|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:25 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
As anybody who has been anywhere near a group of girls and boys from the age of 8 on up to maybe 40 can tell you, girls hit boys and other girls all the time. They push them, they pull their hair, they tease them but usually its a smack on the arm. It happens so much that we no longer notice it. Like a fish never notices the water. Girls hit boys and other girls ALL THE TIME. It is almost unconscious. They dont think about it before they do it, they just do it. Boys learn at a young age that if they really haul off and smack another kid, given their greater strength and testosterone, they are going to really hurt them. Or at least raise a nice welt. And they're not going to lightly slap another boy because that's what girls do and boys are naturally and unconsciously trying to differentiate themselves from girls. Boys tackle other boys. They wrestle. They run around a lot. So boys modify their behavior very young. But girls never do, they dont have to.
We already have laws against assault and murder and all the gradations of violence in between (including yelling at somebody and calling them a bad name). We even have laws covering violence by humans against animals. We've got violence covered. We don't need another set of laws called VAWA that politicize violence. But there must be some reason that we have VAWA.
VAWA exists for one reason and one reason only, so unscrupulous people can gather money and power and the prestige that comes along with that. They get invited to fancy parties with celebrities and get the best seats at the show. The power is heady. And it corrupts. Just as vice cops depend on a vigorous black market and oppose any attempt to legalize drugs and prostitution lest they lost their jobs and perks. And just as environmentalists depend on natural disasters (read Crichton's "State of Fear") to scare people into funding them (or as in the State of Fear they falsify data to scare people and if that doesnt work, they..., well, I'm not going to ruin the book for you). And just as the Saudi's contribute to the politicians who prevent drilling in ANWR, and just as the columbian drug lords fund politicians who vote against legalizing drugs, so NOW supports VAWA and falsifies data and conjurs up fantasies (that the MSM just cant wait to headline) so they can all collect contributions from all the idiots out there who still think that any large institution does anything on such a grand scale for an "ideal". The last guy who did that was Charles Schwab, the founder of Bethlehem Steel, when he headed up the effort to build transport ships in WWI. But he was already rich and famous. And he made LOTS of money selling steel all over the world so he had a vested interest in shortening the war. For heaven's sake, some people still believe the civil war (or the "war of northern agression" depending on where you lived at the time), was about freeing the slaves. I mean really, what poor irishman of that day was going to die to free the people who are going to take his job? No, it was about tariffs on european manufactured goods that were being bought by the south. (read "When in the course of human events" - I forget the author and also read Banished Children of Eve). The northern manufacturers wanted a captive market and tariffs on imports gave it them. The southerners just got sick of being exploited. After the war started going badly Lincoln changed his reason.
Just another example to show that VAWA has nothing to do with helping anybody except those making money from the VAWA law: lawyers, fund-raisers, writers, reporters, and all the thousands of people who work for all the gov agencies and private non-profits and who earn nice fat salaries including the woman with MSW's and PsyD degrees with important sounding titles like "Director of Development" and "VP of Administration" who otherwise would be working as secretaries (sorry "administrative assistants").
Mencken said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and thus clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". That is, the VAWA industry appeals to the simpletons and comes along and passes a law to save us from a non-problem or one that is already solved by other means. And tons of money flows to them as a result. Keep in mind, all that money (billions) that is wasted there, is billions NOT spent on something productive. We have an army of VAWA who produce nothing but consume at the same rate as the rest of us. And we wonder why the economy is not growing or not growing faster.
So, don't be surprised when during tax season you suddenly read all over the place about the IRS going after a few big fish to scare all us little people into "voluntary compliance". You'll know it is all orchestrated.
And now that VAWA is coming up for renewal you'll read and hear all kinds of news about the epidemic of that special form of violence where no bruises are seen, just he said/she said in family court. VAWA is exposed as a huge scam to bilk the taxpayer and bilk the naive public out of their hard earned money.
We dont need another form of anti-violence law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Eeva on 07:00 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe my dear sisters should familiarize themselves with valid research findings before they hit the keyboard.
Dr. Debra Pepler, an internationally reknown Canadian researcher, found in her latest research project that "The surveys also suggest that, contrary to popular belief, boys experience more incidents of all forms of aggression from their romantic partners." [Source: The TEEN RELATIONSHIP PROJECT (TRP) by the LAMARSH CENTRE FOR RESEARCH] Interestingly, the accompanying graphic shows the huge male pinning his tiny female "victim" against the locker.
According to a Dec. 5, 2004, article by Jenny Jackson, called "Dating: boys reduce bullying in high school, girls increase it" in the Ottawa Citizen, Dr. Pepler said: "Boys stop bullying and don't go into dating aggression, whereas the girls who bully are highly likely to move into dating aggression. Half of the time when girls bully, they bully boys. ... When these accumulate, it lays a foundation for discomfort, perhaps for retaliation." One of the most revealing sentences by the TRP is: "Bullies feel entitled to use their power over others when their aggressive tactics are rewarded and reinforced or left unchecked at home, with friends, in the classroom, on the playing field, in digital games, on television"
Considering that the nature of the tactics that female juveniles use is 100% the same as tactics used by college age women who lay false allegations of date rape, and what their older "sisters" use during divorce and child custody proceedings, it is clear that it is a life long trend which is not limited to female-on-female aggression.
Murray Straus in his "GENDER SYMMETRY IN PREVALENCE, SEVERITY, AND CHRONICITY OF PHYSICAL AGGRESSION AGAINST DATING PARTNERS BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN MEXICO AND USA" documents the inescapable fact that college women are far more violent than men in their intimate relationships. His findings are revealing though, as an awoved feminist, Dr. Straus does not explore indirect violence, i.e. false allegations.
Dr. Straus concedes that all available research correlate the above findings.
Hitherto the most factual data about intimate partner violence (IPV), is the longitudinal study conducted in New Zealand, called "Partner Violence Among Young Adults" also known as "Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study". This study is almost unique as it surveyed both partners in a relationship and thus was able to verify the claims. It documents that three times more women than men (18.6% and 5.7%, respectively) engaged in severe form of violence against their partners. When less severe types of violence were included, the figures were 37% and 22% respectively. Further the report states that: " …the preliminary findings of this study do not conflict with those of U.S. epidemiological studies, which survey broad populations, as opposed to clinical studies of domestic violence in which samples are likely to be drawn from shelters or the courts"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:35 AM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Within days it's likely that a Democratic senator from the East Coast will introduce the bill before Congress to re-authorize VAWA for another five years at a cost of several billions.
Given the bipartisan fear among Congresspersons to be viewed as "anti-women," it's expected that the bill will have hundreds of co-sponsors and will sail through with little fuss.
The men's rights movement has correctly pointed out that VAWA is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Dozens of social scientists have more than thoroughly refuted feminist lies about domestic violence being a man-on-women-only phenomenon, and have produced reams of objective scholarship documenting parity in DV between genders.
Father's rights groups have shown how VAWA and its casual criminalization of men in the public's imagination bleeds into pervasive discrimination and bias against fathers in family and divorce courts.
Personally, I'd love to see the Congressional hearings on VAWA's reauthorization include appearances by these three women, each an expert on a difference aspect of female violence --
* Rachel Simmons - author of Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. Her testimony would blow the lid off the "sugar 'n spice 'n everything nice" mythology about the "fairer sex." (Sorry, girls are not nice... especially not to each other. A primer on emotional/psychological aggression.)
* Erin Pizzey - founding member of the women's shelter industry and now arch-critic of its corruption, the Brit feminist author of "Prone to Violence" would expose the utter nonsense that fuels the ever-profitable DV Victim Industry. (Professional helpers need professional victims...)
* Esther Villar - reviled (by feminists) writer of "The Manipulated Man," a book so honest about women's power to coerce men that it was virtually banned from print and could not be found for years. (Women really do act with predatory intentions towards men, who they view as mere prey...)
If Congress could line these esteemed women up for a hearing, they could offer C-SPAN's first "Pay-per-View" show and make a million!
Of course, the profits would probably just go into funding more propaganda from N.O.W.
( Roy - no more fear. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:34 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Why Are Most Male Victims of Domestic Violence Alleged to be Homosexual?
"After a few minutes of discussion one of the female shelter personnel adroitly inserted the term "gay men" into the conversation, and proceeded to infer that when male victims of domestic violence were being discussed we were talking about gay men only."
"When heterosexual male victims are widely misrepresented, while same-sex male victims are widely misrepresented, while violent female batterers are also widely misrepresented, what does that say about the integrity of America's domestic violence industry? Should such an industry continue to receive the heavy funding it does under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)?"
"...for every one (1) "same-sex" male victim of intimate partner violence there are an estimated five hundred forty one (541) "opposite-sex" (heterosexual) male victims of intimate partner violence."
At what point does law that rampantly ignores principles of law, truth, justice, equal protection, and the constitution, become anarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:10 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
NOW has contributed to a climate of tolerance for domestic violence against men. NOW is part of the problem of domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:08 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"NOW has contributed to a climate of tolerance for domestic violence against men. NOW is part of the problem of domestic violence."
Anytime someone does not acknowledge the violence women commit, not only are they empowering female batterers and cheating victims, they are batterers themselves. Gee, I guess that makes the United States government the biggest perpetrater of domestic violence in the world considering the billions they've spent on the scam law known as VAWA. The shoe fits.
R
If You Shelter Battering Females - You're a Batterer Click "View Larger" to see graphic. Disregard all sales info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:28 PM May 22nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"'During the 1999-2000 school year, the U.S. Department of Education reported 628 rapes or attempted rapes,"
Now just exactly how many College Campus are there throughout the entire US divided by 628 and we are perhaps seeing a little of the Truth emerging . . . that is if ! ! ! all the reported rapes were true ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:38 PM May 24th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Using several search engines to try to find an exact authoritative count of the number of U.S. colleges and universities proved futile.
They divide up schools by accredited, non-accredited, community/college/university, and disciplinary specialties.
The best estimate I found was that there are between 2,500 and 5,000 U.S. institutions calling themselves colleges or universities.
Using the DOJ's 628 reported rapes or attempted rapes, the math results in 1% - 2% of college campuses reporting rape-like activity.
Of course, N.O.W. would qualify this as an "epidemic" of violence against women, warranting the immediate re-authorization of VAWA!
Statistics be damned. Feminist lies are much more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:41 AM May 25th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
.
The really interesting thing here concerns
the infamous 1-in-4 college rape mythology.
This would kinda put that in the shade, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:34 PM May 23rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a bit off topic, but it's still in the neighborhood.
I just saw a news report that stated that most work place deaths are FEMALE. (!!!!!)
...HUH...???
Where do they get THAT from???
Why does the media lie so much? Particularly about things that are so easily varifiable?
I just don't get it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:03 PM May 24th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Why does the media lie so much? Particularly about things that are so easily varifiable?
In One word: Socialism.
In Two words: Marxist-Feminists.
In Three words: They hate men.
In Four words: They are waging war.
In Five words: The media can make money.
In Six Words: Telling lies against males pays big.
In Seven Words: Stupid American people cannot read source documentation.
In Eight Words: Our public schools are Marxist institutitions with no accountability.
In Nine Words: The socialist revolution has been a great American success.
In TEN WORDS: The BASTARDS ARE BIG TIME M_____ F_____RS THAT TELL LIES.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:44 AM May 25th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Many mothers, millions in fact, insist on circumcising their infant sons. They authorize it, so as responsible adults, they are responsible. While it is also true that millions of men have insisted on this, the responsibility of women for having authorized the genital mutilation of millions of infant boys cannot be obviously excused or justified.
Feminists believe that women have a right to uninterrupted sexual development. This follows from the right of a person to sexual self-determination. But that right is gender neutral. Hypocritically, many do not seem to understand that this basic right should be applied to all sexes, not only females.
The phenomenon of male genital mutilation, a practice which I prefer to characterize as genital terrorism, undermines VAWA's political claim that women exclusively suffer from male violence, and men never suffer from female violance. But the widesprerad authorization of involuntary genital mutilations gives lie to that claim. I note that the use of the word terrorism to characterize female genital mutilation is well-established in the feminist literature. I suggest broadening it to include the involuntary mutilation of all sexes, females, intersexuals and males.
For feminists to reclaim the moral high-ground that VAWA purports to occupy, the authorization of cowardly violence against infant boys by parents must stop. The responsibility for this violence is shared by men and women. But that shared responsibility is enough to undermine any claim of superior virtue qith respect to violence against men. To re-establish that claim, routine infant genital mutilation must end.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "The National Organization for Women (NOW) is cranking up its propaganda engines in anticipation of the bill about to go to Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). One of the proposed additions to VAWA is expanded funding for anti-violence education programs for minor-age children. A