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.

Even Cops Admit: Women Use Claims of "Domestic Violence!"

It is the dirty little secret of America's family courts and the legal system generally. Liberals will not admit it because it is politically incorrect, and conservatives will not admit it because they have been brainwashed into believing that it sounds unchivalrous.

But inside the legal system, there are faint whispers of recognition that all feminist jurisprudence is a failed experiment. Repeatedly, I have heard from lawyers statements like, "The pendulum has swung too far...."

The false allegation is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of feminism. Feminist organizations suborn the perjury of individual women as part of the larger war against men, promising them a brighter day of happiness and the transfer of assets consequent to their lies. Feminist leaders glaze the eyes of the public with ridiculous assertions that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse (despite all evidence to the contrary). And feminist jurisprudence covers for the perjurers by insisting that any attempt to properly punish these feminist-favored perjurers will result in legitimately-wronged women being made afraid to "come forward."

Yet even among professionals who work in the Feminist False Allegations Industry (FFAI), the strain is beginning to show. Liberal constitutional scholar and appellate lawyer Alan Dershowitz has stated, "Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime - and women are not being punished for those crimes."

In my own personal experience, lawyers who work on both sides of the FFAI refer to Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings as "show trials," "star chambers," and "kangaroo courts." And even cops, who routinely arrest men based on what they know are false allegations, will secretly admit that perjury is a common occurence when a woman is committing adultery, seeking custody, or desires to be rid of a man but keep a hefty sum of his assets.

But rarely does one hear a policeman publicly decry the FFAI.

In an April 27 story, Tulsa's news channel 6 carried a story on its webpage by Lori Fullbright titled "Tulsa Woman Falsely Reported Rape." Fullbright quotes Tulsa Police Sergeant Gary Stansill of the Tulsa Sex Crimes Unit, "It's just a fact, in sexual assault investigations, we have false reports."

Two points: First, this is the evaluation of someone whose livelihood and profession is intertwined with the FFAI. This is brutal honesty masquerading as understatement. And unfortunately, it appears that our investigator has become jaded enough by all of the false reporting that he simply accepts it as "just a fact" of life.

Secondly, note that from the perspective of the annoyed police investigator, what the FFAI calls the "cries of the victim" and what courts call "perjury" is merely a "false report." Clinical. Clean. Administrative. No real harm, just a waste of time.

From the perspective of the falsely accused, however, it is a false allegation. A lie. A lifechanging slander. Vicious. Brutal. The needless persecution of the innocent.

And keep in mind, though feminists, with their amoral newspeak, continue to call such miscreants as the still unnamed criminal liar who slandered a man for no reason a "victim," there is only one innocent party here: the man who for years to come will still blanch anytime that he hears the word "rapist."

I recently picked up a book by an ex-Miami cop, ex-FBI agent, and former instructor of cops on the issue of "domestic violence." The book is titled, "Arrest-Proof Yourself" and the author is Dale C. Carson.





The book is decent enough, giving general advice on how to appear (or disappear) so that cops can't see you, how to be polite and protect yourself. The book is targeted to a general audience excepting two chapters: one chapter pertains to minorities, helping them overcome the propensity cops have for arresting minorities.

The only other chapter narrowly targeted is titled, "When Girls Tell a Tale that Sends You to Jail." That chapter begins, "This chapter is addressed to men. It will infuriate women.... It advises men how to defend themselves against women...." Odd way of putting it, don't you think? Because if the author were merely trying to get men to obey the law, wouldn't he say "here is how to protect yourself from cops!"? But rather he says, "You need to defend yourself against women."

Odd.

He then notes that, unfortunately, when a "girl tells a tale that sends you to jail," men often find themselves dealing with predominantly female judges, cops, and lawyers. This can be a dangerous spot, asserts the ex-FBI agent and teacher of cops on the subject of domestic violence, because "some of these women are on a mission from God to make men miserable."

Again, odd. Shouldn't these women be on a "mission from God to enforce the law?" But the author does not choose to put it that way....

He then goes on an extended discussion of avoiding arguments with women. He states, "Arguments that once might have been resolved by participants now result in arrests and imprisonment." Now note, he is not talking about beatings here, he is talking about arguments. The ex-FBI agent is admitting that merely arguing with a woman puts one at risk for imprisonment.

If so, that certainly lends credence to the idea that a controlling man is merely a man who refuses to cede control to a woman.... And of course, the greatest felony in the feminist rulebook is to be a controlling man.

Our author then continues, "Men and women argue. They yell. It may be a natural occurrence, but it can also be a crime." Wow, what an admission. Arguing is a crime. That which our author describes as a "natural occurrence" is, under feminist jurisprudence, now a crime? How long before belching, another "natural occurrence," is similarly criminalized?

But wait. This chapter is written to men, not to women. As a matter of fact, the author warned in the beginning that the chapter will "infuriate women," doesn't he?

Could this be an implicit admission on the part of our ex-domestic violence teacher and ex-FBI agent that arguing is only a crime for men? That which is "standing up for your rights" for women is "domestic violence" for men?

It seems that is precisely the conclusion at which one is to arrive. For in the practical advice section which follows, our ex-cop advises men, "Do not talk with the woman for at least three days.... Telephone calls, answering machine messages, or notes may be considered stalking.... [D]o not be in the woman's presence without a witness." No corresponding advice is sagely distributed to the woman.

Why in the world would such advice be granted to one sex and not to another? Glad you asked. For our ex-domestic violence teaching hero advises us at the end that such absolutist abandoning of a relationship is necessary for the following reasons:

* "The woman might lie and induce others to lie."

* "The woman might injure herself before police arrive so as to increase the charge against you from misdemeanor disturbance to felony battery."

* Women can recruit the power of the state to take their side in disputes with men, with disastrous consequences."

The moral? Cops who are honest know the following:

1) The law is written to place the state on the side of women in relationship disputes, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

2) Women routinely act out and lie in order to recruit the state to help them dispose of inconvenient men, secure child custody, or capture assets.

3) Men are by default guilty of wrongdoing in any dispute with a woman, under feminist jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and the only "evidence" needed in most cases is to determine where the male is so that he can be locked up.

What is most disturbing about these stories is the disjuncture between what cops know to be true in real life and what courts actually suppose to be true. Cops know that women lie, and lie repeatedly, when it comes to issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. They lie because they are vindictive. They lie to get their way. They lie because they are encouraged to do so and because there are no consequences to being found out.

Yet, for a man accused of any of these sins in either civil or criminal court, there is an assumption of guilt not found anywhere else in the law because of the most outrageous lie in all of feminist theory: "women don't lie about sex."

Do Women Lie About Rape and Domestic Violence?

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that false allegations of rape, sexual misconduct, child abuse, and domestic violence do occur. Credible estimates on how often range from 20%-60% of the time. Given that the rate of false reporting for all other crimes hovers in the 2%-4% range, it is obvious that women do lie, and that they have a really serious problem with lying about rape.

The reasons range far beyond mere spite and hatefulness, though that is a common motivation (a woman in my county made up false rape allegations about her ex-boyfriend and three of his friends to punish him for breaking up with her at the party at which he broke the news to her that he was moving on - the district attorney, as per usual, did not take any action against her, though the four men [one of whom was not even at the party] spent almost a year in jail).

Take a look at the link below and you will see some of this discussed. In the mid-80s, the US Air Force did a study on false reporting of rape within its own ranks and found that upwards of 30% of all reports were proveably false. Several congresswomen, upon hearing about the investigation, demanded that the investigation be stopped and all records of it destroyed for the usual political reasons. You will need to read down into the comments section of the page to get this information.

Women lie for a host of reasons, including spite. One of the comments on this law professor's blog notes that women often lie to "solve a problem." They get pregnant, get an STD, get a hickey, or are found to have been cheating on their significant other and one way of making their problem go away is to claim to have been raped.

Of course, it is common for false allegations of rape, domestic violence, or child abuse to be leveled in custody, alimony, or equitable distribution hearings, where a show of fault can result in greater legal rights for the offended party.

A reason that is just coming to light why women lie is to level the playing field. Where women are going through custody or divorce and are known to be guilty of adultery, assault or battery, substance abuse, or something else, they are being taught at women's shelters to play the "domestic violence" or "rape" card as a means of making sure that they are not the only ones who appear in court with negative information on their record.

It is now a very common ploy - evidence of which I keep in my files - for attorneys who volunteer at women's shelters to (at the behest of the supposed "victim") file false allegations of domestic violence, rape, child abuse, or whatever, and a week or so before a hearing to send an offer of settlement which says, "If you give my client, the "victim", all or most of the property and/or the custody rights, we will drop this claim against you."

(Of course, they also fail to mention in such offers of settlement that for criminal cases, the authority to "drop" charges rests with the D.A., but that is another issue....)

Crystal Gain Mangum, in the Duke Lacrosse case, claimed to have been raped as a means of keeping herself out of the drunk tank on the night she was taken in for questioning. And, by the way, this woman has never been taken to task for her wrongdoing either, has she?

The reasons women lie are multitudinous. The main benefit seems to be that false claims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual harrassment, or whatever else helps them to appear to be a victim rather than irresponsible, or simply helps them to get their way when they otherwise wouldn't.


Sources:

Criminal Law Professor's Blog (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html.)

One Year Anniversary: Ice, Ice, DV

Add to the incomprehensibly long list of stories that seem (!) to undermine the feminist theory that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, abuse, their weight, their age, the bank balance, etc. Just a year ago, Vanilla Ice had charges of Domestic Violence dropped against him in Wellington, Florida.

---------------

Prosecutors decline to charge rapper Vanilla Ice

April 29, 2008, 6:54 PM EST

WELLINGTON, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities decided against prosecuting Vanilla Ice for a domestic battery charge since his wife recanted her original statement.

The 40-year-old performer (real name: Robert Van Winkle) — who sold 15 million copies of the single "Ice Ice Baby" in 1990 — was arrested April 10 at the couple's home. Authorities said his wife called 911 and claimed he kicked and hit her during an argument. She later told deputies he only pushed her.

In an affidavit provided to Palm Beach County prosecutors, Laura Van Winkle recanted her original allegations. She now says any physical confrontation was accidental.

Prosecutors on Tuesday closed the case.

---------------------------------------

I love this story because it demonstrates that women DO, in fact, lie about domestic violence. It doesn't matter what you think happened here, the complainant is a liar.

After all, count 'em folks - there are no less than THREE different stories told by Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee here. Which one is true?

Maybe none of them are.

Thank God the feminists have assured us that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse - otherwise my very first thought would likely be that Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee has a problem with the truth.

Like Crystal Gail Mangum.

Oh, is that another lie?

Do Feminists Care About Equal Rights?

It is commonly asserted that feminism is simply about securing equal rights for women. That sounds an awful lot like "feminism wants the same rights for women as men already possess," doesn't it? But if "the same rights as men" is the standard of equality, then the answer is, No, feminists do not care about men's rights, in the same way that assassins do not lobby in behalf of the rights of politicians.

While it is a common mis-assertion that feminism is about "equality," this is the Goebbels-like lie that makes it easier to swallow the unpleasant truth: feminism exists to procure superior rights for women at the expense of men, children, other women, and indeed, of society itself.

The inarguably false assertion that feminism is "all about equality" has been made even in response to this question itself. However, feminism's PURPOSE is more accurately revealed in its GOALS than in its deceptive political speech. And what are the goals of feminism?

1) Feminism glorifies the autonomy of the individual woman to the extent that it even romanticizes the irresponsibility of women. The wedding vows of women are worth nothing in the feminist mind. The responsibility of women toward their own children is irrelevant if said responsibility infringes on the autonomy of a woman in any way. Even the stability of society itself is not to be valued if such stability depends on the subjective, perceived "happiness" of any individual woman.

2) Feminism wants women to earn the same wages as men without turning in the same performance as men. Because women work less time than men (for a variety of reasons, ranging from starting work later, to taking time off for sickness and pregnancy, to voluntarily taking time off for child care, etc.), the average woman at age 35 has worked a full 10 years less than men who are her peers at age 35. Yet feminists want all 35-year olds employed in similar occupations to make the same money, in spite of the fact that women bring much less experience, generally fewer accomplishments, and such risks as pregnancy or moving to the table.

3) Feminism says that women are equally capable as men in all traditionally-male professions, then lobbies to have entrance and promotional requirements lowered so that more women can be hired and promoted in law enforcement, fire departments, and the military.

4) Feminism says that women should have the RIGHT to fight on the front lines in the military, without having the OBLIGATION to do so - an option not available to male soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

5) Feminism says that women are equally as strong as men intellectually and emotionally, then claims that women are victims of "domestic violence" if a woman's feelings are not duly regarded by her husband and that women are victims of "sexual harrassment" if they happen to spot a bikini calendar in the workplace.

6) Feminism, while vocally maintaining that men and women are equal, in fact, considers women to be more equal than men. Feminism argues that women are morally superior to men and have propagandized the legal system to hold that women are the superior parent and that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse, although the evidence suggests that women lie about such matters a majority of the time.

The fact is, feminists realize that feminists (not women) are NOT equal with men, and they despise men for being able to stand on their own, resist the government, lead families, and blaze moral, entrepreneurial, and artistic trails for all the world. Feminists (not women) resent the obvious superiority of men (over feminists - not women) and have banded together out of hatred to harness the power of government to harm men - a concept rightly classified as "misandry."

No feminist anywhere can give an example in which feminism has actually LOBBIED for anything approaching "equality." While the mouths of feminists are filled with empty, meaningless sloganeering such as "equality" and "empowerment," the fact is that all of the ACTIONS of feminists are directed toward securing superior rights for women, regardless of the irresponsibility and immorality of the individual women involved.

Any talk of "equality" among feminists is misdirection. Don't listen to their words - watch their hands!

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.

Difference Between Men and Women Showering

I'm gonna confess that I a) dry myself completely, b) use the bath mat, and c) do try to wash the whole body.

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/