The Biggest Feminist Lie: Domestic Violence

It is commonly stated by feminists that 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. Remember, these are the same people that told us about 10 years ago that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman," because supposedly every woman's husband would beat her at halftime. That ridiculous assertion, after it had been used to raise money for femtard organizations for a few months, was disproven. And the "1 in 4" statistic is just as much a lie as the "Super Bowl Sunday" claim was. The "1 in 4" statistic is only true if you accept a feminist definition of what comprises "violence."

In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.

Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."

However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]

So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"

So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.

"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.

Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:

PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!


DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.

I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.

Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:

* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.

None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.

"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:

1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.

2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.

3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.

Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:

1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.

Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"

And the answer, of course, is no.

Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.

Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"

My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.


Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/

What I Learned From a Feminist at FREE REPUBLIC

You hear things again and again, and their significance never really quite dawns on you.

Then one day you hear them and you see the multitudinous angles from which the statements that you have been hearing for years have just been wrong.

I have often likened feminists to Jehovah's Witnesses (without the attendant morality, of course). Both camps are essentially taught to argue defensively, giving trite answers to common questions, but if you ever stop to examine what they are saying, or ask just one further question, their entire logical edifice comes crashing down around their collective ears.

I once posted an article on Free Republic about false allegations. A typical whiney feminist pops up and begins to assert the normal feminist drivel: "women are afraid to report rapes because of the social consequences." "Men are abusers." "Men cover up for their buds." "Who do women have confidence that they can complain to?" And so as we were going round and round about various feminist irrelevancies, she posted this, and I quote:

"As only 10% of rapes are ever reported, there can be no valid % of false reports...

Given the unknown total of rapes...

The same goes for domestic violence."

And it hit me. I have heard this illogical hardscrabble a million times. I have listened with frustration and amazement at the irrelevance of it all, and the utter stupidity of it all, a million times. After all, how can anybody know how many rapes ARE NOT reported?

But then it hit me.

It hit me what is REALLY wrong with this statement that I have heard a million times from a half million different intellectually vacant minds spouting feminism.

1) These statements, taken together in context, are vicious. They are immoral because the implication of the statements, within a larger conversation about false allegations, is this: "It doesn't matter how many men are falsely accused because there are so many men who never get accused." The morality of the feminist soul is so lacking that they consider themselves to be approaching a rough approximation of justice if they are simply able to imprison MEN, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, on behalf of all the men who never were (perhaps) rightly accused and imprisoned.

That a woman is comfortable with a way of looking at the world in which the imprisonment of the innocent as a recompense for the non-imprisonment of the guilty reveals a streak of moral viciousness that is incompatible with anything other than the most hardened sociopath.

2) These statements are irrational. These statements display the tendency of those who know that they are wrong to cloud whatever issue is on the table by not only attempting to play BOTH sides against the middle, but attempting to play EVERY side against the middle. Instead of trying to have it both ways, feminists want to have it every which way....

For instance, the psycho-feminist poster asserts that "only 10% of all rapes are ever reported." OK. Despite that being a statistically dubious conclusion (though one that I have heard repeatedly), let's work with that. If I go to some objective source, like FBI crime statistics or what have you, and I learn that (for the sake of argument) there were One Million reported rapes last year (I have no idea the actual number), is it not relatively easy, given the number of reported rapes and the certain knowledge that this number represents only 10% of the total, to divine how many actual rapes there have been?

Yet invariably, the same feminist who tells you that the total number of reported rapes represents only X% of the total, will at some point also allege, as did the above-quoted mental midget, "The total number of rapes is unknown."

Well, if the total number is unknown, whence cometh our certainty that 90% are unreported? And if I know, and teach, that 10% are all that is reported, how can I, with a straight face, assert "The total number of rapes is unknown"?

I call this irrationality because I am being generous. But in fact, it is lying. Feminists quote statistics not because they are a reflection of serious scholarship or observation or of logic, but because they are convenient, and because spouting statistics gives the illusion of serious scholarship or observation or of logic. In other words, the fact is that feminists are liars, and are comfortable enough with it to perpetrate their easily-examined lies in the public arena.

3) These statements reveal an excessive distrust in the veracity of women as a group. I have often stated that the last sexists in the world were feminists and their intellectual (sic) fellow travelers. However, these statements reveal that feminists hate women just as much as they hate men.

Follow my logic:

Within the larger context of a discussion on false allegations, the mentally-challenged poster quoted above defends the current femmefascist system of false allegations with the statement that no undue concern is necessary for the falsely accused because 1) 90% of actually guilty men go unaccused and 2) Nobody knows the total number that we are dealing with anyway.

Now....

You may have to follow this closely.

But the entire discussion revolved around an assertion by me that 30%-50% of all allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, were false.

Based on several quoted studies, the femmefascist did not argue with this statistic, but rather began the "Woe is me! Women are afraid to report! Who can we turn to for help! Nobody knows how many rapes there are! But only 10% are ever reported!"

OK, let's work with both sets of statistics here, assuming both are true. Let's work with a theoretical number that I am going to call "discernible rapes." This is my term, and I made it up just now - it means this: all "rapes," actual and falsely alleged, reported and unreported, in a given jurisdiction. It means everything that a person might think of when they think of rapes: actual reported rapes, false allegations, and real rapes that are never reported. We will combine all of these to get our figure of "discernible rapes."

Let's assume that the total number of "discernible rapes" (not reported, again, we are making numbers up here) in a district are 100.

Plugging in our statistics: The femmefascist asserts that of these 100, only 10 will be reported.

Objective studies indicate that 30%-50% of all reports are false, however.

So of the reports, let's say that 5 are genuine and 5 are false allegations.

Now, 90 actual (?) rapes went unreported.

Out of 95 actual (?) rapes, only 5 were reported, while 90 went unreported.

Out of 10 reports, only 5 were genuine, while 5 were false.

The inescapable conclusion? Women are more likely to file a false report of rape than a true report of rape.

That the femmefascist is comfortable with this way of looking at the world demonstrates the extremely low opinion that feminists have of women as a group.

U.S. Air Force Study on Rape

The United States Air Force did a study during the mid-80s concerning false rape allegations within their own ranks. They found that 30% of all rape allegations were proveably false - and frankly if 30% are proveably false, we are safe in assuming that 35%-40% or even more are actually false.

Of course, feminist congresswomen found out about the investigation and demanded that the investigation be stopped for the usual political reasons. But the damage was done and it is now believed among non-ideological professionals (i.e., people that are not feminist lawyers or who do not work at women's shelters) that roughly half of all such allegations are false.

And since VAWA actually made filing false allegations easier than it was in the mid-80s, I am of the opinion that false allegations are probably a significant majority of all allegations today.

Human nature being what it is, we have no reason to believe the majority of allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, or even child abuse given the current legal and political climate.

We may never know the actual numbers on rape itself, but we can have a reasonable certainty that, among reported rapes, more than half are false allegations.

Read some comments on this subject appended to this article. Be warned - people often read the article at the top of the page and come away saying "This article supports feminist nonsense on rape." The top of the page represents the blog owner framing the issue, while the comments appended to the article are the real discussion. The Air Force article is mentioned a couple of times.