Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence

From 1976 to 2002 in the USA the number of women killed by their partners hardly changed at all, whereas the number of men killed by their partners dropped by 70%.

Indeed, in 1976 men and women killed each other at roughly equal rates.

So how is it that women still get killed as often by their partners as they used to do, whereas men now get killed far less often?

Well, the answer is really quite simple.

The draconian procedures adopted by the various domestic violence agencies throughout the past three decades have given aggressing women a way of avoiding having to commit an act of murder.

Instead of killing their partners (e.g. to eject them from their homes) aggressing women can now pick up their phones - and call in the police.

On the other hand, aggressing men do not have this option. They will get nowhere by picking up their phones. And so the number of women killed by these men has hardly changed at all.

It must be obvious even to the feminists and the various women's groups concerned with domestic violence that people are far more likely to be aggressive if they have nowhere to turn to for help, but to admit to the fact that their policies are saving the lives of men rather than the lives of women is something that they are most unlikely to do, given that this would expose their true agenda - which has nothing to do with decreasing domestic violence against women.

Indeed, if domestic violence against women was to decrease they would lose a major source of their funding. And if they were to admit that the women using their services were not the weak and wilting types but, rather, the aggressive violent types, they would also lose much of their public support. 

Indeed, this is the main reason that they hide as best as they can what goes on inside their refuge centres. (The last thing that they want the public to see is the kind of women who tend to use their services.)

Further evidence that it is aggressing women who are the women making the most use of domestic violence services (as opposed to those who are in genuine fear for their lives) comes from the work of Erin Pizzey - who was the founder of the refuge centres for battered women in the UK. 

Here is what she said.

"Most of the women arriving at our refuge centres were more violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from." (My underlining.)

Indeed, women are far more aggressive now than they were in the mid 1970s. As such, one would expect that they would be far more likely nowadays to aggress against men than they used to do. 

And so one would expect that the number of men killed by their female partners would have actually increased over the period from 1976 to 2002.

But this has just not happened. The number of men killed has actually decreased very dramatically.

And the reason for this is that aggressing women can now pick up their phones instead.

Quite simply, aggressing women do not need to act as violently as they used to do. They can get the authorities to do their 'violence' for them.

On the other hand, women who are being aggressed against are killed just as often as before - which is why the death rates for women has hardly changed.

If the feminists and the women's groups were really concerned about domestic violence against women, they would be demanding that aggressing men were given the option of getting help by picking up their phones.

And the fact that they vigorously oppose providing any help to men who are feeling aggressive says a great deal about what their true agenda really is - and decreasing domestic violence against women clearly has very little to do with it.

Finally, the 1976 figures demonstrate quite clearly that men and women will kill each other at roughly equal rates if they are treated equally by the authorities. And this is further evidence for the well-supported view that women are just as prone to relationship violence as men. 

All that has happened since 1976 is that aggressing women have been provided with an alternative to violence, whereas aggressing men have not.

You know; if the government and the feminists really wanted to reduce domestic violence against women - particularly that of a serious nature - then they would argue for helplines to be provided for men who are finding it difficult to cope - for whatever reason.

"If you feel that you are about to explode, then please phone this line."

"If you feel that you are about to explode, then please phone this line."

So simple.

It could prevent so many outbursts of violence.

But these people do not argue for this - which, in my view, demonstrates quite clearly what their intentions really are - viz; to benefit themselves in some way, at the expense of both men and women.

I'll repeat that.

At the expense of both men and women.

And you really must wake up to the fact that these people are often deeply unpleasant and self-serving.

They are not the caring, helpful types that they portray themselves to be.

For the most part, these particular people are arrogant , bullying, self-serving government workers; many with a very heavy political bent in the direction of feminism and leftism; pouring out propaganda in favour of 'left-wing government' and, therefore, receiving millions of dollars from left-wing government.

They are also extremely anti-male in almost everything that they do.

Furthermore, they often ally themselves with lawyers and feminist-indoctrinated therapists so that they can grow their tentacles and their empires.

Also see, ...

Would You Sign This Contract?

... to see that it is men, not women, who make up the vast majority of victims of domestic violence.