Saturday, October 13, 2007

Domestic Violence: The Scientific Evidence

  • References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography. Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
    SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 203 scholarly investigations: 156 empirical studies and 47 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 185,500. Reference
  • Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations, Murray A Strauss. 'Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants.' (Abstract)
  • Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." (Abstract)
  • DV Stats.Com A search engine which locates academic studies on Domestic Violence by keyword.
  • For a collection of more general links on the subject, click here

The scientific evidence clearly shows the following:

  • Domestic violence affects only a minority of couples. In other words, it is relatively rare.
  • Women initiate domestic violence more often than men do.
  • Domestic violence is just as common in the homosexual communities as it is in the heterosexual community.
  • Domestic violence often collocates very strongly with alcohol and substance abuse.
  • Domestic violence is usually reciprocal, rather than one partner hitting the other exclusively. Where it is non-reciprocal, the evidence shows that in heterosexual relationships the perpetrator is more likely to be the woman than the man.

New Book Recommendation

Check out this new book 'That Bitch: Protect Yourself Against Women with Malicious Intent', by Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary (Centre, 2007).

There is an interesting review of the book here.

The book is a survival guide for men (and women) on how to protect themselves against a (Roy is at pains to stress) small group of vindictive, violent or self-serving women who use and abuse partners, colleagues and even children.

Roy - a former journalist turned presenter, author and conference host - started pondering over coffee one day how many male acquaintances, who he regarded as thoroughly decent types, seemed to be being mistreated by manipulative mates or taken to the cleaners in bitter divorces.

"This is a terrible situation that a lot of guys get into and there is evidence that some commit suicide because of it.

Finally he discovered evidence that supported his suspicions - a site called AMEN run by Mary T Cleary (his co-writer). Mary used to work in the A&E department of a Dublin hospital and who had been shocked by men who would come in with serious injuries that they would attribute to accidents.

"They'd say things like 'I fell down the stairs' or 'I walked into a door' but as Mary said to me, you don't get a stab wound in the back from falling down stairs."

Roy and Mary include the startling statistic in their book that a survey conducted by the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service in 2006 said mutual violence accounted for 33 per cent of domestic cases, male-perpetrated violence 26 per cent and female-perpetrated 41 per cent.

This should not come as any great surprise to anyone. The scientific evidence on Domestic Violence is extensive and unambiguous, and contradicts the received wisdom on every detail. However, the Domestic Violence industry is dominated by radical feminists who do everything in their power to stop the truth from getting out.

"It is for people who just don't know what to do, especially if they are a nice guy who will go out out their way to make their partner happy. The type of women we are talking about will target the soft touch. They see them as weak when in fact they are just being nice.

"These sort of guys, and I do know a lot of them, they are too accommodating. They think of it as being kind and generous but in a perverse way the woman sees it as being weak.

"They can make things so impossibly difficult the man is eventually pushed into leaving or having an affair, simply because he has a need for intimacy, like everyone else. Then she can turn round and say 'I am a victim. Give me sympathy' when in fact she has set this up deliberately."

Mary Cleary describes the book's subjects as "domestic terrorists" preying on the "good".

The behaviour of these self-serving harpies he says is damaging to other women, even if they are not their intended targets.

He sites the case of the girl who claimed she had been attacked by a cab driver simply because she wanted to get out of paying the fare.

"When you make false allegations or cry wolf you create an environment when others are disbelieved a little bit more."

This is another self-evident truth which the feminist movement goes out of its way to ignore. This has always mystified me: why feminists insist on endorsing and concealing destructive female behaviour even when doing so is going to make things worse for women generally. Child abuse and domestic violence perpetrated by females, and false allegations of rape are the best examples. The fact that the feminist movement condones such behaviour calls its entire credibility into doubt.

"I think women who are aggressive or bitchy haven't got any other options. They may have intellect but they are misusing it."

Roy believes while some of it may be the result of a natural volatile temperament, it could also be a continuation of the cycle of abuse they themselves had suffered as children.

"They had no ability to defend themselves and they learnt how to very effectively later in life, even in circumstances when they very genuinely don't have a reason to. But they don't realise that because they are constantly in a state of threat."

Even though the men being attacked might be physically stronger, they don't usually fight back - either it has been drummed into their nature not to hit a woman or they fear their partner could then accuse them of abuse and they could up losing access rights to their children in a split. The book very clearly indicates that in law, when it comes to divorce "the cards are stacked against the husband".

The fact that the book attempts to probe the psychology of abusers in an honest way is highly commendable, but it is not always the case that abusers were abused themselves. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it appears that the authors have not taken into account the existence of Anti-Social, Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorders - in other words, Psychopathy - which unquestionably account for a great deal of this behaviour.

Bizarrely, the title is so controversial that it cannot be used in the USA. Over there, it goes by the name of Venus: The Dark Side, and much of the book's website, and the review, are given over to a justification for using such a title.

"There is hardly any man (or woman) who has not suffered at the hands of the women we describe in this book, and hasn't at least muttered our title under their breath at some time. Therefore the title is highly appropriate.

Reasonable women do not have a problem with our book because they know it is NOT about them. And any woman who claims that it is offensive to ALL women is simply wrong. Or she recognises that it's about her and she wants to mislead or distract others away from her own malicious behavior."

The double standards become clear when you consider that the Guardian publishes, on the front page of its magazine section, openly hate-filled articles such as the recent one by Germaine Greer entitled "Do we really need men?" I couldn't find the original on-line, but there are plenty of references to it, such as this article by a female blogger who includes it in a discussion of 'trash' she has read recently. A mainstream national newspaper front-pages with an article entitled "Do we really need men?". This sounds like something straight out of Hitler's Germany. If we saw a German newspaper from the 1930s with a headline reading "Do we really need Jews?", we might be horrified, but we certainly wouldn't be surprised. If the Daily Mail said "Do we really need blacks?", there would be legal action in the courts, and rightly so. Deploy this same language against men, however, and it is perfectly acceptable. Of course Greer was swaggering to impress the girls, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable, and the fact that she would stoop so low to advance her careeer is utterly contemptible.

If you're in any further doubt, just go and look for some feminist quotes online. The message seems to be "I can criticise you, even up to the point of calling for your extermination, but you can't criticise me at all".

Someone writes a book entitled 'That Bitch', and it is too hot to handle. How absurd. Interestingly, Jackie Collins wrote a trashy chick-porn novel called 'The Bitch', and that was considered perfectly acceptable. There is also a feminist tract called 'Bitch', by Elizabeth Wurtzel. No-one seems to mind about that.

One wonders if it is the book's agenda, rather than its title, which is ruffling American feathers.

Add this book to your reading list. Arm yourself.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

IMBRA: Another Feminist Scam

Not enough attention has been given to a recent feminist scam in the US, called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA).

Carey Roberts described it in a recent article:

A little background: It’s no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband “to put one’s personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family.”

And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.

Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.

But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women’s marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!

So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation.

In an echo of Hitler's 1935 Racial Purity Law, which forbade sex between Germans and Jews, feminist TV host and columnist, Bonnie Erbe, is calling for a ban on American men taking foreign brides.

Realising that the term "racially inferior" can't be used these days, Erbe justifies her extreme views by labelling foreign brides as "less well educated" and poses the question "Do we really want another 40,000 plus people entering the United States per year?"


Unlike Bonnie Erbe, most feminists were not prepared to risk being labelled as Politically Incorrect by criticising immigration or immigrants, so instead they resorted to their favourite strategy of portraying women as victims:

It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of “mail-order brides,” casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as “marriage brokers,” conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.

On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script. (My emphasis)

During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, “there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers.” As proof of that “epidemic,” she highlighted the cases of three abused women.

But it turns out that Senator Cantwell’s supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale”
. Reference

Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.

Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion.

“The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report revealed [that] “less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry.” Reference

A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are “dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate.” Reference

And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. Reference

The bill's feminist proponents had it enacted through trickery.

It was sneakily appended to the uncontroversial Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 and passed by an undemocratic "voice vote" by the Senate on Friday, December 16 and the House on Saturday, December 17, when lawmakers were impatient to return home for the holidays. No hearings or witness testimony took place.

The poor boy (an expat living in Bangkok) has obviously been away too long if he thinks VAWA is uncontroversial.

IMBRA requires any man who wishes to go through an international dating company to submit to an extensive background check.

These are the disclosure requirements that even Ms Erbe describes as "horrifically burdensome."

  1. Every state of residence since the age of 18;
  2. Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;
  3. Information on children under 18;
  4. Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;
  5. Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders (which are notoriously easy to obtain);
  6. Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect";
  7. Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" (without specifying what "similar" means).

The one thing that both supporters and opponents of the IMBRA bill can agree on is that these rules weren't drawn up to regulate foreign dating sites. They are intended to drive them out of business.

The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.

Why not? Are American women not deserving of the same protection? It is not about that, because it is not about protecting women at all. IMBRA was designed as a barrier to marriage, but only for American men, and only for marriage to foreign women. American women's freedom to seek out more victims for divorce, alimony and child-support payments must not be hindered.

In order to create IMBRA, the feminist lobby deployed the myth of the ‘people-trafficked prostitute’, which is a modern manifestation of the myth of the White Slave Trade:

The campaign against 'trafficking in women' has gained increasing momentum world-wide, but in particular among feminists in Europe and the United States, in the last two decades. This current campaign is not the first time that the international community has become concerned with the fate of young women abroad. Modern concerns with prostitution and 'trafficking in women' have a historical precedent in the anti-white-slavery campaigns that occurred at the turn of the century. Feminist organisations played key roles in both past and present campaigns. While current concerns are focused on the exploitation of third world/non-western women by both non-western and western men, concerns then were with the abduction of European women for prostitution in South America, Africa or 'the Orient' by non-western men or other subalterns. Yet, though the geographical direction of the traffic has switched, much of the rhetoric accompanying the campaigns sounds almost completely the same. Then as now, the paradigmatic image is that of a young and naive innocent lured or deceived by evil traffickers into a life of sordid horror from which escape is nearly impossible.

The mythical nature of this paradigm of the 'white slave' has been demonstrated by historians. Similarly, recent research indicates that today's stereotypical 'trafficking victim' bears as little resemblance to women migrating for work in the sex industry as did her historical counterpart, the 'white slave'. The majority of 'trafficking victims' are aware that the jobs offered them are in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under.

Yet the US feminist lobby, in enacting IMBRA, has deployed this favourite cultural myth, not to combat prostitution, but to combat marriage. The facts show that marriages to foreign women are less likely to be abusive, and less likely to end in divorce.

IMBRA has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting women; it is another weapon in the feminist war against marriage. Some of them just oppose marriage in principle; others don’t like the foreign competition.

As I said elsewhere, the feminist movement can be regarded as a powerful trade organization, like a union. It attempts to set the price of access to women. It keeps trying to force the price ever-higher while women are expected to deliver less and less. That is why they object so strongly to any kind of commercial sex; it undercuts middle-class women. This is the reason behind all the anti-porn and anti-prostitution propaganda from the feminist movement. It is presented as being designed to protect women, but it is nothing to do with that.

When trade unions realise that their own jobs are being threatened by 'cheap foreign imports', they demand that the market is rigged in order to artificially protect them. The same thing is happening here. What feminists are engaging in is protectionism. It is about protecting Western middle-class women’s monopoly over the price of sex.

IMBRA is a major piece of legislation designed to enforce this protectionism. It is perfectly acceptable for American women to seek out foreign husbands; it is just American men who must be prevented.

When men seek foreign brides, it is abusive sex-trafficking in 'mail-order brides'; when women do it, they are innocently seeking love and marriage. What a con. Once again we see rank double standards at work, based on nothing more than selfishness, implemented by means of lies, distortion and moral panic. The usual feminist recipe.

Like most American women, Erbe dismisses a wife who acts in an openly kind or caring way towards her husband as a "submissive" doormat. No wonder the divorce rate is going through the roof. If these women get outsourced, they only have themselves to blame. Reference

As Usher argues, the implications go further than just marriage:

The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.