| Message to Mention, 2004 03 17 At the 2004 03 16
session of the Alberta FV Roundtable, in Edmonton, I handed out copies of
the article by KC Wilson that Tom pointed out,
Domestic Violence Myths are Violent, with a cover sheet showing
Anne Bransdon's Domestic Violence
Against Men Model. After a while there were a few people that
asked me for copies of it.
You are right. There is a blank wall of silence. That is a symptom.
We've got to look at the cause.
The problem, so it seems to me, goes deeper than politics. [The
ideology that drives the politics is the fundamental problem.] The problem is
endemic in the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is impervious to political
change. The bureaucracy, not our politicians, has controlling power. Our
politicians no longer lead, but they are at the head of it all, driven by
the bureaucracy like the debris at the leading edge of a flash flood. [That's
not how politicians put it. Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, spoke
at the 2004 national leadership convention of the Conservative
Party of Canada and said: "If you wish to lead, you don't run with the
parade, you put yourself at the tip of the parade, because the people know
where they want to go." He also once said, in the early days of his
political career, when someone asked him why he chose a political career,
"You slide farther on B.S. than you do on gravel."]
At Tuesday's (2004 03 16) session of the Alberta FV Roundtable, more
than 200 people attended. The FV
Roundtable was opened by the Alberta premier's wife, Colleen Klein. A
prayer, so they announced, was said by a female Native elder (few Native
men live long enough to become elders), in Cree, her native language.
Sorry, but I don't speak Cree, and it is not one of Canada's official
languages. I have no idea what she said, but then she only murmured and
was practically inaudible anyway. It would not have mattered much if
she would have spoken in a language most people could have understood.
Iris Evans, Alberta's Minister of Children's Services, delivered an
address. It was all very emotional, I could even detect tears in some of
the speaker's voices.
It was a propagandistic male-bashing-fest, including a propagandistic
video, of which I now have an audio recording, but I am sure that I will
have no trouble getting a copy of the video itself. Besides, I am quite
certain that all Albertans will get to see more and more excerpts from
that video on TV as time goes by and the propaganda campaign to eradicate
all family violence in Alberta reaches its crescendo. I wonder how much
the PR firm that put the whole campaign together got for it all.
They are getting their money's worth, but do we, does all of
society?
The video contained several sections
with comments by Peter Jaffe, a prominent male feminist; and, of course,
it contained victims' statements by female and male victims, with the allusion in every
case that males were the sole perpetrators of the alleged carnage of
violence and bullying. No objective statistics at all were presented,
nothing that identified respective victimization rates for the sexes, or
trends over time. Mind you, the odd word was thrown in about the
possibility that some of those violent criminals were female.
We were broken up into discussion groups, 13 in all. One of those was
for those Natives that would be more comfortable amongst their own. A
disproportionately large share — about ten times the average Canadian
incidence rate — of FV in Canada occurs amongst Natives, although the
"official" statistics fed to the masses never make that distinction.
Afterwards, at the end of the day, a Native women, with obligatory
tear-choked voice, reported on the results of the discussion in the Native
discussion group. She opened up by complaining that society at large was
not listening to the Native voices. Well, pardon me, but how can anyone
listen if the Natives don't participate in discussions with normal mortals
and lock themselves into a room that is "for Natives only"?
In the group of which I was part, people introduced themselves
and the endeavours and organizations they were involved with. I asked how
many of the participants in our group were being paid to attend, and how
many were volunteers. Fourteen were being paid (including the two
facilitators), and five were volunteers. To which I observed that the FV
issue sure funds a lot of professional careers.
One of the volunteers was a 19-year old boy that will become a great
man, I am sure. He had an enormous extent of knowledge of the issues, as a
result of his own personal experiences as someone that had been abused
time and again by the system that was supposed to help him but let him
down time and again by causing him to fall through the cracks, a system
that plainly and repeatedly abandoned him. He was extremely well spoken.
He is the right material for articles on the consequences of the planned
destruction of the family. He will most likely express himself more
concisely than the people that may write about him will be capable of
doing.
Another one of the volunteers was Dr. Grant Brown. Some of you may know
of him. He is the author of a study report that exposed systemic and
extensive anti-male bias in Alberta jurisprudence. Unfortunately, although
I have a copy of his study report that he wrote about two years ago, his
study report cannot be posted on the Internet. Dr. Brown no longer owns
the copyright to the study report, and the publication that bought the
copyright has not yet published the article. The chains of Mammon enslave
many people, and they can be very effectively used to censure dissenting
voices, although ostensibly that remains to be seen in this case — but
nothing of the groundbreaking report published yet after two or more
years??
A third volunteer was a woman whom I knew. It was a surprise to both of
us to meet in the discussion group. The woman works with a victims
services advocacy organization and is generally quite objective but torn.
Although she knows all the numbers, she appears to have a hard time
accepting that when there is a large number of male victims of abuse by
females, then there must of necessity be a large number of female
perpetrators that not only abuse male but also female victims, especially
when children in families are involved. But I am sure that I can get her
to see both sides of the equation as time goes on.
Another one of the volunteers runs an agency providing counselling
services intended to provide career rehabilitation for victims of abuse. I
have enormous respect for her, because she developed a good appreciation
of what is causing our social decay, namely the implementation of the
planned destruction of our families.
And I was number five of the volunteers.
The other 14 people were all either directly or indirectly employed by
the government. One of them was the manager of a battered women's shelter.
She said that she was sick and tired of men's whining, and that if men
wanted any funding, they should by now have learned from what women did to
get it. Yeah, the government will pay, and I hardly think that it is a
good idea to ask for equal funding, because then we are equally bound in
chains as the
redfems
are by the redfems in government that mete out the funding under the
condition that only male-bashers can get any of it. Moreover, if I had to
repeat the same tactics that the redfems used to get where they are, I
would not be able to live with myself anymore. I didn't tell her that.
However, I suggested that it was hardly practical for men to wait for 30
years to gain equality with women, especially not practical for someone to
whom that help means the difference between life and death now.
She calmed down after a while. Maybe that was because she recognized
that hers was the only voice that expressed radical extremist dialectics
in the room. As the day wore on, a lot but not all of the ideological
animosities disappeared into the background.
The other paid people were all very polite, but they all insisted that
the status quo had to be maintained. Since the system was not quite
perfect, it had to be made to work more perfectly. Most of all, they all
felt quite strongly that more funding had to be made available, and that
was just minutes after we had spend a long time discussing the fact that
funding, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, will not solve
a thing. There simply is no positive correlation between obtaining better
results and spending more money in attempts to get them. Work may expand
to use up available time and resources, but, and that is almost a given in
social work, it will almost certainly not provide better results.
However, the facilitators were listening. They wrote down many if
not all of the key points that were brought up, and it was miraculous. All
of the key points brought up by the volunteers showed up on the work
sheets that were being tacked to the walls of the room, one after another.
Respect is the foundation for peace and
love. Men are no longer respected. We cannot possibly hope to eradicate FV if
we insist on ignoring more than half of the perpetrators and more than
half of the victims. Parents are the first teachers, and
children's psychological matrix is finished by age four or five. Let's
make sure that every child has two first teachers, a mom and a dad,
before it's too late. Schools cannot successfully compensate for
what pre-schoolers never learned. Some enter school unable to speak
intelligibly — due to lack of human contact and interaction. If we need funding, let's make sure that it
is being allocated equitably to all victims [not just for the one
group for which we manufacture concern. Each year there are 84
fatalities resulting from partner violence in Canada, and 30,000
fatalities of medical maltreatment, abuse and neglect in Canadian
hospitals]. The system is case-load oriented. [The more
cases, the more funding requirements — therefore the system is a
self-perpetuating self-fulfilling prophesy.] We need to be honest about victims and
perpetrators. Any victim, regardless of sex, needs
compassion and help, regardless of who made the individual a victim. We need accountability, performance standards,
measuring and tracking to show trends over time in terms of results
obtained vs. dollars spent. [Objectionable deviations need to identified
before we throw more money at the problem to get even less desirable
results.]
There were many more suggestions like that, all of them objective ones,
addressing the root causes of the problem, rather than its symptoms.
There were many more symptom-oriented suggestions, and those came from
the paid attendants, such as from the FV staff sergeant and to some extent
the FV detective of the Edmonton Police Services' FV Unit.
The government has become aware of the consequences but not necessarily
the causes of the destruction of our families. Rather than to restore
conditions for families to their former greatness, the government now
tries to do its best to determine what it is that families did that worked
so well. But, rather than letting families do it, the government tries to
do its best to act instead of families. However, not a single public
servant can possibly have, let alone maintain, the close and loving
personal relationships that family members have. The government, after
having done its best to destroy our families, now attempts to construct a
government-run, -controlled and -funded substitute for our families, a
super-family, a single one. That'll never work well, but it will use
taxpayers' money to attempt doing without love what families did for the
pure love and joy of it and without charge.
The taxpayer is the breadwinner of that new, government-run
super-family, and 70 percent of social contributions are paid by men,
while women make use of 70 percent of all social benefits paid out. That
is the reality of the "freedom" that women's "liberation" brought women:
the welfare state. The welfare state is a dysfunctional family, and its
head, the government, is the greatest abuser of all.
What struck me as most ludicrous and what illustrated the insincerity
or ideology-induced blindness of many of the people there was that they thought that an intake
group with a single phone number that should become as popular as 911
would have to be set up. Yet, that, too, requires government funding, they
said. The irony is that not one of them offered any personal address
details to anyone else, even though I told them that I run something very
similar to an intake service on an international basis, and that most of
the Albertans that come to me for help are people that found Fathers for
Life mentioned at American websites. (I handed out business cards. That won't help
much but is better than nothing.)
The experiences of the other members of our "team" of volunteers (the
term applies only loosely) was identical in the groups in which they
participated.
If there had been a much larger "team", many more of those objective
opinions like ours would have made it into the collection of opinions that
is being assembled. Quite likely far fewer of the symptom-oriented ones
would have been formulated and recorded. The PC crowd would have been far
too busy to say much other than to try to raise their objections to
objective reality, to the real facts of life.
We need more people on our team. Let's not complain so much about what
is being done to us and our families. Let's complain more about what we
neglect to do.
Propaganda tactics work as well for the truth as they do for lies, but
we need the masses to support the truth as eagerly as they are taken in by
the lies. It is not sufficient to hold the
truth to the light. It needs to be promoted massively and all-pervasively.
There is not very much that a few people can do. I know that we all do
a lot, but there are not enough of us. That needs to be changed.
Although our numbers are growing, they grow so slowly that maybe it
will take us 30 years before things are somewhat more normal.
Does the anti-male and anti-family indoctrination imposed on us through
the education system, through the media and through government-sponsored
propaganda campaigns run so deep that our society has lost the will to
live?
From: Erin Pizzey [founder of the
first modern battered women's shelter — Chiswick, London, England,
1971]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Mention] Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent
Tom is so right, but every [time] we quote our
figures and statistics we are met with a blank wall of silence. I am
accused of 'blaming the victims', 'hate crimes against women', and
the door bangs shut.
The problem is political, and until we can get some people at a
very high level to take the women who are plundering the public and
tax payers to court and prove that their feminist ideology is false
and dangerous to family life and our society, we can't move on. Part
of the problem is the secrecy of the refuge movement in all
countries.
There is no accountability to anyone. Most of them have
charitable status and should not be allowed to practice their covert
politics. The question is how do we out them? I am watching
Massachusetts' battle and pray that they win. It just takes one
powerful group to bring down the house of cards.
____________
From: "Tom Knoll"
To: "Mention Network"
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: [Mention] Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent
The DV lies women and feminists use are a form of abuse, violence
and violation. Tom
____________
http://menstuff.org/columns/wilson/current.html
Menstuff, 15 March 2004
Domestic Violence Myths Are Violent
By KC Wilson <kc@socialwriting.net>
The gap between public perception about domestic violence (DV)
and its reality is remarkable. DV was recruited as a weapon in
gender wars, but those who live in glass houses should not throw
stones.
In 1984, Diana Russell claimed that 54% of women were the victims
of sexual abuse. In 2000, an advocacy group claimed that one in
three women around the world have been physically assaulted by their
partner. The horrifying statistics keep coming, and varying, but all
insist that men are an inherently serious problem.
We rarely hear of the hundreds of serious, academic studies on
intimate violence that have been done over the last 35 years. They
do not serve those using violence for their own abuse of others. The
most authoritative studies are the three Nation Incidence Surveys
commissioned by the Department of Health. While the rate of mild
violence, such as slapping or throwing a magazine, are about the
same per year for each gender (around 20%), women commit over twice
the severe partner assaults as men: punching, kicking, and threat or
use of a weapon: 4.6% of women and 1.9% of men.
Why has domestic violence been an effective tool for women when
there has always been very little and women commit more of what does
exist?
Because of the morality. Men are supposed to protect, especially
protect women. Women are not. Men do not perceive women as a threat,
so rarely complain even when seriously abused. But male violence
against women, however rare, has a high emotional impact, especially
upon those same, allegedly villainous men. Female violence is
ignored, while all are horrified by men's until it seems the only
kind that exists.
As Patricia Pearson documents in her book,
When She Was Bad, this
means women get away with murder. Literally. And when
everyone only reacts to male violence you can bully legislatures
into special provisions for women and no protection for men, a
dangerous imbalance that invites still more female abuse of men.
The natural bias is understandable, but it is a bias and should
be so regarded. Is female violence less bad? Murray Strauss is one
of the academic researchers who feels that, to a child, it doesn't
matter which gender it sees hitting which. It models violence as a
response.
And should women get away with crimes we don't tolerate from men?
Gender double standards were considered bad when women took their
brunt. Do we want our laws and practices based upon emotion, or real
threats?
Erin Pizzey established the first battered women's shelter in the
world, but by 1998 was so alarmed at the political use of DV that
she wrote a scathing article for
the London Observer.
"Unfortunately, at this time [in 1971] the feminist
movement - hungry for recognition and for funding - was able to
hijack the domestic violence movement and promptly set about
disseminating dubious research material and disinformation."
This is a disservice for real victims of DV, who can be anyone.
The wrong thing is targeted, wrong solutions provided, and provided
to the wrong people. Advocates do not care about reducing family
violence. They seek the power in vilifying others.
So far I've been nice.
Women commit 55% of spouse murders, 64% of all child abuse
including 78% of what results in death, 81% of parent murders, and
55% of sibling murders. Mothers commit 55% of child murders while
natural fathers commit 6.9%. Yet the more common forms of female
aggression are relationship violence and emotional bullying.
In divorce, to protect children from violence, perhaps we should
always award sole custody to fathers.
Want to play gender politics with DV?
[Statistics are cited from the DHHS National
Incidence Survey on Child Maltreatment, and
DOJ 1994
report, "Murder in the Family"]
---
K.C. Wilson <kc@socialwriting.net> is the author of "Delusions of
Violence: The Secrets Behind Domestic Violence Myths," "The Multiple
Scandals of Child Support," and other e-books on family issues.
Available at http://harbpress.com/ |
|
Table 7–1 Perpetrators [of child
maltreatment] by Sex and Age (DCDC) |
| Age Group
|
Male |
Female |
Total |
| 19 years or younger |
9,177 |
9,882 |
19,059 |
| 20 to 29 years |
26,646 |
69,591 |
96,237 |
| 30 to 39 years |
45,958 |
76,611 |
122,569 |
| 40 to 49 years |
21,258 |
20,061 |
41,319 |
| 50 years old or older |
8,434 |
8,007 |
16,441 |
| Totals: |
111,473 |
184,152 |
295,625 |
| Source: Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System;
Section 7, Perpetrators |
________________
See also:
|
