Vawa Gold

Feminism needs domestic violence

…therefore feminism perpetuates domestic violence. Feminism also invents fake domestic violence. This gives Feminism an excuse to exist.

It has been many years since feminists have fought for anything remotely resembling equality between the sexes.  I know most ordinary feminists still think equality is the name of the game, but they are mistaken.  All anyone has to do in order to see this, is look at what feminist policy makers, movers and shakers, and intellectual leaders (and I use that term rather loosely) have actually accomplished during the last two or three decades.  No equality there.  None.

This article is a very basic introduction to a single concept that most people will instantly reject on a visceral level:  That feminist policies breed Domestic Violence while pretending to prevent it.  I’m not going to quote lots of statistics and studies, or variables and technicalities.  I will however, state that the Duluth Model* of domestic violence, on which virtually all DV policy and “education” is based, has been thoroughly debunked – it represents as common, the very least common type of Intimate Partner Violence (brutal male/innocent female.)**

I am highlighting a causal relationship between feminist policy and domestic violence.  To see this principle in action, go to any courthouse and sit through a day or two of family court.  And while you’re there, remember that the feminist-sponsored Violence Against Women  Act pays for the “advocates” who coach women on how to present their cases, while the men are advised by their lawyers to “plead to a lesser charge.”  Remember that VAWA pays the cost of housing the men in jail while they await their hearings.

VAWA also funds prosecution of cases of “violence against women.”  Everybody in that courtroom, except the accused male, has income (and power) to gain by painting him as a monster, including his own counsel.  In theory they could railroad women in the same way because technically, abuse by women is still illegal, but it’s a lot easier to convince the public that hundreds of men in any given community are abusers, as opposed to hundreds of women.  We notice when women are accused of crimes.  Men, on the other hand? Well, men are pigs, right?  Abuse is what we’ve been trained to expect from them.

80% of all victims of violence are men, yet we have the Violence Against Women Act, ostensibly to protect women from (primarily domestic/relationship) violence.  How did this happen?   Why is violence against women presumed to be worse than violence against men?  Because women are weak and vulnerable?  Because nobody takes women seriously?  Whatever the appeal, it worked; even though violence against women was already illegal, the thought of violence committed against the “helpless,” offends us so deeply that we decided it was perfectly reasonable to spare no expense and overlook no preventive measure, if it would reduce the number of victims.  Random violence is relatively rare and tough to manage, but domestic violence is so, well, curable, right?  Who doesn’t want to stop Domestic Violence?

Professional feminists, that’s who.  Without DV victims, feminists would have no rallying cry, and they would lose political power.  Here’s how it works:

Thanks primarily to the Violence Against Women Act, DV has become a multi-billion dollar industry.  This industry employs many thousands of people throughout the nation, paying them with federal VAWA grant money.  And those thousands of people have made relatively little headway in achieving their “goal” of reducing DV.  Indeed they perpetuate it.  This is by design; if DV went away, so would their jobs.  There are many, many factors involved in DV, and it’s no coincidence that feminist policies aggravate nearly all of them, but for the sake of clarity I’m going to address only a simplified but significant few of them here.

Who commits a substantial proportion of DV?  Past victims or witnesses of DV.  Who committed the DV that they experienced or witnessed?  In too many cases to count, it is women.  Women commit far more than half of all DV.  Among the vast majority of violent couples, the violence is mutual.  Additionally, women commit the majority of child abuse.    Yes, women are responsible for most DV.

Next point, what often triggers DV?  Stress.  What causes women lots of stress?  The constant obligations of child rearing.  What causes even more child rearing stress?  Not having a father in the family.  How are so many fathers removed from their families?  They are accused of Domestic Violence, whether it happened or not, and whether it’s mutual or not.  Disagreements are exaggerated, violence is “invented” or men are blamed for any real violence that does occur.

The result is that fathers, often the most stable influence in the family, are kicked to the curb and financially bled dry, while mothers are protected and are excused for their “missteps;” this is the unstable – and all too often abusive – environment in which their children are raised.  Toss in a few more variables like substance abuse, a string of violent boyfriends, and a bit of poverty, and this process is guaranteed to produce future domestic abusers.  And this is the process that VAWA has institutionalized.  It no longer happens “once in a while;” it is SOP.  Was this the intent of VAWA?  Who cares?  That’s the result.

Thanks to VAWA, once a father is accused of DV, his chances of keeping his family (or his assets, his reputation, his friends, often even his job) are almost nil.  Conversely, most mothers have to commit “front page news” crimes to lose custody of their children.  VAWA provides billions of dollars for programs that “protect women from their abusers.”  Yet it provides virtually nothing to help men or children escape their abusers, if those abusers are women. VAWA addresses less that half of the DV it encounters.  Instead of working to reduce Domestic Violence, VAWA works to ensure that millions of children will continue to suffer abuse, and will likely grow up to become abusers themselves.

I am currently reading AVFM Editor-at-Large Erin Pizzey’s memoir, “This Way to the Revolution.” Forty years ago, long before VAWA, she founded the first battered women’s shelter in the UK, and she immediately discovered that many of her “victims” were at least as violent as their “abusers.”  She was harassed, threatened and demonized by powerful feminists for saying so out loud.  For decades. This understanding of Domestic Violence is not new.  However sharing this knowledge with the general population, could completely obliterate feminist control of the family courts.

And it should.

Question: Why on earth would anyone try to suppress the undeniable fact that “we’re doing it wrong?”  Answer: A lot of women’s careers depend on “doing it wrong.”.  These women have no qualms about throwing children, men, and other women under the bus to keep their jobs.  Feminism doesn’t care about children (VAWA doesn’t even count them as victims.)  It doesn’t care about families (broken families are its bread and butter.)  It doesn’t care about women’s safety (resources wasted on imagined abuse, are channeled away from victims of real abuse.)

Feminism cares about controlling, dominating, destroying and extorting the men who pay Feminism’s bills.  Everything else is window dressing.  Don’t believe me?  Follow the  money.  Oh, but you can’t; there doesn’t seem to be a paper trail; no readily available accounting of how and where VAWA money is distributed.  One might think some people are conspiring to keep the rest of us in the dark…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

** http://igualdadeparental.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Dutton_Corvo-Transforming-flawed-policy.pdf

 

About Suzanne McCarley

Suzanne McCarley is a middle aged widow, an empty-nester, an MRA and a 2A proponent. She never had a career, just a long series of family-friendly Mom Jobs, which exposed her to a variety of people and environments.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Robert O’Hara

    This kind of writing needs to keep coming on this topic. In the very near future people will be reading it from outside of the sphere of the MRM and there needs to be red pill material when they come here.

    • Bewildered

      Just the kind of writing/information to FTSU.
      No wonder they shout misogynist/rape enabler/etc. to shut people up. FFS why don’t they at least audit the funds ?

      • Near Earth Object

        Might it be on their ‘to do’ list?
        Right after they audit The Federal Reserve, The Pentagon …

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      “Without DV victims, feminists would have no rallying cry, and they would lose political power. Here’s how it works:

      Silly wheel’s have been used to vilify innocent men from the earliest days of VAWA scamming. False accusations of domestic violence are used against innocent men to show more statistical arrests of men so scamming gender feminists can lobby congress to get more money to arrest more innocent men.

      http://tinyurl.com/84wst8p

      and as an anonymous poster has put it,

      http://tinyurl.com/bapmnzu

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      Thank you Suz. Great article.

  • Turbo

    Suz, as I was reading through this piece I was formulating my comment, as you do, but I find that there is not much I can say that you have not covered. I find myself a bit short of time right now, but you said it all here. I just want to say at this point, thank god for you and all the women on this site. I have said this before, we cannot win this battle without women on our side. Once again you prove this to me, thank you. If my daughter could grow to be like the strong women on this site, and I am hopeful, then there is hope for us all.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    Suz,

    Thank you for this very insightful treatment of a badly under addressed subject.

    VAWA, the Duluth Model and the fraudulent theory of domestic violence as an extension of patriarchal aggression all combine to create a cultural reaction that is creating more victims while lining the pockets of ideologues and politicians.

    You have articulated that fact with pristine clarity.

    Many thanks.

  • http://www.mralondon.org/ Archi Desai

    I do like what you’ve written, particularly the two paragraphs beginning, ‘The result is…’ and ‘Thanks to VAWA,’.

    Their expressive efficiency gives some relief to the screams in my head.

  • Jay

    You’re spot on Suz.

  • Skeptic

    SUZ,
    Superb, Useful, Zoetic logic.
    Thank you!

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    Great article Suz.

    It was almost impossible for me to accept what you were saying as I grew up witha single mom, in public school where I was indoctrinated with this from a young age.

    They don’t care about the kids anymore than the tobacco companies; in fact, they are worse. Tobacco companies slowly killed people giving them something they thought they loved.

    Feminism has tricked people into abusive relationships for the same reasons, but wanted government power and tax money; not just wealth.

    Yet, they one upped the Tobacco Companies. They did not just stop with billboard signs 500 feet away, they were actually allowed to write the courses, indoctrinate the teachers and principles; they are able to tell the kids what to think. All with, or wtihout the parents permission.

    You have to give it to them. They may be pernicious and evil a-holes. Yet they are very successful at the evil they do.

  • PHX MRA

    Amazingly well done. This reality is also present in Title IX enforcement. It has created an entire industry that validates and finances Title IX lawyers, consultants, University Title IX “coordinators” & NGOs whom make their money by threatening litigation and intimidating pubic school administrators. Ultimately the taxpayers foot the bill.

    The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is their governmental proxy in advocating this approach in athletics, STEM and it has recently branched out into women making Title IX claims concerning rape accusations on college campuses.

    It’s no less than governmentally initiated and supported institutionalized misandry. We continue to ignore it at our peril.

  • JinnBottle

    >”Feminism also invents fake domestic violence.”

    > “…the feminist-sponsored Violence Against Women Act pays for the “advocates” who coach women on how to present their cases, while the men are advised by their lawyers to “plead to a lesser charge.” Remember that VAWA pays the cost of housing the men in jail while they await their hearings.”

    > “In theory they could railroad women in the same way because technically, abuse by women is still illegal, but it’s a lot easier to convince the public that hundreds of men in any given community are abusers, as opposed to hundreds of women.”

    > “Toss in a few more variables like substance abuse, a string of violent boyfriends, and a bit of poverty, and this process is guaranteed to produce future domestic abusers. And this is the process that VAWA has institutionalized.”

    > “A lot of women’s careers depend on “doing it wrong.”. These women have no qualms about throwing children, men, and other women under the bus to keep their jobs. Feminism doesn’t care about children (VAWA doesn’t even count them as victims.) It doesn’t care about families (broken families are its bread and butter.)”

    > “Follow the money.”

    This article powerfully captures, as you say, Suz, a “significant tho simplified” roster of the “many *many* factors involved in DV”; and just *some* of the ways feminism sucks tax money out of the people thru the DV straw: The above just happen to be among those that I see as the ones most desperately needed to be iterated to public consciousness at the moment. (Hell, even I wasn’t aware of the ramifications quote #2 describes.)

    Thank you, Suz. Please keep posting.

  • donzaloog

    Tthe endgame for these people will ultimately lead to men abandoning women and the prospect of starting families. That’s been feminism’s plan form the start imo.

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      “That’s been feminism’s plan form the start imo.”

      You certainly get no argument from me.

      As the bastard (literally) nanny state more and more becomes “Sugar Daddy” to women, and becomes more and more “nanny state parent” to fatherless kids, the role of the Western society, male-slave becomes more broadly defined.

      Yes, men have always filled the role of disposable slave even in conservative traditional families, primarily through war and work, so the gender feminized nanny state asks, “Why change that acceptable role model for men, just expand it, and incarcerate even more of those who don’t get in goose step with it?”

      With gender feminists expanding their influence in government, expect the role of the male slave to expand, along with his oppression, IMO. Misandrist VAWA is more than adequate proof, but there’s much more evidence of that gynocratic hate movement’s misandry. :-/

  • Kimski

    More!
    This is brilliant in its clarity.

    Please forward this to Jezebel, so we’ll have another goblin visiting from over there. I just love picking those vile creatures apart. Seriously.

  • Near Earth Object

    Good read, Suz

    Two things came to mind for me.

    Who says ‘cannibalism’ doesn’t exist in our modern world.

    And …

    “I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage”
    Professor Howard S. Schwartz, Oakland University, Michigan

  • The Real Peterman

    Great column, Suz, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, you wrote “80% of all victims of violence are men”. What is your source for that? FBI statistics show that 80% of *murder* victims are men, and a solid majority of all violent crime victims are men, but not 80% of all violent crime victims. Not to nit-pick, I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page here.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Good point, thank you. I may have conflated the two; I’ll look into it.

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      I looked up the FBI DOJ homicide stats many years ago (over a decade) before I made the below linked graphic. At that time men were about 75 percent of homicides. Male suicides (CDC) have gone up approximately another 5 percent since then to about 80 percent. http://tinyurl.com/6e5nml Men being killed in today’s wars are still more than 97 percent.

      I made this graphic after a good friend, an African American man, told me, “Death is the greatest indicator of oppression.” http://tinyurl.com/686hnv Only gender feminists are foolish enough to argue with that.

      • Bombay

        “Death is the greatest indicator of oppression.”

        Yes. I like your pic. I know you know this, add that men die at an earlier age. The oppressed get lesser medical research and health care dollars.

  • thefeministmra

    The one thing that really raised my eyebrow on VAWA was the utter lack of financial accountability. Sure the government likes to be PC, but they are real tightwads when it comes to cash (when they aren’t benefiting from it at least).

    Did no one think to set up a committee to insure this was wasted tax payer money?

    • http://none universe

      More money spent for this, right?

  • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Today’s feminism is a hate ideology based on Borderline Personality Disorder pathology.

    Reading feminist screed is uncannily similar to reading BPD blogs. Dangerous, self-deluding, self-pitying sociopaths.

    • Near Earth Object

      It may interest you to know that when I worked at the Radical Feminist Indoctrination Center (RFIC), the pathologizing of clients was considered to be outside of the realm of ‘best practices’–unprofessional in terms of agency policy. Although I do have my own issues with the D.S.M., how very wise of the ideologues to completely distance their subordinates from the standard criteria for the diagnosis of mental disorders.

      • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

        Pathology is pathology and if it’s “pathologizing” to say so, so be it.

        It’s also a neat trick to rule out sociopathy if an individual is given the diagnosis of BPD or NPD. I have my own issues with the DSM.

        • Near Earth Object

          Pathology is indeed, pathology.

          I shared that story not only to demonstrate that they have distanced themselves from ‘the tool’, but ‘the mirror’ as well.

      • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

        DSM smacks of PC advocacy research, IMO. It smacks of truths, mingled with half truths, mingled with outright fabrications in the name of PC. Considering the PC campuses where versions of DSM’s are largely influenced, it’s no wonder, again IMO.

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      “Today’s feminism is a hate ideology based on Borderline Personality Disorder pathology.

      Reading feminist screed is uncannily similar to reading BPD blogs. Dangerous, self-deluding, self-pitying sociopaths.”

      That’s roughly the same thing I told a friend as I gazed out over the crowd at an International Domestic Violence Conference.

      I’ve said this before, but I’ll say this again, “The real batterers are the gender feminists and their ilk, who lead the taxpayer funded domestic violence industry.” :-(

  • http://themanonthestreet.blogspot.com/ TMOTS

    Outstanding article Suz.

    Not to belittle it one bit but I will say this; it is quitte sad that it takes a woman to state these things less it goes unsaid or if actually said by a man – claims of misogyny!

    TMOTS

  • keyster

    The 800 pound politically incorrrect gorilla in the room is that there’s a disproportionate racial component to this.
    That is that DV takes place disproportionately among identifiable minorities.

    Much like gun violence takes place disproportionately in Southside Chicago – you won’t hear anyone even touch the racial component – yet in the “principle of service to a higher cause” ALL will be subject to the new rules.

    The only mention of this is among Native Americans – who also have a severe alcohol problem.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Although I suppose what you are saying is plausible, can you demonstrate through reasonable research that domestic violence is more common among minorities? Arrest rates are not sufficient evidence, in fact, they can be tossed aside completely as in those communities it’s the same as everywhere, women are only arrested for it under the most extreme and outrageous cases (and not even always then) and men are presumed guilty until proven innocent. So any statistic which suggests the violence is more common in any racial or ethnic group has to be based on something other than arrest reports to have any meaning at all. So have you got anything, other than that? I’m genuinely curious.

  • http://none universe

    “…we have the Violence Against Women Act,…”
    “…How did this happen?…”
    “…Whatever the appeal, it worked…”
    – Because the union values itself higher and actually does something with and about it.

    “…One might think some people are conspiring to keep the rest of us in the dark…”
    – Whoopsy.
    Careful.
    Some people might think you’re…”one of those”…
    (Seriously now) Yes, where does and to whom does this gravy train money go to?
    AND, why is there no independent (from in-house feminism) monitoring of all these funded activities taking place?

    Good show Suz.

    • keyster

      Someone said that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence at some point in the lives. That’s all that matters, and if you question it you think violence against women perfectly acceptable.

      It’s like questioning the Humane Society or the Susan Komen foundation or Planned Parenthood. They’re above reproach because they “do so much good”.

      • http://none universe

        Uhhh-uh, I forgot for a moment.
        We must boost their funding.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    It’s routine in the big city where I live, based on the advice of a gender feminist, domestic violence advocate, police ride alongs, to arrest men for “felony” domestic violence, but not even prosecute them for misdemeanor domestic violence. That way the scam artist, gender feminist crooks can get the statistics they need to lobby for more taxpayer’s money to arrest more innocent men. It’s called “Witch-Hunting Males” http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu as shown at Youtube, and the big city I live in is most likely the same as yours as shown in “Los Misandry” http://tinyurl.com/27oh7cp at Youtube.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “And while you’re there, remember that the feminist-sponsored Violence Against Women Act pays for the “advocates” who coach women on how to present their cases, while the men are advised by their lawyers to “plead to a lesser charge.” Remember that VAWA pays the cost of housing the men in jail while they await their hearings.”

    Taxpayer funded VAWA STOP grants also pay for training for those domestic violence advocates as well as the training of police, prosecutors, and judges, using the fraudulent, gender feminist paradigm for domestic violence.

    What would a rip-off scam be without the misappropriation of billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money?

    http://tinyurl.com/6rnjlgm

    and

    http://tinyurl.com/b8aeqbr

  • Mr. J

    I see the “How Did This Happen” question again.
    …….It “happened” because 99% of men have had their head up their @$$ for the last 50 years, obsessing over rich men who play “games” instead of paying attention to their own interests.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “What causes women lots of stress? The constant obligations of child rearing. What causes even more child rearing stress? Not having a father in the family. How are so many fathers removed from their families? They are accused of Domestic Violence, whether it happened or not, and whether it’s mutual or not. Disagreements are exaggerated, violence is “invented” or men are blamed for any real violence that does occur.”

    Back when we were still holding F4J/NCFM rallies/ picnics in our local park (with lots and lots of protest signs) a small boy came up to us and asked about one of our brightly embellished vehicles. He asked, “What’s if for?” Harry Crouch, president, NCFM, who was with our group that day explained, “It’s to help kids get back with their fathers.” Without missing a beat the little boy then said, “Can you help me get my daddy back?” Needless to say, more than Harry was floored by that comment so we made this protest sign and have since displayed it at many protests.

    http://tinyurl.com/7l5gdzo

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    The fear you smell is the fear of well-monied special interests who think they may lose their funding or, even worse, have to share it with boys and men.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

    This article makes unsubstantiated, conspiracist implications of malice. There is no reason to think that feminists involved in DV prevention do not want to end DV perpetrated by men against women. They surely do. The problem is that their tactics may be inefficacious, and that most DV does not bother them.

    • TheBiboSez

      If feminists were sincere in ending “DV perpetrated by men against women” (maw), then they would also work to end “DV perpetrated by women against men” (WAM). Yet, they barely acknowledge that WAM exists, and not only have they have set up VAWA to exclude help to male victims, they make sure that when the man IS the victim, HE is the one that gets arrested.

      When a PERSON is attacked, then unjustly treated as an aggressor, if that PERSON survives, then that PERSON will experience the strong desire to seek revenge. A PERSON given aid and shelter can be dissuaded from acting out in revenge, but feminism is clear that the PERSON being aided is never a man, or even a boy.

      By doing that, feminism either deliberately perpetuates violence against women, or they demonstrate a depraved indifference toward measures that would diffuse MAW. Deliberate murder and depraved indifference murder are both still murder; we cannot grant women the plausible deniability of ignoring the gender symmetry in DV.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        ‘If feminists were sincere in ending “DV perpetrated by men against women” (maw), then they would also work to end “DV perpetrated by women against men” (WAM).’

        Non sequitur.

        Feminists hate men, so of course they don’t work to end DV perpetrated by women or against men. They kinda think it doesn’t happen, and kinda think it serves ’em right for being such patriarchal meanies.

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          It’s not a non sequitor at all. It is impossible to end MAW DV without addressing violent women, who teach violence to their sons. Additionally, MOST IPV is mutual, and God knows how much of it is instigated by females, responded to by males, then escalated by both parties until the male is arrested simply because he has the physical strength to do more harm. Addressing female violence would drastically reduce MAW DV.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

            Again, it does not follow that just because their actions to prevent it are foolish, inefficacious or counter-productive, feminists must want there to be violence against women.

            It will not start to logically follow just because you say it enough times.

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            You didn’t mention “intentional” in your list of adverbs. As hard as feminists work to *actively* suppress viable non-feminist solutions to DV (ask Erin, among others) it’s pretty obvious that they are perfectly aware of such solutions, and choose not to consider them.

            Their actions are not merely ” foolish, inefficacious or counter-productive;” their actions are malicious because they know better, and have known better for decades. Feminist policymakers may be thoroughly deluded, but they are not ignorant and they are not stupid.

            Are you playing devil’s advocate, or do you believe these people are honestly doing the very best they can for female victims of DV?

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            *Adjectives, not adverbs. Sheesh! (I hope my sister doesn’t read this site…)

        • http://none universe

          Correctrix
          The Bilbo Sez referred to domestic violence, or intimate partner violence. The more honest and complete surveys and research consistently show that one usually follows the other.
          Need I mention that women initiate and perpetrate more of it? See: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12119-009-9059-9

          The non-sequitor is that feminists, at most periods, have continually demonstrated that they are not for and about ‘equality’.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

            None of that is in contradiction to anything I said.

        • http://none universe

          Correctrix
          A few points. Please forgive the Wiki reference:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

          “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
          – The right to be recognized as co-contributors, if not moreso, to IPV is what I argue basis this definition above. Not recognizing an evidentially available causal relation to a problem is no admission of an equality status when equality is their stated goal. You know this.

          Basis the stated equality mandate, what The Bilbo Sez wrote : “If feminists [equalitists] were sincere in ending “DV perpetrated by men against women” (maw), then they would also work to end “DV perpetrated by women against men” (WAM).’” – does follow.
          – If feminists, in standing with their ‘equality mandate’, were interested in equality and ending DV they would consider men as being on the receiving end of and women as major co-contributors to it. There certainly is enough existing credible data supporting this view. Not a non-sequitur.

          However, if you argue that ‘feminists’ cannot factor these interpersonal dynamics and therefore exclude them from public discourse due to wilfull bias then point taken re: ‘non-sequitur’.

          Otherwise – what The Bilbo Sez.

          If you too recognize that feminists aren’t holding up to their own lofty principle, then you’ve entered the ranks alongside the various others.

          Thanks for your contribution and attention.

          • Poester99

            Regardless if she is a troll or not there is a lesson for us. When you’re talking truth to power (feminism is power in this zeitgeist) you need to have all your ducks in a row.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        I believe Corrrectrix is being misunderstood.

        Correctrix correctly says the feminist ideologues in charge of the domestic violence industry hate men. However, Correctrix believes they are too stupid to realize that their policies don’t work, rather than that they malevolently wish males to be harmed.

        I think that this is probably true in many cases, but it would be naive in the extreme not to think that a number at the top of this particular food chain–a multiBILLION$$$ international industry–are not fully aware of the reality of female-on-male (and female-on-female) violence. The numbers are staggeringly well documented and have been for decades. There is either deliberate effort at obfuscation at the top, or there is mind-boggling stupidity everywhere.

        While I tend to believe that most government and other folly can be ascribed more often to stupidity than “conspiracy,” the fact is, Correctrix, that there is a tiny elite in control of most of those VAWA and related dollars who pull in very big salaries from it and they do not wish violent women discussed at all. That isn’t so much a conspiracy as it is a conflict of interest.

        • napocapo69

          Yes, Correctrix might have been misunderstood,but I really do see her points:
          – assuming that feminist may do wrong things in good will, is an excess of benevolence, since we are not referring to a single episode but to a systematic approach to human issues that demonize men and sanctifies women, lasting 50 years at least … “errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum”
          – not seeing evidence of the feminist strive for money, is blindness … since their request for money, once implicit in their bindings with political institutions, now it is also explicit in the policies/laws that are being spread that beg government to provide funds for women rights/feminist orgs

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

            As I said before, the same could be said of any charity. Provide *evidence* of your conspiracy, not wild claims.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

          ‘Correctrix believes they are too stupid to realize that their policies don’t work, rather than that they malevolently wish males to be harmed.’

          That’s still not it. That’s not even the topic of the article. It is well established (on this site at least) that DV policies are only aimed at protecting women from men, rather that vice versa or some other combination. It’s part of feminist demonisation of men and sanctification of women.

          This article goes further and claims that even the work to stop men hitting women is fake, and that these people don’t actually want to stop violence against women, but really want to perpetuate it in order to make money. This is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Show *evidence* of it: the fact that feminist-inspired DV policies are blinkered or ineffective is *not* evidence of this conspiracy.

          • napocapo69

            SUZ, franky speaking you took the scene, had fun, without contributing with nothing apart “provide evidence”.

            By the way I never mentioned the “cospiracy” you did. I just know that it is misandry.

            oh, yes .. provide evidence!

            “errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum”

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            “This is a paranoid conspiracy theory.”

            Nonsense. It’s not a conspiracy theory and it’s not paranoid. While there are probably a few powerful people who ARE actively “conspiring,” for many in the DV industry, the status quo may be merely extremely convenient. They claim they want to help, yet anyone who challenges the status quo and suggest that it’s not effective in its won goals, let alone in the moral goal of reducing all DV, they find themselves kicked out of the system and vilified.

            The DV industry is a classic example of parasitic government. It sucks down billions of dollars, irreparably harming its “host,” while justifies its existence with a public display of a few “good” results – an offering of crumbs used to entice support and loyalty, and to inspire a case of the FeelGoods.

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            The fact is that the domestic violence industry is mostly *not* a charity, it is over a billion dollar a year taxpayer-funded enterprise–not through charity, but through massive government funding. Although it’s been cut recently by the current administration, at its height America’s VAWA alone was funded to the tune of over $1.5 billion annually of taxpayer money, not counting state, county, and municipal funding or any charities at all. Charities add a pittance compared to US funding alone, but the governments of Canada, the UK, Australia, and now even the UN itself is getting into the act with adding money for Gender Feminist ideologues to control, mostly without accounting for how they spend it; most of that money appears to be going into the pockets of a few key players; very little actually goes into any of the women’s shelters/refuges and what does go is largely unaccounted for.

            On the other hand, speak to someone who’s been in these refuges and you’ll find that there is very little real effort to do anything to help these women do anything except leave their boyfriends/husbands forever, get him arrested and jailed if possible–there are even multiple reports of them using using makeup to create fake photographs with fake bruises and blood to show police. The “silver bullet” they often counsel is to use accusations of sexual molestation, since that’s pretty much an instant winner in court if you’re trying to take a man’s children. Acknowledgement of female violence? Not in them. If she is violent she’s generally excused and told to blame the men. Multiple women escaping these shelters can tell you about it, although many of them are afraid to do so.

            The fact of the matter is that the Gender Ideologues who run the whole shebang are massively dependent on this taxpayer funding. It isn’t a charity.

            See this interview for more, there are references at the bottom of the transcript and also within the body of the video. If you have any specific questions beyond that, please feel free to ask.

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-violence/

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      If feminists want to prevent DV against females, they would not allow violent females to raise their sons to become perpetrators of DV against females, would they?

      ” inefficacious ” ?

      Really? How many more decades, how many more generations, should we give them to finally figure out what they don’t want to know? The already data exists, despite feminists’ best efforts to suppress it. Do you really think their refusal to acknowledge it and use it, is just a matter of carelessness?

      If they managed to end male-on-female domestic violence, billions of dollars would no longer be paid out to feminist-run DV prevention/assistance organizations, or to state and local governments for enforcement. On what planet is that not incentive to perpetuate DV? No victims = no jobs.

      It is ironic that that funding for DV prevention could actually be justified if feminists would recognize that women commit so much of it, but they are desperate to hang onto both their money and their ideology.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        ‘If feminists want to prevent DV against females, they would not allow violent females to raise their sons to become perpetrators of DV against females, would they?’

        That unfortunately does not follow. All that would be required is denial of the existence of violent females.

        ‘how many more generations, should we give them’

        Where did I say to give feminists any time at all? Feminism should end.

        ‘Do you really think their refusal to acknowledge it and use it, is just a matter of carelessness?’

        No, ideology.

        ‘On what planet is that [money] not incentive to perpetuate DV?’

        You could say the same about anyone working to fix any big problem (cancer, pollution, misandry…). Motive is only one of the pillars that establish guilt.

    • andybob

      Ms Correctrix,

      For confirmation of the malice that domestic violence workers have towards men, please follow this link:
      http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/reno-calls-a-battered-womens-shelter/

      In “Reno calls a battered women’s shelter,” Dr F (Ian Williams) poses as a terrified man at the end of his tether. He is waiting, with his son, for his abusive wife to return with a cricket bat. Like many such men, he is stricken with fear and has nowhere to go.

      The most chilling element of this phone call is the malice shown by the woman who answers the call. She takes obvious pleasure in telling the near-suicidal ‘Reno’ that she will not offer assistance to him or his son because there are no resources available for them. She even adds, with a smirk, that that is how it should be. Her glee is almost tangible.

      Please listen to the entire call, because I don’t want you to miss the full gamut of this garden-variety DV worker’s cruelty. She actually scolds ‘Reno’ for not being a proper father because the son is awake at 8:45pm. She then taunts him by suggesting he go to the police, knowing full well that, if he does so, the police would either arrest him as the perpetrator, or remove his son from his custody.

      Suzanne McCarley has written a post which assumes that the attitude of this vile creature towards ‘Reno’ is typical of those who work within the DV industry.

      Her assumption is correct.

      Female-perpetrated IPV against men is almost universally dismissed, even ridiculed, especially by the industry that is meant to address it. “Reno calls a battered women’s shelter,” made me aware, as no amount of verified data ever could, that men like ‘Reno’ face malice that is as droll as it is pervasive. For me, that is as sinister as it gets.

      Brilliant article, Ms McCarley. A scathing summary of VAWA outrage.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        ‘For confirmation of the malice that domestic violence workers have towards men,’

        Malice against men is manifest and not the issue here. We are discussing whether these people make sure that violence against women continues in order to maintain the flow of money to their organisations. I suppose it would be better described as cynical than malicious.

        • Stu

          When you deliberately fabricate statistics, and hide evidence of opposing views being correct, the only conclusion you can draw is that they are malicious.

          In reality, I think there are three types. Those that are full of shit and know it. Those that are full of shit and don’t know it. And those that don’t care about much at all and just go with the flow. There are no feminists that are rocking the boat though is there. By definition, if they are doing that, they are not feminists.

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          Ignoring violence against men might be cynical. Falsely demonizing men is malicious.

    • Stu

      I wouldn’t be so sure about that Correctrix. The fact is that the DV industry employees many feminists, and their continued employment relies on the continuation of DV. This is why we have such rediculous definitions of DV now. It’s because there is not enough of the real thing to keep such a big industry ticking over. So they have to make laws that make more and more trivial things into crimes. They would much prefer that men actually start providing them with the real battered women I think, it would make life so much easier for them, no having to invent victims where there are none, no having to think of long winded convulted bullshit lectures to twist every little thing into a DV crime against women. Their behavior demonstrates clearly, that this is an industry with it’s primary resource base in decline. There are not enough “real wife beaters” to keep their massive monster fed. So they are wolfing at the crumbs on the floor, turning over every rock in search of a mole hill they can turn into a mountain. The alternative would be to shrink the industry down to size to match the actual levels of “real” DV in the community, and that is the opposite of what every industry wants to do…….grow.

      The mere fact that they want growth, as all industries do….means they want growth of their resources that they use to fuel their growth. That means they want more DV, or at the very least, they want to con people into believing there is more. That is their reason for existing.

    • napocapo69

      Maybe you are right, at least partially.
      Feminist do want to end violence against women, by wiping men from their lives.

      NO LAW CAN STOP VIOLENCE, ANY LAW ANY VIOLENCE.
      Behaviors and social environment influence violence, for the good or for the bad.

      Violence is embedded in our nature; mankind share the same space and natural resources, and competition leads to conflicts; a domestic environment makes no exception.
      Few decades ago, a century ago, many men used to get drunk after work and sometimes beat their wives.
      Not the majority of men, but quite a few. Feminists object that it was due to the patriarchal culture,
      whatever it means. Those were bad behaviors, violent behaviors, condemned already at that time, and laws were already in place to punish those acts. Yet, those behaviors happened, and at some extent socially accepted. The reason? Poverty and poor education.
      Those men committing violence against their wives were extremely poor men, with almost no education, men expected to keep FULL responsibility of the family. They used to comply with their “role” by performing hard jobs, often humiliating jobs, for a poor wage. The only real payback they got was a drink … and sometimes the combination of the alcohol and frustration lead to violent act towards their twin souls…which were not always angels landed on Earth, but women educated to have expectation from their men, expectations sometimes expressed violently … and sometimes this lead to arguing and violence.
      Nevertheless, none is justifying the violence, now and also at that time.

      Why I am mentioning this? Because the rate of violence (real violence) decreased significantly in the following decades, and surprise … there were no special laws in place for dealing with DV …
      Why?
      It was just that the economy boomed, and the education level raised significantly, leading many men out of humiliating jobs. They were usually praised for their role of breadwinners, they could read a newspaper, and not dig in a mine in order to have dinner (some people still do it, all men).
      So now, what has feminism done to deal with DV?
      Feminism is actively working to make education institution a nightmare for boys, and build an education pipeline that leads only young men in poorly paid and risky businesses; feminism is actively working to discriminate against men in the working environment to rise the rate of male unemployment; feminism is actively promoting a demeaning culture of male…should I continue?

      So, then, we have the anti-DV laws where men are depicted as animals with violent drive, laws that reduce basic principle of innocent until proven guilty, and redefine the concept itself of equality under the law.
      This apply to USA, Canada end elsewhere, so have a look at the Instambul convetion shame
      http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-great-danger-of-the-istambul-convention/
      running across Europe.

      In that Istambul Convention you will find all the the evidence that feminist strive for money; read it, it goes as follows:
      – men are evil
      – women have been kept down by men, especially in the home
      to solve the problem we have to:
      – facilitate women in position of power and jobs
      – give money to feminist organization

      So please, can you clarify what feminism is doing to diminish (no stopping) DV? To me it seams pretty clear that feminism is doing as much as possible to foster DV and get money.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        ‘So please, can you clarify what feminism is doing to diminish (no stopping) DV?’

        They set up shelters so that women can escape DV, and they organise campaigns to shame men who hit women, in an effort to change our culture.

        • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

          Since the people who *might* be “changed” by these methods, comprise a minuscule fraction of the population, shelters and man-shaming CAN’T “change the culture.” Furthermore, the people who exercise control over the public dialog about DV, know this.

          Your assumption that shelters and man-shaming can “change the culture,” shows your ignorance of the true nature of DV. You believe EXACTLY what feminist policymakers want you to believe. You have obviously bought into the myth of the Duluth Model.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

            Again, none of that follows on from what I said.

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            Really?

            “They set up shelters so that women can escape DV, and they organise campaigns to shame men who hit women, in an effort to change our culture.”

            Those aren’t your words?

            (Incidentally, most of “the culture” does not have tendencies toward violence against women, and therefore does not need to be “changed” in this manner.)

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            I believe Correctrix is seeking hard evidence that this isn’t just massive delusion and ideology.

            Look at the tax money, Correctrix. Watch/read the Erin Pizzey interview, and read her book. The radical feminists latched onto the domestic violence issue in the 1970s and have been using it to fund their movement ever since. They control billions in taxpayer money. It’s not “conspiracy” it’s corruption.

            I’m quite certain there are naive people in the mix. Possibly the majority. But the sustained efforts to actually shut up and silence researchers and dissenting voices has real political and fiscal muscle behind it, make no mistake.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      Much of violence against women has nothing to do with “DV” per se. There is, among feminists, a lack of interest in violence against women by women (and I’m not talking about lesbian couples).

      When you look at large numbers of cases of female-on-female violence you start to wonder how it is that women who might boldly take out their straight-razors, ice picks, meat cleavers, knives, etc. against women with such spontaneity and relish turn out to be such passive non-initiators when it comes to their conflicts with men.

      I have seen posters decrying “violence against women by men” but never one condemning “violence against women by women.” (Not even from MHRAs).

      Female victims of violence by women are treated as second class victims — to be swept under the rug because they embarrass the ideologues. MHRAs have not taken note of this fact and made use of it as of yet.

  • The Equalizer

    Hi Suz and anyone else on the site, please can you tell me what a ‘2A proponent’ is as mentioned in Suz’s biog? Much appreciated.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Answered last week – second amendment, the right to bear arms.

      • The Equalizer

        Thanks Suz. Sorry, I didn’t see the reply last week.

  • TheBiboSez

    Good article, Suz.

    One thing did give me pause, though:

    “Without DV victims, feminists would have no rallying cry, and they would lose political power.”

    In such a case, feminists would no doubt pivot and focus even more on the diminishing number of actual stranger rapes as a rallying point to continue their enslavement of men.

    Feminists have been struggling mightily to expand the definition of rape to include ridiculous things like “next-day regret rape”, “birth rape” and “unenthusiatic consent rape”. Hell, we will live to see the day when twin newborn boys delivered vaginally will be defined as a form of gang rape. (oh, crap. I hope no feminist sees that.)

    One interesting comparison between rape and DV is found in prevention efforts – in both cases, any effort the woman might make to proactively protect herself is called “victim-blaming” to further establish women’s hypoagency, perpetual victimhood and vulnerability – the sole onus and responsibility is placed on men, even when the man is the actual victim of the crime.

    To the feminist, any actual, serious effort to reduce rape and DV must be quashed because it might reduce women’s shaming power over men. When Prohibition was passed (and failed), women lost a huge amount of political capital which they only partially regained with women’s suffrage, and they are determined never to “succeed” like that again.

    One interesting contrast between rape and DV is found in aftercare efforts – there is big money to be made by feminists in women’s DV shelters, but fewer dollars to be made in the unique aftercare efforts for the rare female victims of stranger rape – those women and girls are left by feminists to suffer because their only utility to feminists is in their continued, unempowered pain.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Exactly. It’s not about protecting women, even if they could somehow justify the concept that women are more worthy of protection than children and men. It’s about gaining power over men (and future men) and they don’t care who, of what sex or age, is sacrificed for it.

      These ideologues aren’t naive or careless; they can’t possibly be that stupid. They are determined and calculating. And very well funded.

  • Codebuster

    >”Additionally, women commit the majority of child abuse

    I know that most of us know this… but I keep hammering on it because it is so important, and I believe it needs to become a mantra:

    Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.

    The genocentric paradigm has done so much untold harm. It closes off our ability to understand the importance of experience and neural plasticity. It doesn’t matter what culture you apply the above interpretation to, whether it’s Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu. It is the primary nurturer that first establishes “the things that matter” in the mind of the child.

    Let me put it another way… when scientists of the genocentric persuasion talk about knowing and facts, they talk in terms of an objective world that the brain “computes”. The bigger more powerful brain you have, the higher the computing power, and the more factual, or accurate, is your world-view. But this interpretation is complete bogus. The way that you know stuff is contingent, first and foremost, on the brain’s associative properties. And it is the primary nurturer that exposes you to your first associations.

    Cast your mind back to when you were dependent on your primary nurturer. Who took you to the shops? Who taught you your first words? Who took you on the bus, or drove a car into town? These first exposures that we experience as infants are the things that we first learn about and they become the things that matter. We learn that cars matter. We learn that shopping matters, and that food and sustenance matters. And then every other experience that we acquire is built up on these primary associations. These events wire our brains.

    And of course, in an abusive household, we learn that violence matters, and we learn it first from the primary nurturer. Irrespective of which parent is more violent, the simple fact is that the primary nurturer made the first choice… the primary nurturer knows that violence matters and that violence engenders respect, and thus she made the first choice that mattered.

    Feminism and VAWA are products of the genocentric paradigm.

    Necessity is the mother of invention. Men’s rights is the new necessity that has the potential to fast-track a whole new paradigm. Let’s bring it on.

    • corbyworld

      “Additionally, women commit the majority of child abuse”

      I know that most of us know this… but I keep hammering on it because it is so important, and I believe it needs to become a mantra:

      Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.”

      Exactly!! I keep saying the same thing to people. This needs to be a major focal point of the MHRM.

  • napocapo69

    spot on

  • MGTOW-man

    Suz, Thanks again for an excellent write-up.

    Here is another way that feminism breeds domestic violence. Since feminists refuse to recognize women’s reactions as abusive even though that is exactly what it is, they create more situations riddled with abuse.

    If they would tell women to not hit men (unless true self-defense) out of sheer anger at him for something he said that she didn’t like, or because she didn’t get her way about something, or because she was unsuccessful at controlling him, then more women would actually be safer.

    It is true that some men would never hit women unless they are themselves hit by a woman. Sure, his natural animal defense mechanism kick in (and rightly so), so he responds in kind. He likely could crush her head with his bare hands, so hitting him, (as punishment, not in self-defense) is truly a bad idea.

    However, she is encouraged by our society and indirectly by feminists to do the very thing that could put herself in more danger than she ever would have been.

    This is nothing less than feminism needing, thus breeding, domestic violence from the inside out. Feminists’ stubbornness about not admitting the powerful truth contained herein is quite revealing.

    Just another transparency of the feminist beast.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Powerful description the tyranny of the VAWA fueled DV indu$try.

    I have seen the inside of courts in Australia and witnessed the highly funded machine that kicks into gear to support (read encourage and arm) women… it is a sight to behold.

    Even women charged with violent assault will get a special room in the court complete with a counsellor, legal advisors and support persons while the male victim is refused all support… he must sit in drafty court hallways alone watching his assailant be treated like royalty. I cant imagine anything more soul-destroying for innocent males than that scenario.

    Out of the park, Suz…

  • Robert St. Estephe

    “Feminism cares about controlling, dominating, destroying and extorting the men who pay Feminism’s bills. Everything else is window dressing.” — Suzanne McCarley, 2012

    Classic. Perfect for quotation collections. It is going in mine and I will quote this frequently.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Here’s an image (meme) that McCarley’s words have inspired:

    Rosie the Racketeer : Exposed
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2013/02/rosie-racketeer-exposed.html

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      :D

  • ScaaarBeeek

    An absolutely brilliant piece. Thanks Suzanne. Herein lies the crux of why feminist astrology lies at the root of all government policy (except foreign affairs, over which it doesn’t have much control and which therefore compels it to employ some sense).

    I recommend Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville for a detailed and disturbing analysis of what goes on in the US (and to some extent UK) family courts.

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley
  • dlbollinger

    This is what I want to tell
    THey opened up the gates of hell
    THey don’t want to see us thrive
    They don’t want us to survive
    THere are programs that oppress
    and to make us regress
    Coming strtaight from our accounts
    Our votes don’t even count

    The DV act will cause a breakdown in the family. Also a wave of single mothers on welfare.