Who Harms Women?

‎"Feminists have done more damage to women since the 60s than men have done in all of human history." Carmen Connors on WRDU's (106.1, Raleigh/Knightdale, NC) "The Morning Rush"

Interesting FEMALE perspective, wouldn't you say...?

I'm a Slanderer, but it's All About You! (nazipig!)

Recently, an intellectually vacant femtard (is there any other kind?) on Twitter (@AngelFury) retweeted a notice sure to motivate to anger any and all similarly intellectually vacant femtards (is there any other kind?)...

RT @Crimeandrape: "Rape Video 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in Hofstra Gang Rape: 4 Arrested, 5th Sought in http://shortText.com/cibw4436l

This "tweet" was sent, by the time log on her Twitter page, at 8:57 a.m. on September 26th. Notice that the link to the story that she retweeted contains a video presentation by (presumed) news reporter Bonnie Ghosh. The video begins with "She was tied up in a men's bathroom stall, where five men, one by one, would rape her...."

The video continuously rotates pictures of the four men who were arrested and includes comments from students who know them.

Of course, the problem is that in the early morning hours of September 16th-17th, slandering wench Danmell Ndonye had admitted that her flight of Satanic fancy had all been made up.

Being the public-spirited and civic-minded citizen that I am, I immediately tweeted to @AngelFury that she was now a participant in an ongoing slander of innocent men.

Now, of course, reasonable and moral person would not only delete the tweet, but would apologize profusely, or at least say something like "Thanks for letting me know! I wasn't aware that case had already been settled and didn't mean to heap accusations upon the innocent!"

But of course, feminists are neither reasonable nor moral.

Instead, what I got back from @AngelFury (perhaps she needs to go to anger management classes?) was this:

@objectifychicks #neonazipig | what evea! ur nailed. hope they serve beer in hell bozo!

Now, notice the moral void that is the feminist:

1) Slander means nothing to the feminist, and it is engaged in knowingly and willingly. Note too, that if you visit the Twitter profile page of @AngelFury, she seems all about the current Domestic Violence Hysteria (you can almost hear the heavy breathing soundtrack simply by reading her tweets!). Not only did she perpetrate a lie (all in the service of the "higher truth" of Domestic Violence [sic] no doubt!), but when confronted with the proof that it was a lie, she refused to delete the tweet or apologize or admit that she had slandered the innocent. This is, of course, the mindset that is bred in the emotional cripples that are feminists - all women are victims, even when they admit that they are not victims, and a few innocent men in jail is no big deal because they all raped someone at some point anyway....

2) Responsibility is a concept utterly foreign to the femtard. When SHE lies and slanders: "UR NAILED!" Huh? I am nailed for pointing out that SHE was wrong? But of course, this is feminist (a)moral judo at work - the feminist has never done anything wrong. If she slanders her husband with false allegations of domestic violence, HE was nonetheless "controlling" and deserved what he got. If she is confronted with the silliness of her emotional feminist screeds and the unsustainability of her femtard logic, then YOU are "demeaning" her. If she makes up stories out of whole cloth to perpetrate a rape myth, it is SOCIETY'S fault for placing women in such a vulnerable position. She is, of course, mentally ill - not responsible for her actions.

3) Notice the complete lack of ability to frame an intellectual response. No facts. No justification. No explanation. Not even correct spelling. Just "what evea" and the ever-present assault of "Nazi." It has always been entertaining to me, as an observation of the phenomenon of "projection" at work, that femtards don't quite seem to realize that "Nazi" is short for National Socialism - emphasis on Socialism - which is the very ideology subscribed to by feminists in the world today. It is, after all, not males or even conservatives that are engaged in a Nazi-like quest to wipe out an entire population - it is the feminists, who agitate in favor of the murder of more than 4,000 unborn babies per day since Roe v. Wade. It is neither men nor conservatives who are in favor of unconstitutional Star Chambers in which there is only the presumption of guilt in the accused - this is rather the family law system under the domination of feminists. This looks far more like the political prosecutions of Nazis than anything modern men or conservatives have done. And the demonization of men is quite like the demonization Hitler accomplished against the Jews, and the fascistic control of private property through regulatory means is something agitated for both by 1930s Nazis and the feminist population today. But I (slightly) digress.

4) Note the moral sanctimony of the femtard. "Hope they serve beer in hell, bozo!" Of course, implying that I will be in Hell to discover if this rumor is true. Now, I honestly have my faults - I truly do. But I wonder if @AngelFury has ever heard the old saw, "Take the telephone pole out of your own eye before you concern yourself with the speck of dust in a non-femtard's eye" (Matthew 7:3-5)? Yet, as I earnestly and honestly examine my own life, I can honestly say that I have never murdered or tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not kill." I can honestly say I have never perjured myself in court nor tolerated those who do in violation of the command "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I have never attempted to sever the relationship between a parent and a child or urge that child to despise a parent or make false allegations against him (always him, right ladies?), in violation of the command to "Honor thy father and mother." I have never used trumped up domestic violence or abuse charges in an attempt to gain or retain custody or in a power grab for property in violation of the command "Thou shalt not covet" or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors stuff, including those people that rightly belong in his life."

Who exactly is the @Angel here, and who exactly is likely to taste the @FuryofGod?

Note how slander, irrationality, hate speech, and moral emptiness characterize even the common femtard (I have no reason to believe that @AngelFury is in leadership at NOW or anything, and am assuming that she is a typical grassroots feminist.). It is not possible to maintain that moral corruption and intellectual vacuity is the exclusive domain of a radical fringe of feminists anymore - the feminist movement has succeeded in transforming even its grassroots into moral hazards.

Feminists, enjoy the upcoming comfortable winter - eternity is long, and Hell is rumored to be hot, with or without the beer.

The Shame Project: Calling a Bulldykefemtard a Bulldykefemtard

Before there was political correctness, there was shame. And shame kept a lot of people from doing a lot of stupid things and ascribing to a lot of stupid stuff.

Now, don't get me wrong - I am in favor of everybody's right to believe all the stupid stuff they want to believe (after all, there are Jehovah's Witnesses out there!), but I also am in favor of everybody else's right to say to the idiots of the world (to find them, ask whether they voted for Barack Obama): "Your beliefs are incoherent and you act like a retard!"

And of course, prior to the 1990s, there was a very effective social mechanism in place to make sure that people didn't screw up - and if they did screw up, they were thereafter rightfully labeled as a "Screw-Up." It was called shame. Calling a spade a spade. Truth in labeling.

This was a great inconvenience to liberals, as the 1980s had thoroughly proven that every single tenet of liberalism was wrong - laughably wrong. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured the world that the Soviets could not be resisted, and had formed the ridiculous slogan (ever notice that all liberalism is built upon sloganeering rather than thinking?) "Better Red than dead!", after Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II, Bush the Senior, and others had successfully conspired to topple the Berlin wall, were now agitating to spend the "peace dividend" on pet welfare schemes. The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had assured us of a coming Ice Age due to our use of hairspray in the 1970s, discovered that the real threat was "Global Warming" (and have since decided trying to pin the whole project down in terms of "hot" or "cold" is a vain pursuit and relabeled the whole shindig "Climate Change"). The same semi-retarded liberal politicians who had warned us that without high taxes, deficit spending, and governmental hyper-regulation of the economy, there would be economic carnage, then found themselves reduced to begging to incorporate the high tax revenues gleaned from tax cuts into greater and greater social welfare schemes.

And those same semi-retarded liberal politicians who, a few years before, had been agitating for the release of the mentally ill from mental hospitals in the name of "human rights" then found themselves complaining about the horrible chaos of all the crazy homeless folks living on the street.

Now, all of these events truly happened. They happened just the way I say they happened. Everybody who was awake during the period stretching from 1970-2009 knows that they happened in exactly this way. One would think that after such catastrophic institutional failure on the part of semi-retarded liberal politicians (which have never had an idea that has worked in the history of mankind) and such astounding successes by the conservative/libertarian philosophy (which has worked in every instance it has been tried), there would be a severe crisis of credibility for semi-retarded liberal politicians.

Yet the truth is that the White House is now inhabited by a the greatest example of a semi-retarded liberal politician of all time: Barack Obama. How did this happen? How is it that, after a history of such incomprehensible failure, semi-retarded liberal politicians still have any credibility left.

Well, in the 1990s, semi-retarded liberal academics (more specifically, feminists) noticed that the world wasn't quite going the way they had intended. And it hurt them to have to face the music. Oh, it hurt them. It hurt their feelings to believe in liberalism and have to deal with all the cocky conservatives walking about reminding them of the absolute failure of their philosophy and the absolute incoherence of their positions. And we all know that the one thing that a woman can't stand is to have her feelings hurt.

Rather than face the truth with courage (impossible for a feminist or liberal, since both are ideological positions built on cowardice and the rejection of reality) and modify their positions to something coherent, feminists came up with a more excellent strategy for not getting their feelings hurt: make it illegal (and to some extent immoral) to say anything that might hurt their feelings. In 1990 there were only 75 speech codes at colleges nationally, by 1991 this number ballooned to over 400.

It is important to note that speech codes and political correctness do not, as is commonly asserted, function to put a leash on genuinely offensive speech (such as "The N-word" and other fighting words), but are rather designed as an Anti-Truth-in-Labeling-Act. The purpose of speech codes and political correctness is to keep those who are right from confronting those who are wrong. For instance...

* Texas A&M's speech code protects "personal feelings" in an attempt to prevent "indignity of any type."

* Ohio State University's speech code seeks to prevent communications which "threaten... emotional harm."

* Davidson College's Sexual Harrassment policy forbids "patronizing remarks" including "comments or inquiries about dating."

* Emory University's speech code prevents any speech or conduct that might be interpreted as "demeaning" to certain privileged groups.

* The University of Connecticut prohibits the "use of derogatory names [or] inappropriately directed laughter."

Speech codes have been used to prevent the showing of Mel Gibson's Christian epic, The Passion of the Christ. Let not your heart be troubled, though, dear reader. For at one college, the same faculty that forbade The Passion of the Christ was nevertheless reasonable enough to allow - during the same time period! - a skit titled "F*cking for Jesus" which glorified masturbation to an oil painting of Jesus Christ.

The purpose, then, of speech codes has nothing to do with preventing genuinely offensive speech (else any production containing the word "F*cking," whether or not it had anything to do with blasphemy, would be barred). It is rather a tool of the socialist left designed to foster...

the growing dominance of the left in higher education, and to [enable them to act upon] their belief that it was their function to reengineer society, starting with students’ interior beliefs and moving outward.

Speech codes are, then, instruments of social engineering - and a peculiar type of social engineering. It is an attempt to feminize the world.

What? asks the Dear Reader, how is it that females or feminists get the blame for all the horrific speech codes of the world?

First, as a historical phenomenon, note that speech codes, by those who favor them, are said to have originated, at least partly, to the increased and open presence of females and gays (who generally share a female outlook) in the university.

Secondly, which gender warbles on endlessly about "feelings?" See the speech code snippets above.

Thirdly, who has a proven record of being willing to sacrifice truth for tolerance - as long as the "tolerance" in question is of their own beliefs, and not the factual statements of others?

Note the connection, now, between shame as a social force restraining stupidity and the presence of speech codes. Speech codes were enacted, largely at the behest of women who were tired of having their beliefs mocked in academe, to protect their own feelings - not as a means of seeking truth or even of preventing genuine offense. Feminists would simply rather not be confronted with the truth because the truth doesn't support any of their positions. Therefore, they have made the truth expendable - indeed, in a sense, they have made it illegal.

Think this is all a stretch, Dear Reader? Consider...

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are fit to fight on the front lines in combat and that placing a bikini calendar on one's cubicle wall at the office creates a "hostile work environment." I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if you can't endure the hostility of a bikini calendar on the wall, then enduring the hostility of exploding shells and a bayonet fight may be asking a bit much.

* Feminists simultaneously maintain that women are capable of doing anything that a man can do while asking that admissions and promotion standards be lowered (only for women, mind you!) in police departments, fire departments, the military, law schools, medical schools, and business schools so that women can attain representation equal to that of men. I may not be very bright, but it seems to me that if women are, in fact, capable of doing everything that a man can do, then all that needs to be done is for women to live up to the standards that men are already attaining.

* Feminists maintain, in the wake of overwhelming evidence (including Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, the statements of professional statisticians, studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force, and legal practitioners generally) that women do not lie about rape, sexual harassment, abuse, and domestic violence. In fact, individual studies show that the false allegation rate extends anywhere from 20% to 60% or more (see the above studies) for these feminist-favored allegations - whereas the rate of false reporting for all other crimes is between 2% and 4% per annum.

* Feminists maintain that men and women are the same in every way, except that women are more nurturing, more cooperative, more peaceful, more wise, more....

You get the idea. Add to the above that feminism's assertions of men and women's sameness are called "mindless" by scholars and that even feminist "scholars" [sic] themselves admit that the Domestic Violence Hysteria is junk science, and you have a pretty thick soup of mental retardation. It is starting to make sense why feminists (and other liberals, certainly) would not want their beliefs scrutinized and challenged.

Now, of course, these speech codes originate on campus. But remember that the real purpose of speech codes was not to regulate genuinely offensive speech (remember "F*cking Jesus"?) but to keep semi-retarded liberals and feminists particularly from being shown to be the utter and complete fools that they are - and by that means, to fashion a "safe place" for femtards to prosper and brainwash a generation of children into believing that there actually might be something to their incoherent and already-disproven political positions. It was, as quoted above, a process designed to change "students' interior beliefs and move outward."

And of course, this plan has succeeded, because now speech codes not only dominate campus, but they dominate the thinking of the marketplace. How many times have you found yourself relating a story, discussing evidence, or relating a truth to someone only to be met with a condemnatory sigh and something muttered containing the word "stereotypical"? Note that one can now be accused of "hate speech" at a party or joshing around with friends.

Those who are wrong have seized control of the language at the expense of all truth.

Meanwhile, what is the truth about feminists?

* Though they assert that they are more nurturing than men, they are, in fact, murderers. Four thousand times a day since Roe v. Wade, the feminist project has focused on maintaining the right to abort a fetus (the Latin term for "baby," I bet no feminist was ever honest with you about that!) - often in the most macabre ways, at any time during a pregnancy, and with government funding!

* Though they assert that they have higher conceptions of justice than society at large, they tolerate and encourage the leveling of false allegations against men, resulting in thousands of men each year being charged with acts of violence of which they are not guilty. Conveniently, rape shield laws prevent all necessary information from being presented that might be exculpatory to the accused, domestic violence laws lower the standard of evidence to the ridiculous level of "the subjective fear of the woman," and over and over again we are told that the prosecution of those who make false allegations will "prevent other victims from coming forward." Oddly, we do not seem to believe that prosecuting people for insurance fraud will prevent the filing of genuine insurance claims, nor do we seem to believe that prosecuting people for perjury will prevent people from testifying in court generally.

* Though they assert that they love children, they not only murder them by the multiplied millions but their entire program has the goal of placing children in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to be - in a home headed by a single mother.

* Though they assert that they do not press a radical homosexual agenda, they foster ridiculous fears of men in the mind of emotionally and intellectually weak women, they present divorce as the first (and necessary) solution to a woman's problems, and they foster an entire industry (the Domestic Violence Industry) devoted to severing women from men and making those same women dependent upon radical feminism, psychiatrists, and the state. And of course, it is a common feminist project of the day to "reclaim" such words as "queer" and to agitate in favor of gay marriage and gay rights generally.

* And following closely behind the above, while feminists promise a better society, and on that ensures equality for all, in fact they have destroyed the very foundations of society in destroying the family, destroying academia (through the perpetration of ignorance as education), destroying the media, and destroying the legal system. The time for moderation is long past. It is time to put the NOW harpies back in their place.

So the truth about feminism is somewhat different than what would produce high esteem - in fact, the truth about feminism (and all liberals, of course) is what might be considered to be "demeaning": Feminists are intellectually vacant, slandering, murdering Bull Dykes.

See why they have a vested interest in controlling the language? Any truth uttered against a feminist would certainly hurt their feelings!

So here is my somewhat modest proposal. Every person on earth who believes and respects the truth should simply refuse to participate in anything that smacks of speech codes anymore. Now, I am not suggesting that you get yourself kicked out of school or fired from your job. Let's face it, there are lots of things you don't have perfect freedom to do in life - if you work for Ross Perot you can't have facial hair. Hey, it's his business, he can run it the way he wants.

But there are thousands of social interactions and venues that we each inhabit each day in which free speech is theoretically guaranteed, from the local church to the local mall to Twitter and Facebook. In every place in which one is legitimately free to talk, I propose that those who respect the truth begin to respond to feminists in the only way that is fitting: harshly.

It is time that their emotional tomfoolery be identified as intellectually vacant: I suggest the judicious use of the term femtard. It is time that their murderous self-centeredness be called what it is: Refuse to use the term Pro-Choice, they are Pro-Abortion and Murderers (though I think an interesting "twofer" could be had in feminizing that label as Murderesses - a politically incorrect coup d'etat!). They are not feminists, they are Bull Dykes.

The point I am making is certainly not the adoption of a certain list of labels - there is much room for creativity. My point is really this: We who know the facts and respect the truth often believe that if we meet feminists on the ground of facts, logic, and gentility that we can persuade them to embrace the truth (of which there is only one, and they don't have it). But this project of trying to treat feminists as if they are intellectually capable of responding to the truth has failed.

And to say that it has failed is not merely to discuss an academic topic. While we have been busy treating feminists with respect and responding defensively to their accusations of being "demeaning" in our truth-telling, they have been busy murdering the unborn, tossing innocent men in jail, ripping up the foundations of society, and destroying men, women, and children at every turn.

My question to those who believe the truth is this: Which is worse, to "demean" a feminist, or to kill 4,000 children per day and to toss thousands of innocent men per year into jail?

It is time for us to realize that we have enabled the wholesale slaughter of children and the corruption of our culture and the legal system by showing moderation in dealing with that which is pure evil. We have enabled pure evil by allowing it to masquerade behind a cloak of respectability. No more. Every time we are in the presence of pure evil (and all feminists are evil, in the same way that a guy who joins the Nazi party because he appreciates the job opportunities, even though he doesn't agree with all that Jew-hating and world-domination stuff, is evil in that he associates with evil and in that he empowers evil with his mere presence), we should simply mock it. We should attack it intellectually, label it, demean it, and mock it until we make it afraid to ever show its vicious head in public again.

It is time for us to reclaim the powerful corrective of shame. It is time for us to emblazon the foolishness and immorality of all feminists in sky and proclaim it from the housetops. It is time for civil society to stop treating those who are wrong as if their position matters. Sure, they have a right to be wrong... but we have a right, and a responsibility, to insidiously and consistently mock them for being willfully ignorant.

It is time for truth to be restored to the language and the culture. It is time to once again return to the judicious use of shame.

They are, after all, only Bull Dyke Femtards, and should be treated as such.

The Most Widespread Form of Child Abuse

"Child Abuse," like "domestic violence" and "sexual harassment," is one of those concepts that is becoming about as concrete as the concept of the "widget" in economics - it generally means whatever somebody wants it to mean (and if you don't believe that, then check out Alex Baldwin's book, below, but that is a side issue that I don't want to get distracted about...).

The partial definition of "child abuse" in Black's Law Dictionary includes:

"...a parent's... failure to act that results in a child's exploitation [or] serious physical or emotional injury...."

If one accepts this definition (and I am not sure that I do - how does one define "emotional injury?" how is "emotional injury" measured for seriousness?), then it is hard to imagine a context in which children are more systematically or widely exploited and emotionally (and intellectually!) injured than in the government schools of the United States. Neal Boortz writes in Somebody's Gotta Say It!...

Child abuse is neither always obvious nor intentional.

The most rampant form of child abuse in this country is not only legal, but committed routinely. It is the act of taking what arguably is, or should be, the most precious things in your life - your children - and placing the responsibility for their education i the hands of the government.

There's no escaping the fact that our country has problems... huge problems. I believe, however, that these problems have a common cause - that being the ignorance and stupidity of people whose "education" (if you want to call it that) was inflicted at the hands of government schools.

Year after year, our wonderful government education system cranks out hordes of young men and women who are completely unable to cope with, let alone understand, our culture, our history, our institutions, and what it takes not just to survive but to thrive in America.

We've reviewed the alarming facts already. Average high school graduates cannot tell you the responsibilities, or even the names, of the three branches of government. They can't tell you the name of the vice president, and probably do't kow that there is a designated third in line in the presidential succession.

They can't make change or do basic mathematical computations without a computer or calculator. They can't read apartment leases, balance their checkbooks, or read maps. They certainly have no understanding of capitalism, or free enterprise, and couldn't write a one-paragraph description of what constitutes profit.

{snip}

Would you think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suggested to you that these government schools really don't exist for the purpose of truly educating your child in the first place? What if the people who developed our system of government-run, compulsory education had other goals in mind?

Allow me to suggest to you that our government schools were designed not to foster excellence through knowledge, but rather to insure that the American masses are relegated to an insipid, dull existence where they have barely enough knowledge and drive to sustain themselves in an anti-individualist society, but not enough of an education to understand how thoroughly our system of government is destructive of individual initiative and th quest for excellence.

Ominous thoughts....

I once taught at a private school in South Carolina. Our tuition was $95 a month per student (on the ten-payment plan). The local public school spent an average of $8,000 per student per annum.

Whenever a government-school student transferred to our school, there was a mandatory one-month period in which they were required to attend after-school care.

Why?

So that their reading skills could be brought up to the same grade level as the students in our school.

Is sending kids to government schools abuse? Probably not. But it is hard to argue with Boortz's points. And it is also hard to deny that keeping kids in government schools ultimately does more harm to their intellect and psyche than does living at home with the strictest of parents.

Since telling kids, "No, you can't have a car," or "You're grounded" is often characterized as "abuse."

Crazy Feminazi

The rock band KISS was criticized when they made their first live album for tweaking the missed notes, garbled lyrics, and crowd noises to make their album sound better than it really did in concert.

I found a couple of videos of a typical, hormonal, hate-filled feminazi rambling on about something or other - I'm sure it makes sense in the fevered imagination of the feminist. But I was having trouble figuring out which one was NOT doctored. I think I have it now, though.

This is the ORIGINAL, before translation....




And here is that speech in TRANSLATION....

Women Abuse More Than Men: But Who Cares?

When it comes to alleged abuse of women by men, society has a "zero tolerance" philosophy. When it comes to women abusing men, which actually happens more often, "every person must perform their own calculus to determine whether to get involved."

Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.

So says this ABC News report.





The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.

Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.

Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.





Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?

There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.





... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."

Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?

For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.

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/