Let’s say you’ve never physically abused your spouse or children. Now imagine the following scenario:

1. Your spouse accused you of domestic violence on the basis that you “harassed” her. (According to RADAR’s recent report, “Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law,” 17 states now consider harassment to be a form of domestic “violence.”)
2. The accusation was made during an ex parte hearing, so you had no opportunity to be present during the hearing or to refute the charge.
3. As a result of the false accusation, temporary custody of your children and other benefits were awarded to the accuser.
4. State laws in 26 states require the incident to be considered by the divorce judge as a “best interest of the child” consideration. As a result, you were not able to receive shared custody, even though you never abused your children, or were never even accused of abuse.

Each year, over 2-3 million restraining orders are issued – in half those, there is not even an allegation of violence.

You know, every time one of these stories creeps up (which is quite often), I notice more and more that there is ALWAYS an excuse given for the woman's horrific behavior. It is ALWAYS somebody else's fault. Never once is a woman blamed or expected to take responsibility for any of her actions. Yet, on the other hand, there is never a legal, emotional, social, or any other kind of excuse afforded to a male. Women truly are the WEAKER sex.

A Montreal woman may avoid jail after she poured fondue fuel (mostly methanol) on a man's penis and set it on fire while he slept. The attack followed the well-known female pattern of attacking men with a weapon while they are defenseless and when the woman is in no danger herself. She was convicted of aggravated assault last year, and remains free on bail, despite having committed a violent and potentially deadly assault. Story here, with details here.

If the man had poured methanol on her and set her genitals on fire, hospitalizing her for a month with third degree burns and scarring her for life, would he be spared jail? Would he be free on bail? Will she be spared the "blame and shame", Duluth model "treatment" programs?

I'll take the issue of "violence against women" seriously just as soon as society starts taking the issue of "violence against men" seriously.

This has been a hot topic on this board for a long time. We have all been wondering if PBS would respond to criticisms of 'Breaking The Silence', a completely one-sided documentary on divorce issues and domestic violence, by subsequently showing a more non-biased documentary.

Glen Sacks' aricle is here.

Although he lauds PBS for the new documentary, he points out that there are still some weaknesses in it.

There is also a proverbial WEALTH of information on related issues at the above link. Enjoy!

The Daily Mail (of the UK) has put a story about a serial rape accuser on the front page (of both print and online versions of the newspaper) entitled Man freed but serial rape accuser remains anonymous. Excerpt:

"An innocent man jailed for a sex attack was dramatically cleared after it emerged that his 'victim' is a serial liar with a long history of crying rape.

But because of laws that protect her anonymity, judges are powerless to name and shame her, leaving her free to make more false accusations against blameless members of the public."

In their new campaign against rape, the Sun promotes many familiar myths, and makes absolutely no mention of false accusations.

Go to the Sun's website and sign their petition.

Name: STOP STIRRING UP HATRED
Address: AGAINST MEN

Feminuts Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda are trying to start a talk radio network run by women for women. That's right folks, the femnags are now trying to take control the of the New Media which people are flocking to these days. They finally realized that it's male dominated so, as usual, they have to try and take it over and ruin it like everything else they touch. The ironic part of this news release is their characterization of the, "male dominated talk radio world as hostile and argumentative." What do they think feminists are?

Here is a blog entry from Melbourne's The Age concerning the myth of male privilege. Have a read and then join the discussion below. The author seems to have ticked off a lot of feminists. Starts with:

"I argue that men do not enjoy a life of privilege. Far from it, a look at the life of the average man is a fairly depressing sight. What kind of privilege it that bestows on men a ten-year-shorter life span than women, and a higher incidence of disease, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction? What kind of privilege is it that blesses men with a frequently self-destructive need to achieve?"

During the end of this article, CNN conducted a poll, asking if "single sex colleges" served any purpose. Out of 17,968 polled, 60% believed single sex colleges should exist. The irony? There are ZERO all-male colleges in the United States*. Many women attending this college are extremely angry and one alumna even tried to sue the university citing "legal concerns".

I suspect a feminist lawyer was hired and failed to manipulate the administration with false statistics regarding date rape and violence against women on college campuses.

---
Ed. note:

* This isn't true. There are five men's colleges left in the US. Contrast this to the 65 women's colleges that are operating (hope I got that count right, there are so many!).

MRA hunger striker John Murtari will be on a call-in talk show this Sunday at 10 am EST. You can hear the show on the internet and call in using a toll-free number. A great opportunity! Link here.
----

Ed. note: Obviously, the time has come and gone for this interview. However, a link to a recording of the interview (an .mp3 file) is found here.

Wendy (iFeminist) McElroy published an excellent piece at FoxNews that argues for closer attention to new violence statistics, defends Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and condemns (non-I?) feminists for dismissing the data. McElroy writes -

"In a recent radio broadcast and newspaper column, Dr. Laura Schlessinger addressed the 'Take Back the Night' movement that protests violence against women. She accused it of deliberately ignoring data that suggests men may be more vulnerable to violence than women. ... That PC ideology rests on the concept of women as victims and men as aggressors.

The backlash against Schlessinger was dramatic and instructive to others who consider questioning the dominant paradigm of victimhood."

The piece also includes a look at the recent Australian "Personal Safety Study," which found that "although men are three times more likely than women to be the perpetrators of violence, they are twice as likely to become victims of physical violence or threats."

Last December TV talk show host David Letterman found himself named in a restraining order. The order was granted at the request of Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nestler alleged that for the past 11 years Mr. Letterman had been sending her “thoughts of love” in the form of mental telepathic messages and televised facial gestures.

According to a RADAR Special Report (.pdf file) issued today, Letterman’s actions indeed represent domestic “violence,” at least according to the laws of New Mexico. In that state, domestic violence is defined as “Any incident by a household member against another household member resulting in ... severe emotional distress ... [or] harassment.”

The law states “cohabitation is not necessary to be deemed a household member.” Any “person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship” is a “household member.” So Nestler’s decade-long telepathic relationship with Letterman made him a member of her household, even though he had never heard of her.

Story here. Thanks to Marc A. for pointing it out.

Excerpt:

Men, too, reporting abuse by partners
Published: September 5, 2006
By ABBE SMITH

Men are victims too.

It's the message more domestic violence experts locally and statewide are trying to get out.

And it's a fact becoming more evident by the growing number of male victims reporting cases of abuse.

According a 1988 report by the state Attorney General's Office, just 6 percent of those arrested for domestic violence were women. By 1998, the total had risen to 16.5 percent.

This sort of reminds me how it is reportedly illegal in Japan to display erotic art in public, so instead Japanese artists make use of animals-having-sex as a theme to portray eroticism.

Obviously discussing human males being killed by females during or after sex and sort of objectifying it as a natural phenomenon would provoke too much overt outrage, so instead, the Times must titillate itself with the "story" it has run. I guess it's their way of reminding everyone (as if we needed it) of such wondrous cultural standards as the disposability of males and the awesome reproductive and sexual powers of women-- all without actually doing so overtly.

Subtle as a sledge-hammer on the back of the head.

But, you have to admire their imagination and cutting-edge scientific reporting; after all, such sexual cannibalism in the insect kingdom has only been known about and studied for, oh, a mere 1,000 years or more.

This is definitely a take-action item. Excerpt from the newsletter:

NEW CAMPAIGN--Veto Domestic Violence Bill Which Excludes Fathers, Children from State Services!

The California Assembly just passed a domestic violence bill which deliberately perpetuates the state's harmful policy of excluding men and their children from receiving state-funded domestic violence services. Under AB 2051, only "battered women" are eligible for the shelters, hotel vouchers, counseling and legal services the state provides victims of domestic violence. We're calling on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto this misguided legislation.

I want all of you to write to the Governor to tell him to veto AB 2051 by clicking here. By filling out the form you will be sending a fax to the Governor.