Tactics of Women's Shelters 1

The role of women's shelters, in my state, is considered so important that their tactics cannot be discussed in a courtroom.

This is your first clue that something is up, and it probably isn't kosher.

I've been talking to women, in both formal and informal contexts, for a period of about five years about what goes on in women's shelters. All of the women that I have talked to have been on the inside of the shelters, and all of them have signed confidentiality agreements. So I will refer to them with alternate names on the remote chance that there might be liability involved for them. But they all agree on the essentials of what happens, and what happens is, quite frankly, both frightening, and is evidence of the fact that women's shelters have very little to do with protecting women, and are rather local fortresses for the war against men and the family.

I post the following for a variety of reasons. First, I think that men need to be sensitized to watch out for the behaviors discussed below, and should be forewarned as to the potential significance of the behaviors. Secondly, most people who support women's shelters with financial or in-kind contributions believe that the places simply exist to protect women - they have no idea what is actually going on inside. Hopefully, knowledge of what is really going on will go a long way toward helping private individuals and organizations - especially churches! - to reconsider their support for such radical, anti-family hate organizations.

Thirdly, evil loves a cloak of secrecy. Turn on the lights, and the roaches scatter.

Elizabeth F. gives a basic overview of what happens when a woman shows up at a woman's shelter. "I was told that I could stay for 24 hours, no questions asked. But if I was going to take advantage of the programs offered at the shelter or if I was going to stay longer than 24 hours, I had to file a Domestic Violence Protective Order" (DVPO) against her intimate partner.

Angie G. tells that there were several instances in which the police were actually brought into the shelter to "help" a woman fill out a DVPO "adequately." A responding officer, a detective, and the head of the sex crimes unit all came in with the "leader" of the women's shelter to "help" women fill out the DVPO for maximum impact.

Now, a few notes about DVPOs. A DVPO hearing is what one law professor has called a "quasi-criminal hearing." It is not criminal because, to have been found liable for "domestic violence" in a DVPO hearing does not result in a criminal conviction, nor even criminal charges being filed. However, the following things either normally happen or routinely happen when a DVPO is "continued." A "continuation" is a finding of liability that would be the equivalent of "guilt" in a criminal proceeding.

* For one year (or longer in some states), the person found to have committed "domestic violence" loses their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

* The person found to have committed "domestic violence" is generally immediately removed by governmental force from his home.

* The person will immediately lose custody of his children, and the fact of a DVPO will be a central finding in any custody hearings which follow.

* His paycheck may be taxed for alimony and child support without even so much as an initial hearing. Further, rest assured that a finding of liability for "domestic violence" will be a consideration of many courts in asset division, permanent alimony rulings, and permanent custody hearings.

* In my state, a DVPO that is "continued" can be used, on its face, as evidence upon which the police may base criminal charges.

Think about that. Think long and hard about that. A woman comes into a women's shelter with a desire to have some privacy for a few days. She is informed that, unless she makes allegations against her husband/intimate partner, she must leave first thing in the morning. The police investigators are summoned to help her fill out a DVPO complaint in such a way that it will "pass muster" in a DVPO hearing. Consequent to the hearing, the DVPO is "continued." Now, the police use the complaint that they themselves have helped to fill out as the sole basis for the filing of criminal charges.

One must assume that people who work in "Domestic Violence Units" or "Sex Crimes Units" would be peculiarly adept at recording evidence - or allegations - in such a way as to maximize the possibility of criminal conviction, no? It is a vicious cycle in which (in some cases certainly, and in every case potentially) the police help form the very allegations upon which charges will eventually be based.

And in fact, my own personal experience (which is certainly not exhaustive, but I have no reason to believe that it is abnormal, either) bears this out. I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings in approximately five years. Only once has anything been alleged that the man on the street would recognize as "violence." Yet only once in that 100+ hearings has a man failed to have his DVPO "continued" against him.

This would all be bad enough if women's shelters were merely passive organizations that waited for the abused to wander in to assist them. In fact, this is not the case. Women's shelters recruit heavily. I have personally seen stacks of business cards, posters announcing local organizations, schedules for local meetings, and placards bearing state hotlines in courthouses (conveniently hanging over the ubiquitous free forms to file for separation, divorce, custody, and of course, DVPOs), doctor's offices, the local free clinic, the Deparment of Social Services, universities, and even local gas stations.

My wife and I saw a poster which depicted a barefooted woman walking on the beach with her back turned to the camera, dressed all in white, holding a transparent white shawl above her head with both hands thrust in the air in a sign of victory, with a caption that read: "Need a new start? The State of _________'s Office of the Attorney General can help you relocate without a trace with your children if you have been the victim of domestic violence. Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for more information."

These publicly-advertised meetings are not necessarily what you would think.

The average person seeing these posters saying, "Call xxx-xxxx for information on our next meeting" would undoubtedly assume that the meetings were to help women who were suffering from abuse to find a way out.

Yet Angie G., Elizabeth F., and Amy P. all agree that dealing with actual "violence" is only a subtext at such meetings.

Angie G. says, an unnamed woman "came in September and just sat through the meeting. She was asked if she had ever been abused, and she said, 'I feel emotionally abused by my husband.' She didn't really say much more. Everybody else said their piece, and the counselors continually reminded them that phrasing their story in certain ways was important to a finding of domestic violence in court. They made these recommendations even for the women who had already gotten their DVPOs continued. Every once in a while, they would get back to the new, 'emotionally abused' woman. One time the counselor even said to her, 'See how it's done?' When the 'emotionally abused' woman came back in October, she had this whole story about how she was being beaten, controlled, accused, and everything." [Emphasis added]

When I asked Angie G. if she had been encouraged to lie, she said, "No, not so much lie. The counselors and police are very adamant that you take things [that happened to you] in the most negative way possible." It is not so much lying as not giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. If it can be construed in a negative manner, then it becomes part of my complaint.

However, Amy P. states clearly, "When I said that I didn't have any physical abuse at all - I just wanted to be done with a cheating husband - they coached me on what to say."

Every woman that I have talked to on this subject agrees that one of the primary topics of discussion in these locally-advertised "meetings" is how to catch your man at domestic violence.

That will be the subject of the next entry.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

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/

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.