Canada: "Nunavut minister demoted over derogatory remark"

...for being right.

In Canada no less.

What a shock.

After all, everyone knows that women are always the victims of everything.

Except, of course, for the hundreds of researchers (including the CDC) who have showed that women are responsible for 50% of reciprocal domestic violence and 71% of non-reciprocal violence.

I'd mail the outgoing minister a link to the articles proving him right, but the truth won't help him. He had the nerve to be born with testicles so he's always at fault. Just ask the Premier of Nunavut if you don't believe me.

Feminists and their allies in government are extremely sensitive about women being blamed for domestic violence or abuse. I believe that this is because women are susceptible to social shame; women also use the imposition of social shame as weapons. Women learn all about blame and shame from grade school onward; shame is their weapon of choice in a social setting against an adversary. Therefore, they're super-sensitive to the implication that they should be ashamed of themselves. Hence the feminists' sensitivity to the use of the word "blame" (a word which effectively imposes shame).

It's one thing to establish causation or a sequence of events; causation is just A leading to B, not necessarily having any relation to blame or shame. But it's quite another thing for a government official to assign moral fault for something, especially using the buzzword "blame." When blame has been socially established, to a feminist this is like a nuclear weapon; to a feminist this is what promotes the violent behavior and leaves no way out for a victim (even if the victim was violent and/or initiated the violence).

So here's the politically correct way for that minister to have said the same thing:

RIGHT WAY:
"Often, in cases of domestic disputes, both parties contribute to the conflict..."

WRONG WAY:
"Often, in cases of domestic disputes, both parties share the blame..."

As far as pointing out the disparity in which party gets arrested and criminally charged, it may have been useful (for his career and P.R.) to point out how laws which tend to arrest men over women effectively hurt women because they jeopardize the economic provision that had been provided by the man until the point of his arrest. In addition, there have been at least two studies that show that for certain demographic groups (unmarried black women, married white women) a mandatory arrest and restraining order has a greater likelihood of sparking retaliatory homicide against the woman, which obviously hurts women. Women are the concern of these government politicos and feminists, so at least it would be effective to point out the detrimental effects to women of these policies.

Of course, arresting only the man hurts the man! That point is obvious, if politically incorrect. But we can't say that now, can we? Pointing out the pain of the man is not permitted when it comes to domestic violence. Not permitted in Canada, at least. We wouldn't want to make abusive women feel ashamed or stigmatized now, would we?

By the way, here are the studies that I referred to above (showing how feminist policies end up hurting women, the very people they were supposedly created to protect):

"Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide"
Authors: Laura Dugan ; Daniel Nagin ; Richard Rosenfeld
Study sponsored by the US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Publications/Abstract.aspx?ID=186194

"Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence from Mandatory and Recommended Arrest laws"
Author: Radha Iyengar
National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13186

"Civil Protection Orders and Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence"
(Temporary restraining orders increase the likelihood of subsequent violence; permanent restraining orders reduce it)
Authors: Victoria L. Holt, PhD, MPH; Mary A. Kernic, PhD, MPH; Thomas Lumley, PhD; Marsha E. Wolf, PhD; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/5/589

John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
"Stopping False Allegations with Surveillance Technology"

The feminist totalitarian regime now controls language. If something offends them (and most things do) they'll cry until that persons life and career is decimated. I'm trying to think of another person that tried to control language. I can't remember his name but he was a little German man with a short mustache that tyrannized Europe during the 1930's and 40's. Fortunately he was defeated and humiliated. Someone help me out with this one.

{FUGAZI}

While we're on that same train of thought, anthony, I once read a book where if you didn't speak and think a certain way, not only would you lose your job, but you would be brought into the "ministry of love" where you would be reprogrammed through torture to think the way they wanted you to. Stripping a man of his career for speaking the truth is not much of a stretch from that. Guess what book it was? Bingo! 1984 by George Orwell. Btw, I know you we're being sarcastic, but it's Hitler you're refering to. But everybody knows that.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

That was actually an Austrian man. =)