, women who were addicted to abuse.
Erin's observations are reinforced by every objective data ever accumulated in the last 30 years.
The research team of Richard Gelles, Murray Straus, and Susan Steinmetz, who started their research in the early 70s, provided good examples of unbiased, objective research. Research conducted without a political agenda. The team began its work while labouring under the traditional assumptions about Domestic Violence. They believed that women were the sole victims and that men were the sole victimizers. [1]
Gelles later realized that he had made a giant mistake. Gelles had made a note of a knife attack on a husband by his wife. Gelles had made this as a footnote but not as a primary note in his original research. It was years later that he realized that what he had made an error. The wife had not attacked in 'self-defense' but rather in malice. It boggled his mind that he did not consider a knife attack an act of violence. He realized his perception had been skewed by politically correct assumptions.
The team soon changed its course of research, and now includes female-on-male violence. Ultimately the team came to the conclusion, as Erin Pizzey had on the other side of the Atlantic, that women were contributing to the violence in homes at equal rates, and that women were just as violent as the men they were living with, that the violence was not always in self-defense but the result of a multitude of variables. And they found that men were being injured just as often.
The team so far has conducted research that has been backed by over a hundred studies by objective researchers involving 77 000 participants. Twelve percent of families are forced to deal with this problem. Findings (in narrow estimate) were that it involves about 25% of the time men on women, 25% of the time women on men, and 50% of the time it was a mutual affair, which, in Erin Pizzey's own words, was about the same as the summation of her findings.[2]
In the most recent study by Murray Straus, he concluded from his research that much of the violence between dating couples is an act of coercion, that the perpetrators were trying to get the other person to do something, and that ultimately it was not one sex over the other that was more responsible.[3]
And, just like Pizzey, when the team started including women's violence against men in their research, they also received death threats, bomb threats, and were the victims of libelous personal attacks. In fact, Suzanne Steinmetz had to stop her research because her children were threatened so much she felt she couldn’t risk it. These attacks were not made by angry or insane men, they were made by DV counselors, shelter workers and self-proclaimed feminists of all sorts.[4]
Erin, in her own words, stated that the Domestic Violence shelters were "hijacked" by 'feminists' with a clear-cut anti-male agenda. Erin, in her own admission, did not attempt to discredit this right away; because she feared that federal money would be cut from the services and that all her work would go into retreat.
Erin eventually realized that she could take it no longer as she sat by and witnessed how the shelters became an industry and perpetuator of anti-male indoctrination and propaganda. She describes how the shelters turned into lesbian seduction camps, that women were not getting the help they really needed, and how unreasonable formulations were created out of these institutes. The view that is constantly held is that women are not responsible for any and all of the abuse done to them, that any and all of the abuse that violent women have done towards men and children is not their fault, that they are innately the victims, and that any other way to look at it was to blame the victim.
Erin asserts that women with severe violent tendencies are not getting the proper help and treatment they desperately need, that by not taking responsibility and accountability for their actions the shelters are putting children and men at risk from further abuse as well as the women themselves and thereby not breaking the cycle of violence. For many reasons like this, Erin feels that the domestic violence industry is really just promoting more violence.
Erin makes further accusations against what she calls "an industry". Counselors, lawyers, politicians and professors. Many professions gain from it. The printing industry itself must make an absolute fortune in government and grant money that is used to print pamphlets, among other things.
Erin points out that the industry is desperately trying to get into the rural areas, not to help communities but to destroy families and to create anti-male bias and ultimately hostility between the sexes. Erin makes many harsh remarks about how many of these places are run. Erin even cites a few cases where some lesbian women could not go to a local DV shelter because the women that were abusing them were working there. Routinely seminars are given to judges, jurists, lawyers, police officers, high school teachers and an endless assortment of professionals, and they are all told the same one-sided rhetoric.
The unfairness is established deep in government as Warren Farrell's research[5] points out. He writes:
In Canada, a University of Alberta study found 12 percent of husbands to be victims of violence by their wives and 11 percent of wives to be victims, but only the violence against women was published. Even when Earl Silverman, six years later, was able to get the data from an assistant who had helped prepare the original study, and then wrote it up himself, he was unable to get it published.
Similarly, another major Canadian study of dating couples found 46 percent of women vs. 18 percent of men to be physically violent. You guessed it. The 18 percent male violence was published immediately. Not only was the 46 percent female violence left unpublished, but also the authors did not acknowledge in the Canadian Journal of Sociology that their study had ever included violence against men.
When a Canadian professor found out, he requested to see the data and was refused. It was only when he exposed the refusal in his next book, combined with another three more years of pressure, that the information relating to the 46 percent female violence was released and published. By that time ('97) Canadian policy giving government support for abused women but not abused men had been entrenched, as were the bureaucracies; as were the private funding sources like United Way.
This type of stigma continues even in research regarding sexual harassment in high schools. While the harassment against the girls is being widely publicized, the harassment against boys is completely ignored, despite that the research most commonly cited, 'Hostile Hallways', found that the girls were doing just as much harassing.
Even Mary Koss's research that was highly publicized in Ms. Magazine states that college women were raped at a ratio of 1 in 4. Another woman who is well recognized in the field of sexual assault took it upon herself to do the research in reverse. She asked the 'guys' using the same research model. Just like Mary Koss did for the girls, she too found that men (under those guiding principles) were raped at a ratio of 1 in 4. Kate Fillion cites the work in her book Lip Service.[6] She also points out how Mary Koss, who stated she wanted to do the research to find the unknown amounts of rapes from people who don't talk about it. Mary Koss claimed that she didn't survey men because 'they don't talk about it'. Sort of ironic. But those who did ask the 'guys' like Dr. Charlene Muehlenhard or Mary Craig, co-authors of Sexually Agressive Women,[7] found basically the same outcome for the guys as they did for the girls. Simply put, in my opinion, translating an unwanted attempt at a kiss into a sexual assault stat doesn't serve the truth about rape statistics.
Amber Pawlik is the founder of a women's club at Penn State College, known as the IWC (independent women's club). She describes how the victim mentality is pervasive and that events like 'Take Back The Night' only encourage hatred, to never let the scab heal, that those events and organizations in fact appeal not to the best in women but to the worst. Amber writes:
In order to keep their "cause" going and their numbers high, feminists need to keep women angry. They have a heavy amount invested in angry women. Not just their cause, but certain feminist's careers, tenure, and livelihood are invested in ensuring that women are being oppressed – and that they stay upset over it.
Amber's club focuses on creating an atmosphere of dating and positive imagery for men and women coupled together.
It is not my intention today to demonise women. My intention here was to give a look into what’s going on in the unpopular circuits. Erin Pizzey is the very first woman to open a modern shelter for women, and she has received nothing but ill repute from her adversaries. So far the only real truthful angst against her that I have found is that she is pro-marriage. Erin even advocates that men should most certainly be allowed to work in shelters, that it is the anti-male mantra that is telling victims to hate men in general and not the individuals that have harmed them. Erin indeed had men working with her in her shelters as well as that she advocated for shelters for men.
Erin Pizzey is a woman who should be honoured and remembered for her enduring work, not threatened. She should be remembered by the rationale and the peacemakers of the world, by people who are truly looking for a solution to diminishing violence between married couples.
From a college student's club to scientists' research, we will have to develop studies that produce objective truthful results, not results that have been massaged, formed and chopped, or fabricated altogether, to fit the mould of a political agenda. These new data and the results of previous good, but suppressed research need to be considered in making public policy.
We will have to lower our guard and redevelop trust, to consider concepts like negotiation, forgiveness, compassion, and empathy, making the law a last resort rather than a first option, to work soft on the people and hard on the issues, to open up that path that can lead us as men and women; lovers, and co-authors of our happy fate.
© Dan Lynch
Write to Dan Lynch
______________
References:
The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims; Originally published in The Women's Quarterly, Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., Joanne and Raymond Welsh, Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence, School of Social Work University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY, by Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
UNH study: Men, women equally violent with partners, AP story, Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Redefining Domestic Violence, by Wendy McElroy, Fox News, Tuesday, September 11, 2001
Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, by Warren Farrell, Ph.D. (J. P. Tarcher; ASIN: 087477988X; October 1999, out of print)
Lip Service, by Kate Fillion, (Paperback, Harper Collins Canada; ASIN: 0006386601; First edition January 1997; out of print)
Sexually Aggressive Women : Current Perspectives and Controversies, Edited by Peter Anderson and Cindy Struckman-Johnson, (July 1998, Guilford Publications, ISBN: 1-57230-165-1)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
