Every woman that I have talked to that has attended the monthly meetings held by most women's shelters (alternately called "Support Meetings," "Community Outreach," or something equally as drab and nondescript) agrees that one of the primary subtexts of such meetings is
how to catch your man in acts of domestic violence.
Now think about that.
Based on what Joe and Josephine
Sixpack on the street consider to be "domestic violence," there would hardly be any need to manipulate circumstances or do anything to "catch" your man in acts of
DV, would there? I mean, consequent to
DV there are bruises, and broken bones, and burning beds - oh, wait, maybe the burning beds go in the
other direction, but you get the idea.
But it is a point worth noting: if "domestic violence" bears any sane relation to the connotation that most of us carry around in our heads, then it is certainly a good portion of overkill to attempt to "catch" someone in such acts, as the injuries large and small will be evidence enough, thank you.
Again, this is a clue that what is going on inside of women's shelters is not exactly what the carefully coiffed image presented to the public might suggest.
So let's delve into the question - what exactly is "Domestic Violence" (
DV)?
I have said many times that "Domestic Violence" as a legal concept is not real - it is no more real than the idea of a "widget" is in economics. In fact,
DV is to law
exactly what the widget is to economics - a catch-all abstraction into which we can fit any conceivable thing, and therefore which represents nothing. Now, don't get me wrong, as a legal concept,
assault is real and
battery is real, but "domestic violence" is not real, as we will demonstrate below.
Family law attorney Lisa Scott says of "Domestic Violence":
"Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn't like. Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as 'abuse.' This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over."
Think about that: a woman who is a lawyer, who has practiced family law for 18 years says that the real definition of
DV, as it is actually applied in real court cases is "whatever a man does that the woman doesn't like."
She couldn't possibly be telling the truth.
At the University of Virginia's Women's Center for Sexual and Domestic Violence Services (hereinafter
UVSDS), "Domestic Violence" is defined as
A pattern of physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abusive behaviors used by one individual to maintain power over or control a partner in the context of an intimate or family relationship.
So we see that the definition of
DV revolves around physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. So tell me, what is "abuse?"
Is it like the Supreme Court says about porn, "I know it when I see it?"
Actually, at least that standard has the benefit of some minor objectivity. Again and again, those who have attended these "Community Support" meetings hosted by women's shelters have declared that they were told that abuse was "anything that makes them feel abused." And that is thoroughly consistent with the subjective definition of abuse urged by
UVSDS:
Remember, when one person scares, hurts or continually puts down the other person, it's abuse.
So if I feel scared, or hurt, or put down, it is because someone has abused me. Because obviously, people - especially hormonal women - are always in control of their emotions and never "feel" anything that is not justified. And of course, nobody would ever go into court and testify on the stand that they "felt" scared just as a means of getting their way, would they?
But of course they would. Because women's shelters teach them to do just that.
It has everything to do with changes in the Violence Against Women Act enacted during the administration of Bill Clinton, in which the standard of evidence for obtaining a Domestic Violence Protective Order (
DVPO) was lowered to the most ridiculously low standard in the history of jurisprudence (other than, perhaps, "Thus saith the King..."). Consequent to changes in
VAWA enacted in the 1990s, a
DVPO can now be obtained in the U.S. under the outrageous standard of "
the subjective fear of the woman."
So it is apparent why an honest female attorney who practices family law, and sees these cases day after day, would say that when "domestic violence" is alleged, "no real evidence is required."
But exploring the
UVSDS site further, we are told that some things are objectively either
suggestive of an abusive relationship or are abusive themselves. Things like:
- Embarrass or make fun of you in front of your friends or family?
- Put down your accomplishments or goals?
- Call you names?
- Make you feel like you are unable to make decisions?
- Use intimidation or threats to gain compliance?
- Hit walls, throw things, try to scare you?
- Tell you that you are nothing without them?
- Pressure you sexually for things you aren't ready for?
- Act jealous...?
- Deny your feelings?
Notice that nothing on this list is even remotely related to violence. But everything on this list sounds like it was compiled by a 16-year old girl whose neurosis had finally overcome whatever reason she once had. It is an excellent list if your goal is to make male-female relationships illegal on their face (or parent-child, or employer-employee, or any relationship), or if your ultimate goal was simply to motivate women to leave men on any pretense and fortify them for such a move by criminalizing the very ability to exist as a man as a means of transferring wealth,
en bloc, to women. And, in fact, the only solution proposed by
UVSDS for this type of "abuse" is...
The information provided here is designed to empower both survivors and their significant others in making decisions about their lives, in breaking free of an abusive relationship, and finding the support they need to get to a place of healing.
So, the "abuse" of "denying a woman's feelings" is a situation so heinous that the only possible solution is the abandonment of a relationship, ripping a father from his kids, sending a "feelings-denier" into the pen with gangstas, murderers, and cannibals, and transferring all imaginable assets to the woman - no doubt in an attempt to help her "get to a place of healing."
The odd thing, of course (and you will find that in feminist jurisprudence there is always an "odd thing") is that one of the signs of abuse is "
Blam[ing] you for how they [the male] feel or act?"
Now wait a minute. If a woman blames me for how she feels or acts, ("I am abused because he denies my feelings."), then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence. But if I, the man, blame a woman for how I feel or act, then I, the man, have committed Domestic Violence?
And at the end of the day, it is, in fact, the "feelings" of a woman that determines whether she has been abused, not whether a man has actually done something to her.
Do you...?
* Sometimes feel scared of how your partner will act?
* Feel like, no matter what you do, your partner is never happy with you?
And note that, at the bottom of the page linked above, readers are encouraged to call the
UVSDS, because otherwise, "the abuse will continue." So obviously, all of this nonsense is, in the mind of those who run
UVSDS (and why what these
femtards believe is significant is described below), actually abuse.
But thankfully, the
UVSDS does give us some inkling as to what can objectively be considered to be "domestic violence." Unfortunately, most of it doesn't have any relationship to actual violence. A "healthy relationship," ostensibly one in which abuse is not occurring, has (in part) the following characteristics:
* Equal decision making power.
* Neither partner restricts the other to gender roles.
Now note - if you are an evangelical Christian, a conservative Catholic, a Muslim, or just someone who believes the family ought to function like old episodes of
Leave it to Beaver, with nothing else added you are involved in an abusive relationship. To simply believe in rigid gender roles, to believe that the male ought to be the leader in the home, is an act of abuse.
* Sharing of thoughts and ideas.
* Opinions of each partner are valued equally.
* Partners use respectful language and gestures, even in disagreement.
So if a man suggests that reason is superior to a hormonal bout of irrationality in which his wife is indulging, he is abusive. If a man, to avoid a fight, refuses to allow the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" to escalate by simply turning and walking away, he is abusive. If he stays and argues as the "sharing of thoughts and ideas" escalates, and points, or waves his hands, or yells in order to be heard, he is abusive.
In fact, in one proceeding, a female alleged abuse based on the male pointing at her (which made her "feel scared, like he was going to hit me") and reading the Bible to her. And for good measure, she threw in, "He's tall. About 6'2. And he lifts weights." And in response to the attorney's question, "
And how did that make you feel?", she answered, "Very frightened."
* Both partners accept the validity of each others' feelings.
* Partners are emotionally supportive and caring.
* Safe sharing of fears or insecurities.
So any man (and this does NOT run both ways - in the history of
DV hearings, no man has ever alleged that a woman was being violent because she did not "accept the validity of his feelings") who says, "I hear you say you are angry. But there is no reason for you to feel that way, and here's why..." is guilty of "domestic violence."
Feeling better about "domestic violence," now? Are you comfortable that men are in jail right now for violating these irrational, neurotic precepts authored by
bedwetting whiny adolescents in Women's Studies departments?
But wait, you say, most "domestic violence" proceedings revolve around actual violence. Broken teeth. Bruises. Chaining someone up in the closet.
False. Because if anyone ever broke
someone's teeth, they would be charged with
assault and battery. If they ever chained someone up in the closet, they would be charged with false imprisonment.
Sometimes it is true that a
DVPO hearing is paired with an actual criminal proceeding such as an assault charge. But the vast majority of
DVPO hearings are based on the
DVPO complaint alone. And in my time, I have witnessed over 100
DVPO hearings, and only one actually alleged anything that would be considered "violence" by the average guy on the street.
The rest of them were based on the kinds of neurotic nonsense described above.
And
all but one of the
DVPO orders were continued - and as you remember from the first post in this series, "continuation" is a finding of quasi-criminal liability in a
DVPO hearing.
In the vast majority of the cases that I have personally witnessed, at issue was whether a man was "controlling" or trying to be "controlling" toward a woman.
Of course, the issue of being a "controlling man" is ultimately only an issue of whether a man cedes control to a woman.
But wait!, you object again. These are the neurotic beliefs of a bunch of man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians! Ultimately, judges don't fall for this neuro-prissy nonsense!
If only you were right. Remember up above when I promised to let you know why the beliefs of these man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians were so important? It is because though the law often requires an actual act of violence in state enactments of VAWA, the law is interpreted through the lens of judicial education seminars (and attorney continuing education) run by... wanna guess?
The man-hating, bedwetting, Maoist lesbians who run women's shelters, of course. So the shrill neurotic whining that is found on the UVSDS website, though it is not law,
has the force of law because judges are trained to
find "domestic violence" based on the ideas propogated by women's shelters!
Every single woman that I have interviewed who has been inside a woman's shelter has stated that women are encouraged to allege that actual physical violence has occurred. An allegation like this ensures a slam-dunk. But if a woman maintains that such violence never has occurred, then they are taught that there are "many kinds of violence" and are taken through a checklist filled with statements and questions like those above. If a woman maintains that a man has ever "denied her feelings" or "felt scared of how her partner might act" or "not shared feelings and ideas" or "believed in Biblical gender roles," she has been abused and her husband is an abuser.
Step two in the process, after convincing a woman who has lived with an Average Joe for 20 years that she has been abused, is attempting to help her gather evidence of such abuse.
This explains why most of the time, allegations of "domestic violence" occur weeks or months after a woman first enters a "Community Support Meeting." Because next on the agenda is a series of manipulations and tactics that are designed to produce actions on the part of the man that are admissible as acts of abuse in court.
Look for a discussion of these in the third entry in this series.
View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at
Opposing Feminism.
Posts
