28/5/00 

Of Course There's no Bloody Cure for Domestic Violence! 

The Home Office has just reported its shock at discovering that its 're-education' programmes for men convicted of domestic violence have failed to prevent them from re-offending. 

Apparently, these rehabilitation programmes work well for other types of 'criminals' - even violent ones! And they are also very effective for drug abusers, and even sex offenders.

But, incredibly, none of these programmes work effectively for 'perpetrators' of domestic violence.

How astonishing! What a surprise!

The UK Men's Movement has been telling the government that these programmes were useless in Domestic Violence (DV) situations for at least eight LONG years!

Our laws will simply not allow men to be treated fairly within their relationships and within their families no matter what the true circumstances. And this is why so many, in desperation, resort to acts of violence - and most of these acts are nothing more than slaps.

For the whole sad story, place a sick-bucket beside you and read The Observer, but, before you do, please take note of what follows, and remember that you cannot trust this newspaper to tell you the truth about any subject. It will mostly spin matters in a way to encourage its readers to become even more prejudicial toward men.

1. "The latest Home Office figures show that there are around 835,000 incidents of domestic violence each year."

What the Observer doesn't tell you, because it doesn't want you to know, is that a full half of this 835,000 figure stems from women being violent toward men. That is what the Home Office actually found. However, by obscuring this fact and, at the same time, devoting the whole article to the violence of men against women, they cleverly manipulate the reader into thinking that the whole 835,000 figure stems from male violence alone. 

It doesn't.

And The Observer also doesn't tell you that the police themselves have been caught fiddling the figures by as much as 100%.

2. "... in many years of experience I have known only one [violent] man who has changed his behaviour."

This quote from Sandra Horley, the boss at Refuge, the largest charity supporting 'abused' women and children, if accurate, must open the eyes of even the blind to the utter prejudice against men being displayed by 'powerful' women. 

Over MANY years, only one man has ever changed his behaviour as a result of therapy according to Sandra Horley. In other words, men are 'incurable' and they need to be locked up. 

Not one of you who has ever lashed out is curable. Remember that.

Actually, I remember Sandra Horley quite clearly on ITV's dumb Tonight programme, somewhat smugly explaining to viewers that even ordinary, pleasant, charming men were major perpetrators of domestic violence once they were at home. It wasn't just psychopathic types apparently. They were normal, sweet men in public, and in all other matters, but they were violent abusers as soon as they got home.

The questions that any reasonably intelligent interviewer might have asked her were these.

WHY IS IT THAT SUCH NORMAL AND KIND MEN BECOME EMBROILED IN ACTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

WHAT MAKES SUCH PLEASANT MEN DO THESE THINGS?

COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT THESE MEN ARE BEING TREATED EXTREMELY UNJUSTLY?

EVER THOUGHT OF THAT AS AN ANSWER?

COULD IT BE THAT THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SO 'INCURABLE'?

But, of course, the Tonight programme was not interested in asking what surely must be an extremely interesting question. After all, why do normal, loving, caring men behave so terribly toward their partners on occasion? The answer to this is all over this website, but, and you have to remember this, the Tonight programme on ITV is not about news or about reality. It is about spin. Feminist spin. Just keep watching it and notice how it constantly sends out the message that men are just plain diabolical while women are just plain victims.

These men aren't 'incurable'. They are simply facing massive injustices because deranged irrational women are making hysterical accusations against them and often trying to kick them out of their own homes.

This is not to say that there are no psychopaths, and inherently violent men, but feminists don't make any distinction between these and the vast majority of men.

The problem here is that the 'nice' guys that Sandra Horley has identified are being treated by the whole system as if they were psychopathic ones.

And 'incurable' simply means that they refuse to accept that they are behaving in an unjustifiable fashion.

And neither would I in the circumstances that so many of them find themselves.

3. "The problem with group therapy is that it may become a talking shop, and there is evidence to show that men actually become more cunning in the way they disguise their violence."

This is Sandra Horley weaving the customary feminist strategy of telling us that even though we cannot see it, it is, in fact, all around us. It is there! But it is hidden. A bit like satanic abuse. They 'disguise' their violence.

It is the 21st century's version of witchcraft and hysteria-mongering designed to support all women who decide to make an accusation. You might not see the bruises, you might not hear the screams, but it's there. If the woman says its there, then its there!

And notice the implication that, for men, 'group therapy' leads to a 'talking shop' that promotes further violence. In other words, trying to help men just makes matters worse. It's not worth the effort. 

Just lock them up.

For women, of course, this would never happen. They would never use 'group therapy' as a 'talking shop' to discuss ways of further debilitating their partners and keeping them out of the home and away from the kids. Of course not.

Whereas, in fact, that's about all they do talk about in their group 'therapy' sessions! I've heard them!

Refuge centres run little more than discussion groups to help women from having to face the men whom they would prefer to avoid. And, as Erin Pizzey pointed out, these women are mostly more violent, even toward the children, than the partners who are having to deal with them.

Within these refuges they are also indoctrinated, by male-bashing 'experts' within the system, on how to behave, how to look, and how to manipulate the justice system to extract the maximum sympathy for themselves while ensuring the maximum punishments for the men they now reject.

Looking sad and being tearful helps a lot. Exaggerating, and blaming him for everything, goes down well too. 

If you sit around the table you can watch them openly vying to be seen as the women most hard done by. The most offended. The most  hurt.

But you will not see much in the way of bruises - if any.

For the most part, the women who contact domestic violence shelters are the violent, manipulative, aggressive types, not the weak wilting types in need of protection - e.g. see Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence.

Nevertheless, the men are completely abandoned. Worse, they are usually arrested. The whole system is stacked against them. The police, the social services and the Domestic Violence helplines all give out the same message - that the accused man must be guilty. 

These men are also not only having to deal with the loss of their homes, and, possibly, their children, they are also having to deal with the likes of Sandra Horley. 

And there are many misandric feminists who are far worse than her! They strut around their refuges stoking up the hatred and urging women to retaliate.

I can't imagine what these men must be going through.

4. Anyway, here is what Jack Straw has now decided to do. He is about to " ... remove funding from therapy sessions designed to treat men guilty of domestic violence, and instead put money into refuges [for women], stricter enforcement of injunctions against offenders, and electronic tagging to keep violent men away from their former spouses and girlfriends."

And do you know what?

There will be even more dead women at the end of the year.

But who gives a toss so long as feminists get their way and Jack Straw gets their votes?