|
20/8/2001
Would You Sign This
Contract?
"An
employer can, at any time, dismiss an employee, without justification, and
have that employee imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal.
For example, if the employee raises his voice in anger he may be arrested
for 'violence'. In any event, an employer can dismiss an employee
regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. He can fire
him from his job, whenever he wishes, no matter how long the employee has
served with the company, and even if the employee has done absolutely
nothing wrong. Further, the employer can insist that the employee is
evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. An employer
may further demand that the sacked employee must, under threat of
imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the employer for some
considerable time into the future."
How many incidents of
violence against employers would take place annually if these were the
terms and conditions that were set for all their employees?
An enormous number,
one would imagine.
Now read this. It's
the Lovers Contract.
"A
woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification,
and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his
dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested
for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man
regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. She can fire
him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter
how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely
nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from
his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a
woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of
imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her
children for some
considerable time into the future - and this is the case even if her children turn out not
to be his."
How many incidents of
DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were
the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners?
An enormous number,
one would imagine.
But, here in the West,
they are the terms and conditions for their male partners!
Is it really surprising to find,
therefore, that the incidence of 'domestic violence' against women has
hardly decreased in 20 years?
I say 'hardly decreased', but
no-one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The official
figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly from
incidents that would paint us all as 'domestically violent'.
The legal reality, however, is that domestic
violence is now largely defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time. And the problem with this - apart
from the sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the man - is that
her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither
is it 'fixed' - in the sense that a woman's attitudes can change and
fluctuate almost as much as the wind. Indeed, in the USA, some 20 million
women experience clinically severe emotional disturbances every
single month through PMS, and about 5 million have significant personality
disorders.
And sometimes, of course, a woman's real
attitude isn't even 'observable' - such as when she's exaggerating, lying,
or 'confused', perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines.
Nevertheless, the number of body
bags arising from domestic violence incidents, while not directly
indicating the exact number of domestic violence incidents themselves, must surely
reflect quite reasonably whether domestic violence is on the rise, or
whether it is on the wane.
As such, the number of intimate
partner homicides can give us a good insight into the patterns and
incidence of domestic violence. This number can certainly be calculated
objectively, and a woman's attitude - about whether or not an act of
domestic violence has actually taken place - becomes something of a
trivial irrelevance when the victim is actually dead!
Now, as a result mostly of feminist
propaganda, prejudice and, quite frankly, perjury, about domestic violence for
the past three decades, many countries have created increasingly draconian
laws which have disempowered the male gender when it comes to their
relationships - in fact, just as described in the Lovers Contract outlined
above.
But have these draconian laws
worked?
After all, billions upon billions
of dollars have been spent annually on implementing them.
If they have worked, then the
number of female body bags filled by acts of male domestic violence should
have decreased over this period.
In fact, however, they have not. Well, not by much.
What has decreased significantly is
the number of male homicide victims of domestic violence!
According to the figures from the
US Justice Department (e.g. see here)
female homicide victims killed by intimate partners
in 1976 numbered around 1600. By 1998 this had fallen to about 1300. In
contrast, the number of corresponding male victims during the same period
fell from 1400 to around 500!
| |
1976 |
1998 |
| Men
killed |
1400 |
500 |
| Women
killed |
1600 |
1300 |
It would seem, therefore, that
'feminist' policies have protected far more men from domestic violence
than women!
But, of course, this is not surprising,
because desperate women reacting
impulsively do not now need to murder their partners to remove them from
their homes. A call to the police will probably do the trick. Desperate
men reacting impulsively, however, still have murder as one of the only
real options if they 'absolutely must get rid of her - right now.'
And so if feminists were truly concerned about
domestic violence against women they would, of course, argue for policies that
reduced the pressures on men to act violently. For example, they would
argue for the creation of social and legal mechanisms through which men could refer their
domestic complaints. Instead, they have done the very
opposite. They have imposed the Lovers Contract!
And so the notion that feminists
actually want to reduce domestic violence against women is laughable.
Indeed, the opposite is true. The more
domestic violence that there is - or, more accurately, the more domestic
violence that there appears to be - against women, the more can
feminists justify their jobs, their empires, their funding and their ideology.
The last thing that they would want is to see domestic violence reduced.
As a result of all this, men who are
facing desperate 'relationship' situations, perhaps often believing that
they might be about to lose their homes and their children (and having nowhere to turn for
effective help) might well explode into violence - with much justification
in my view - whereas women who are
feeling just as hostile (though, usually, with lesser real justification,
since, for example, they are hardly likely to lose their homes or their children) can
happily avail themselves
of free and aggressive professional support!
Further, of course, women are
calmed (and armed) with the comforting knowledge they will almost
invariably win their cases.
Indeed, the words, "I'm leaving
you," emanating from the mouth of a woman has a significantly different
meaning to when such words are spoken by a man; particularly when there is a
home and children involved.
In short; women nowadays do not need
to act
violently. They can win hands down just by using the 'system'.
And they know it.
And this is why the number of male
homicide victims has fallen dramatically, whereas that of female homicide
victims has not.
Furthermore, the evidence suggests that it is
mostly aggressing women who are using the system, not those women
who are in genuine need of help.
Indeed, if those women who called the domestic
violence services for help were mostly the ones truly
in fear of their lives and who were trying to save
themselves from domestically-violent deaths, then the number of their deaths
should have decreased over the years.
But this has just not happened.
And the reason for this is that, by and large, it
is not the women who are fearing for their lives who are picking up their
phones.
It is, by and large, the aggressive
women who, two decades ago, would have killed their partners, who are now
picking up the phones.
The conclusion must be, therefore, that,
statistically speaking, the systems currently in place mostly aid and abet
violent women who want to rid themselves of their partners and do very little for those women who are in genuine
need of protection.
And the evidence from women like Erin
Pizzey - the very FOUNDER of the Women's Refuge organisation here in the UK
- would also support this notion.
Here is a quote from her ...
"Most of the women arriving at
the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the
men they were supposedly escaping from."
Feminists, of course, would hotly deny
all this, and would aid themselves in this deception by using the following
'trick' to fool their gullible followers. They would look at the recent 500 male deaths
and compare it to the recent 1300 female deaths and conclude that this is evidence for
the fact that men, in general, are more domestically violent than women.
But the historical data from 1976
scuppers this argument completely!
If the current low 500 count for male
victims reflects a lower propensity for women to engage in domestic violence,
then the 1400 count of three decades ago must have reflected a much higher
propensity for women to engage in domestic violence.
This
would imply that women have become far less aggressive over the past three
decades. But this flies completely in the face of reality! There is no question at
all that women have become far more assertive and more aggressive over the recent
years.
And so, all in all, the only realistic way to
account for the homicide data is to acknowledge that aggressive
women nowadays kill less often. And this is because they can nowadays use the state
to aggress on their behalf.
Furthermore, if one talks to police officers
'off the record' it is quite clear from their sentiments that most calls
relating to domestic violence come from women who are attempting to use the
police services as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one.
As such, we can actually conclude from all this that it is men who make up the majority of victims of
'domestic violence'.
To clarify this further, consider the
following.
1. We know that women are just as violent as
men within their relationships - if not more so; e.g. see Martin
Fiebert's collation of some 200 research findings. (now updated)
2. The evidence - as I have discussed - shows that it
is aggressing women (not fearful women) who are calling the
domestic violence services.
In other words, men not only have to endure
the same levels of direct physical aggression from
their partners as do women (as per 1. above) they also have to endure the extra
indirect aggression that arises from women using the state (as per 2. above) to aggress on their
behalf - something which does not get counted as 'domestic violence'.
And given that women, by the thousand
every day, use the state to aggress against their partners on their behalf, it
seems very clear that men suffer far more from 'domestic violence'
than do women.
Indeed, when feminists refer to the high
number of annual calls made to domestic violence services in order to imply that
huge numbers of women are being abused, the truth is that these huge numbers
reflect mostly the number of women who are aggressing against men!
Furthermore, making matters worse for men,
western societies have
now clearly developed an overriding willingness to forgive women for their acts of
violence - and even homicide - whereas the very opposite is true for men.
Indeed, it is men who are mostly blamed when it is they, themselves, who are the
victims of direct physical domestic violence!
In other words, women can get away with it.
Women can nowadays
provoke, irritate, shout and aggress against their men partners with relative
impunity. They do not need to kill them. They can maintain their high levels of
violence knowing that, whatever those levels might be, more or less, the price will remain relatively
low. And women who do murder their partners rarely spend more than a few months in
jail; if that.
And, furthermore, they are often treated as
heroines; e.g. see Loose Women.
In other words, women are very actively
encouraged to be violent towards their men - not only through direct action, but
also through the state and its various agencies. Indeed, additional
encouragement also emanates daily from the media, which continuously urge women
to telephone various hotlines.
And the outcome has been that, for many years
now, there has been a torrent of domestic violence and abuse being hurled
against men throughout western countries - not only directly, but also through
the state and, indeed, from the media.
And the homicide data unmasks part of
the feminist agenda, because the policies that feminists would claim are
designed to reduce domestic violence against helpless women clearly do nothing of
the sort. These women get killed just as often as before.
But feminist policies have never
really been concerned with the reduction of violence against women. For
feminists to succeed in reducing violence against women would be like
turkeys voting for Christmas. Their sole aim has always been - simply and
blindly - to disempower men and to stir up hatred towards them.
Thus, when the feminist lobby keeps
arguing the case that men are more domestically violent than women, and,
further, that the injuries against women are often more serious than is the case
for men (and this is, indeed, true - just as the respective homicide rates would
predict) it would be well to remind
them that such injuries would occur far less often if the male perpetrators were able to
pick up their phones instead.
Regretfully, however, the feminists just
will not allow men to receive support in their times of domestic crises. They
continually argue that men do not need such support despite the evidence showing
that domestic violence against many truly vulnerable women would be reduced by this. And, as usual,
the feminists have been given their way, and so there is hardly any support for
men who need help in times of crisis.
And this is yet further evidence that
exposes the true agenda of feminism. It is not about protecting 'weak and
vulnerable' women, it is about empowering the aggressive ones.
There is one final point to be added to
all this with regard to non-homicide domestic violence, and this is the way in
which
it is so prejudicially defined. As mentioned earlier, it tends to be defined by
the woman's attitude to whatever she
happens to be experiencing at the time. And so, for example, shouting,
name-calling, pushing and shoving - extremely common and trivial events in
themselves alone - can be sufficient to bring about the most draconian actions against
men for 'domestic violence'. And this is true even when there is no evidence to
support the woman's claims or when she's lying. Further, for example, when women make false
or exaggerated accusations of
'abuse', whether allegedly against themselves or their children, or
when they purposefully engage in activities denying the fathers access to their
children, or when they have their men ejected from their homes under false
pretences, well, the authorities simply do not categorise any of these acts as 'domestic violence', even though they are crimes that are far, far worse
than most of the acts which they do categorise as domestic violence.
As one man described his situation
recently, "Yes, I must have slapped her about five times over the last
three months that we were together, but I was hit by her far more often. And that
was nothing compared to what she's doing to me now. Every hour without my
children is another slap in my face, and I haven't been allowed to see them for nearly
six months."
Well, that is a lot of 'slap-equivalents'
over a six month period - about 2000 would be my guess. But they do not count at
all in the 'domestic violence figures'.
Indeed, even threatening to withhold money from a
woman in the UK can be considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'.
But when a woman threatens a man with the
notion that he will never see his
children again, this is not considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'.
And yet, apart from serious physical injury, what could be more 'domestically' violent than being thrown out of your own
home and cut off from your children?
The reality is, therefore, that while the
objective academic research shows that males and females are victims of non-homicide
domestic violence in roughly equal rates, this is only the case because most of
the worst actions that women direct against men are simply not counted as acts
of domestic violence by the researchers.
And so it is that the truth about
non-homicide domestic violence is that, when one includes all those actions that
can be legitimately counted as 'abusive'- and these should include those abuses
by the state at the behest of women - it is men who make up the vast majority of the
victims of non-homicide domestic violence - not women!
|
