Feeding The Abuse Industry

The truth of the matter is this.

If decent men want to be free from the onerous and unpleasant psychological atmosphere in which they have to live, then they have to diminish considerably the forces that help give rise to this atmosphere.

And the sheer self-serving power of greedy politicians and their various governmental fiefdoms is, unhappily, just one of these forces.

There are many others that need to be dealt with.

Fundamentally, (and particularly in the current climate of man-hatred wherein feminism and 'abuse' pervade the entire ether) there is no hope that men will get a fair deal vis-a-vis matters relating to gender and family while governments and other various agencies have anything to do with them.

It would be like expecting the various government departments of Germany in the 1930s to behave fairly when resolving disputes between the thoroughly demonised Jews and the adored 'Aryans'.

And, as must be obvious to just about anyone with a brain, western governments are determined to place themselves in the roles of husbands and fathers; which is why they are continually trying - on so many fronts - to undermine the intimate relationships that men have with women and children; e.g. see Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture -

And in this endeavour they are supported by the multi-billion dollar 'abuse industry'. 

It is an industry that, for example, will never stop expanding the definitions of what it deems to be 'abuse' - and, hence, forever stirring up hatred against men.

Indeed, in Victorian England a lady might have felt 'abused' had she simply espied the leg of a table in her prospective mate's apartment!

Naked table legs were just not on.

In the presence of ladies, the curvaceous legs of tables were covered up toute de suite!

In other words, there is no end to the ways in which the psychology of people can be engineered so that they feel 'abused', if the propaganda that surrounds them is right.

And, unless stopped, the abuse industry will simply keep demonising men in order to nourish itself by creating such propaganda and by forever extending the definitions of 'abuse'.

"You exposed your table legs to her. You are an abuser!"

And, quite frankly, the belief that having "advocates for men" joining in with the abuse industry will actually end up benefiting 'men' in any major way seems highly farfetched, to say the least. 

If anything, this will simply make this parasitic industry bigger!

One only has to look at how the burgeoning number of divorce lawyers - most of whom are men - has affected so negatively matters for 'men' when it comes to divorce.

And do we really want to head in a direction which will eventually lead even to common-type arguments and disputes between couples being continually referred at a touch of a button to 'emotional' advocates working in the abuse industry? - most of whom will almost certainly tout for the custom of women because it will be women who mostly reach for the button?

No. Thank. You!

But it is almost here.

For example, I took the following passage from the Policeman's Blog. You will see that a man is imprisoned in a cell for hours, because he had an argument with his wife on the phone, ...

I recently spent five hours in custody, dealing with a suspect whose wife had alleged he had made some abusive telephone calls, that’s almost a whole shift. It’s incredibly frustrating when you know there’s no evidence against a suspect and you know there’s never going to be any, and that any case that’s put to him will be dismissed almost immediately, but because police officers have to be seen to be doing everything possible, people (officers, suspects and lawyers) spend hours in custody, just waiting. At the same time, because you have a prisoner in custody you cannot leave the police station to do any work on other cases, or go out on patrol: you just wait.

This, presumably, was 'domestic violence'. 

The abuse industry is already encroaching way too far into people's lives and it is making close relationships more impossible to maintain.

The result of any further growth will simply be a greater oppression of 'men' - accompanied by the further negative consequences for all of society that this would bring about as even more men threw in their towels and walked out of their relationships in disgust or, as likely, refused adamantly to embark on any prospective serious long-term relationships in the first place.

And the need to diminish rather than to expand the abuse industry - this monstrous organism - cannot be stressed enough. Without diminishing this beast, the very air is going to remain filled with its man-hatred as it continues to strive to derive sustenance and to grow.

It is somewhat unfortunate, therefore, that many well-meaning men's activists believe that they will help 'men' by actually becoming part of the abuse industry; in other words, by helping it to grow.

One of the most well-known men's activists in this area is Dean Tong whose work has highlighted so well how women use the abuse industry in order to advantage themselves in some way; e.g. see his website Abuse-Excuse.

But if one looks closely at some of his more general proposals for dealing with this problem they surely seem most unlikely to work.

For example, in his piece on MND entitled False Accusations of Abuse, he makes the following recommendations.

1. "Create a national task force to examine all of the science, data, studies and statistics relative to child abuse and domestic violence over the past 30 years."

The problem with this is that any 'task force' that is created and funded by government is likely to be comprised of those very people who have been causing most of the problems in the first place! - e.g. those with a 'feminist perspective' and those who have a vested interest in hyping up the abuse hysteria.

Furthermore, how would such a task force define abuse (shouting, for example?) and how is it going to measure the consequences of abuse? - consequences which change with the psychological fashion of the day. (Think about those table legs in Victorian England.)

The way things stand currently, any 'task force' is likely to consist of professionals who will make matters worse.

And what makes Dean Tong think that the studies 'over the past 30 years' are valid, and worth re-visiting? - and that they are not mostly infected with bias and prejudice towards males?

In addition, of course, the kind of 'abuse' that was happening 10, 20 or 30 years ago is unlikely to be of much value when assessing what is happening now.

For example, if the divorce laws were changed tomorrow in such a way that the man usually ended up with the house, the children and the alimony, then the rate of female-on-male violence would increase substantially while the reverse type of violence would diminish.

In other words, patterns of violence and 'abuse' together with their effects on people can change quite rapidly and are dependent on many factors.

Going back 30 years therefore makes precious little sense.

2. "Eradicating the government's absolute immunity, requiring all child abuse reports to be made confidentially not anonymously, and imposing stiffer penalties against false accusers should be considered."

Apart from the confidentially bit, these are excellent ideas, but the chances of getting them adopted are extremely small in the current climate where the mantra 'in the best interests of the child' carries such huge emotional sway.

As such, it would be far better for the men's movement to expend its resources demonstrating to the public how governments and the abuse industry use this mantra not in order to help children but to feather their own nests.

If this alone could be successfully achieved, then much of what Dean Tong is aiming for would fall into his lap.

There are also problems with the notion of handing out stiffer penalties to false accusers. For example, false accusers might be very reluctant to back down from accusations that they have already made lest they find themselves in serious trouble. And juries might also be more reluctant to come up with 'not guilty' verdicts against accused men because the weeping willows in the witness boxes might then get prosecuted.

Furthermore, when intimates are involved - which is usually the case when it comes to 'abuse' - matters are usually far more complicated than can ever be properly probed by a jury - which, indeed, was one of the main reasons why 'no fault' divorce was introduced.

The powers-that-be decided that 'fault' was far too difficult to establish in infinitely complex intimate relationships when it came to divorce - which is a fair point - and so the idea of 'fault' was ejected from the process of divorce.

How strange, therefore, that when it comes to matters of, say, domestic violence or sex-assault within relationships, the concept of fault suddenly reappears!

It is the man's fault!

The only point I am trying to make is that matters are much more complicated than often meets the eye.

3. "Establish higher standards of education and training not only for our child protectors, but also for our attorneys (defense litigators and prosecutors) and judges that tackle these cases in courts all across America."

The problems with this are the same as those in item 1. above.

For example, who, exactly, is going to provide this education and training to the professionals? - feminists? women's groups? psychoanalysts?

Bear in mind, for example, that psychologists and psychiatrists in the USA still use the thoroughly-discredited hocus-pocus deriving from the ink blot test to assess the personalities of men accused of abuse.

It is about as valid as reading the leaves that they left in their tea cups.

And, as we know, the majority of workers in the abuse industry are infused with male hatred. They have been indoctrinated through and through with it.

As such, the balance of any 'education and training' of 'professionals' with regards to issues of abuse will continue to be weighted in the direction that demonises and discriminates against men.

4. "Create VAMA (Violence Against Men's Act) to neutralize the VAWA."

In other words, Dean Tong wants even more government interference! He wants the abuse industry to grow.

Perhaps, therefore, he would like both men and women to be able to have their partners arrested for shouting at them down the phone!

This is what will happen if the abuse industry continues to grow.

And so, surely, the best way to neutralise VAWA is to tear it down. By doing this, the thousands of male haters who promote and implement their destructive ideological beliefs would lose their funding and their influence.

After all, the funding that VAWA makes available is not only used to provide 'services' to victims of abuse, it is also used to provide jobs for people whose main aim is to promote the anti-male feminist agenda and it is also used to pay for mountains of misandric publicity to further their cause.

By joining 'them' in their own game, the abuse industry will simply grow.

After all, if the abuse industry expands, those who work within it will need more 'business'- and, hence, more clients and more scope for action.

Also, imagine for the moment that you were able to set up a small Men's Studies course at a University where there was already a flourishing Women's Studies department.

What would happen is this.

Because most of the professors in the University are politically-corrected leftists, and because the 'Gender Studies' faculty is dominated by feminists, it would not be very long before your new Men's Studies course was run by man-haters who used this new course as yet another mechanism for furthering the feminist agenda.

They would teach their students about men all right. They would teach them that men were pigs!

Well. The same sort of thing would likely be true if a men's version of VAWA was created.

Someway, somehow, this new version would go toward furthering the feminist agenda.

For example, men who were victims of abuse could easily turn up at domestic violence shelters and be told most politely that, yes, they certainly need help - but, in order to get it, they need to change their heinous ways; because it is they who are at fault.

And this would likely happen because the organism of government feeds mostly on the backs of men. And it will not give power back to men without a fight.

My general point is that the abuse industry is already far too large and voracious. And the priority for men's advocates should be to cut it down in size so that it only has the wherewithal to deal with serious cases of abuse.

And my complaint here about Dean Tong is that he seems only to advocate polices that would increase its size - albeit with the worthy aim of helping men.

In order to understand more clearly this point about the dangers of colluding with the abuse industry, take heed of the following. 

I once spoke to a lawyer who had considerable experience with false allegations of child abuse. Careworkers in the UK were being convicted and sent to prison on the basis of no objective evidence whatsoever. Basically, those who had been in care homes as youngsters were, as adults, colluding with each other to manufacture false allegations of abuse against the staff in order to gain large sums in compensation.

Worse still, some lawyers were actually putting up posters inside prisons in order to entice inmates - with the prospect of tens of thousands of pounds in compensation - to allege that they had been abused as children .

"But surely," I argued, "members of your profession - lawyers and judges - can see what is going on? Surely they know that these care home staff are going to prison because the justice system has been so corrupted that no objective evidence is required in order to convict them and because huge sums of money are involved? Why are the legal professionals not making a public fuss about this?"

His reply was very revealing.

In outline, this is what he said, more or less.

"They just do their jobs in the courtroom and then go home. And they are not going to rock their own boats."

And, of course, neither was he going to rock any boats.

After all, he made his own living out of these problems.

And this is why, fundamentally, it would be a big mistake for 'men' to expand the size of the abuse industry by joining it. By doing this, they would simply empower even further an organism that already feeds itself by generating mountains of 'abuse' at the expense of, indeed, everybody, but mostly at the expense of men.

5. "Change the legal standard of a "preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence" in both juvenile and family courts across America.

This, of course, would certainly be a step in the right direction, but experience suggests that while changing the legal standard might be of significant value, juries will still convict men in ' abuse' cases - especially to do with children - on the flimsiest of evidence.

Every week we see men going to prison purely on the basis of dubious - and often uncorroborated - testimonies from alleged victims of abuse.

But, yes, it is a good idea.

...

In my view, one of the best ways to ensure that maximum justice prevails is to insist that no information in these cases is ever kept confidential - including the identities of the participants.

By doing this, the general public would become far better informed with regard to what, exactly, is going on, and they would begin to understand better the types of people and situations that lead to claims of abuse - false or otherwise.

Removing all confidentiality and anonymity would also help to counter the general hysteria that is purposely inflamed by the abuse industry - mostly through misinformation and spin - and it would also help to educate better the public with regard to the serious underlying issues that are involved.

After all, the more that people have access to valid information, the less likely will they get things wrong.

...

Dean Tong Exposed? Bridget Marks and her children have yet to receive due process. Sadly, the Marks children may be at this moment residing with a pedophile. After all, Mr. Aylsworth, the father, has never submitted to a PPG (Penile Plethysmograph) or AASI (www.abelscreen.com), to deduce whether or not he shows sexual interest or arousal to pre-school children. Dean Tong

In my piece Are You A Deviant? I point out that the Abel Test for Sexual Deviancy is likely to be very flawed and should not be used to assess the propensity of unconvicted individuals to engage in acts of 'deviancy'?

And in the above article readers will see Dean Tong advocating that in order to 'prove' their innocence of sexual acts against their children, fathers should undergo tests such as the Abel Test as well as the Penile Plethysmograph tests - which determines if there is any change in the blood supply to their nether regions when viewing pictures of sexual acts.

And this is a "men's" advocate?

No.

This is an advocate for the abuse industry.

Perhaps Dean Tong would also like to protect children from their fathers by having the penises of all fathers tested annually to see if they are aroused by sexual images of youngsters.

And if he does not want to do this, why not? - if these tests are so accurate?

And, while on the subject of these plethysmographs, there is a phenomenon known as 'stimulus generalisation' which, basically, is to do with the fact that people tend to like or dislike things that are similar.

As such, men who are aroused by, for example, the smooth depilated sexual regions of glamour models - or of their partners - are likely to be aroused - perhaps subliminally - by sexual regions that look similar; i.e. those of children.

But just because people might be aroused or excited by something, this does not mean that they will actually engage with that something in real life; especially if it is illegal, frowned upon, considered to be immoral, and/or is likely to be severely punished in some way.

And, of course, children do have a sexuality. And many adults will have experienced some kind of sexual awakening at a very young age - e.g. perhaps by being in the bath together with their siblings.

And this immature kind of sexuality is unlikely to disappear into some kind of inaccessible abyss as people grow older. For many people it will remain sitting somewhere in the back of their minds - but deeply connected to their mature sexuality without them necessarily being conscious of this.

As such, thrusting sexual images in front of someone and measuring their state of 'automatic' arousal might have very little to do with anything more than the rekindling of what they encountered in the distant past - even as children.

In general, therefore, the notion that a state of arousal is so closely linked to action that it actually warrants determining a man's whole future on the basis of it is a monstrous idea.

For example, will Dean Tong soon be telling us that if men get aroused by pictures of naked women (or, indeed, of women simply walking down the street) that this is good evidence that they might have raped them? - or indecently assaulted them?

Well, he is not far away from actually suggesting this. ...

A sex polygraph test featured on ABC's Primetime Thursday could be used to clear basketball superstar Kobe Bryant of rape charges, says noted forensic legal consultant and author Dean Tong.

"The Federal Rules of Evidence allow expert scientific testimony in criminal trials," Tong said. "The penile plethysmograph, a polygraph-type test for people facing charges of sex abuse, can be used to show that an individual is not aroused by deviant sexual acts and unlikely to perpetrate sexual molestation or rape."

... Well. He is doing so indirectly.

He is actually suggesting that a man might help to prove his innocence by showing that he does not get aroused by notions of rape.

The problem with this, of course, is that men who are innocent of what they are accused of having done, and yet who do get aroused by notions of aggressive sex, are going to find that this will be used as evidence against them. And this might also be the case if they simply refuse to take a test that allegedly measures this sort of thing.

Furthermore, the use of these tests is actually going to encourage courtrooms and juries to give them credence - thus increasing the likelihood that men will find themselves being heavily pressurised - i.e. forced - into taking them in order to try to 'prove' their innocence - something that they should not have to do.

And the upshot of this would likely be that some men will be able to 'prove' their innocence by not being aroused by, say, images of aggressive sex, but the price will be that those who do get aroused by such a thing - perhaps without even realising that they are aroused by such a thing - will very likely be convicted!

And these latter might well be the majority - or at least a significant percentage - of perfectly normal men.

Who knows?

But who would be surprised if men and women were, indeed, increasingly being turned on by aggressive sex these days? - given the ceaseless deluge concerning sex-assault, rape, murder, paedophilia, and what have you, by the media, the feminists and the abuse industry - e.g. see Torture Rape and Murder.

And what next, eh?

Will the fact that you do a full-time job be used as evidence in the future to demonstrate that you will clearly go to extraordinary lengths to earn money!? - and that, therefore, you have most likely committed a recent theft or two, and that you are also very likely to commit a few more thefts in the future!?

"This man goes out to work every day. This man clearly desires money. Therefore, he must be looked upon as a likely future criminal, as well as one who most probably has a criminal past."

A notion such as this would be laughed out of court.

So how is it that the following is clearly acceptable to many 'professionals'? ...

"This man goes out to nightclubs. His penile plethysmograph tells us that he likes sex. Therefore, he must be looked upon as a likely future sex-abuser, as well as one who most probably has a sex-abuser's past."

In summary, therefore, my view is that any professional who promotes the view that the arousal of men to sexual material should bear some significant weight in assessing whether or not they committed a crime is very misguided indeed, and that it might well worsen the plight for most men who are accused of 'abuse'.

To understand this, focus on the ridiculous notion that a man who goes out to work for a living is demonstrating a desire for money sufficient enough for him to commit a crime and, further, that this desire for money - according to the professionals - should have some significant bearing on a case to do with theft.

We must also remember that men, these days, are convicted of abuse on the basis of no objective evidence at all, that men have been convicted despite the most tainted and most incredible of evidence (e.g. see Innocence Lost and Pressing Issue Of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts) and that, in all likelihood, if such tests are used to prove innocence, then they will surely be used, in some way, to prove guilt.

In summary, therefore, while it is understandable why so many men feel that they need to expand the abuse industry so that it caters for themselves just as much as it does for women, the problem is that this would simply lead to an even larger and more powerful organism that would simply generate more 'abuse' and, hence, more misery; particularly for men.

...

Also see ...

Lie Detectors and my piece entitled The NSPCC Needs To Be Stopped to see just how huge is the damage that one particular 'charity' has inflicted upon millions of people.

+ Ink Blot Test  

The Abuse Industry There is a large industry, led by mental health professionals and pressure group organisers, who all have a vested interest in the expansion of the very problem that they are pledged to combat. The greater the so-called "epidemic", the more they can justify their demands for resources. Leo Mckinstry