Saturday, January 26, 2008

The Oxford Street Test

I was recently in the pub talking with a female colleague. She's a decent enough human being despite believing all the feminist clap-trap. For some reason we got on to the subject of domestic violence (DV). I mentioned Women's Aid's claim that one in four women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime. Reference.

"Look at it this way", I said. "London is one of the major world cities. It has a population of around five million, and it attracts thousands of tourists all year round. It's a fantastic shopping destination. If you go to Oxford Street on a sunny Saturday afternoon, you can hardly walk because of the crowds."

"Yeah, so what?"

"Well, if what the feminists are saying about DV is true, the evidence should be plain to see. You should be able to stand in the middle of Oxford Street on a Saturday and look at the crowds. Half of those people are women, and one in four of them is being battered on a daily basis. So my question is, where are they? I would expect to see women all around me with black eyes and broken teeth and bruises. And yet I can't see any at all. How can you explain that?"

"That's because they only hit them where it doesn't leave any marks!"

"What?"

That really is pathetic.

So these violent men who hate women, which is apparently all of us, are not only primitive thugs who lash out unexpectedly in fits of uncontrollable rage, but they are also highly-trained ninjas? CIA-trained torturers? Well versed in human anatomy and physiology? Experts in inflicting pain without leaving any evidence? Don't be stupid.

That kind of ad hoc theorising is one of the characteristic hallmarks of ideology. Explaining away objections by clutching at the nearest straw. Completely irrational. Yet feminists such as her are in charge of formulating social policy on this issue. As a society, what on earth have we let ourselves in for?

If she'd been smarter and more honest, she could have picked me up on a technical point. One in four will be battered at some point in their lives, not necessarily today. So we wouldn't expect to see 25% of the female pedestrians with visible injuries. OK, fine. But if she'd been smarter and more honest, she wouldn't be a feminist.

But at any given time, some of them must be getting battered, even if it is only 5% of them. Yet, I can't see even one. Doesn't that surprise you? It should.

Do they all hide away when they have visible injuries? What, all of them? Every last one? Surely there must be just one household somewhere where the monster says "Get down to the shop and get me some more beer, bitch!", and throws her out on the street.

If one in four women are battered in their own homes, you would expect to see some evidence of it. If you work with eight girls in an office, two of them are being battered, or have been, or will be. Yet, where is the evidence? There just isn't any.

I'm not saying that DV never happens. It does. In fact, I've been on the receiving end of it myself. (What? You're a man! Impossible! You must have imagined it!)

The scale of the problem has been grossly exaggerated, and the facts grossly distorted by the feminist movement.

So why do they tell so many lies about it?

Power.

Feminists have set themselves up as the sole authority on the subject of domestic violence. The larger the scale of the problem, the more authority they can claim. Thus, they have an incentive to exaggerate the prevalence of DV.

If they tell the truth about the statistics, it will be obvious to everyone that DV is not something that men do to women; if anything, women are more likely than men to initiate violence. If that happens, then DV will not be seen as a purely feminist issue; we will start to ask, quite reasonably, what does this social problem have to do with feminists? The answer is: nothing much. In fact feminist involvement makes the problem worse instead of better. By concealing and condoning violence perpetrated by females, they are giving women incentives to be violent, safe in the knowledge that they will get away with it.

Our current understanding of DV is informed by Marxist thinking. Violence by the oppressor class against the oppressed class is condemned, as it reinforces the oppressive system, but violence by the oppressed class against the oppressor class is justified as revolutionary action. So it is perfectly OK for you to batter me, but not for me to batter you. This is the twisted logic of class war, flatly contradicting every notion of justice and equality.

In this day and age, Marxism has no place in the formation of social policy. The twentieth century showed that Marxism was debunked in theory and failed in practise. It was tried, and led only to tyranny and disaster.

Feminism is the last surviving bastion of 1970s Socialist thinking. We need to purge the last remnanats of Marxism from public policy, and to do that, we need to purge feminism from the DV and child protection sectors. Until we do that, there will never be justice.

12 comments:

BrusselsLout said...

This is the "bouncing point". You can never catch it. It mutates and changes its shape and form whenever you get near it. It skips, dodges and slips away.

Do feminists and the media mean that DV (perpetrated by men, of course of course) is on-going? Or is all the fuss about a one-off fight that occurred 20 years ago?

If it's the former, then yes, one woman in four in Oxford Street, Fifth Avenue and Boulevard Saint-Germaine would have a black eye. (Good observation, that.)

But they don't.

Ah, but that's not the point! It's only once in a life-time that one in four receive one!

Then what's all the fuss over male-perpetrated DV, one might be tempted to ask?

Well, the answer is. If you think there's no fuss, then you are condoning violence against women.

I will add here that I am well aware that women attack their partners far more often than in the popular myth the other way round. DV is nothing more than media sensation and vote-spinning politics.

Davout said...

xxbycbzGiven that women are slightly more likely to initiate DV, it should follow that a minimum of 1 in 4 MEN on Oxford street are affected by DV throughout their lifetimes.

The major relevant factor in DV is who initiated the violence. What happens subsequently is of lesser importance. Why? If one seeks to reduce DV, one must nip it in the bud, not apply a band aid to cover it up (unless of course one wants to have a recurring problem so that funding to study it is always there).

If you can boil the feminists' success in DV down to a single point, it has been in shifting the focus away from who started the fight to who ends up worser off as a result of DV.

piezochris said...

Domestic violence is like racism: the crypto-Marxists pretend that it's carried out only by one side (men, whites) against another (women, ethnic minorities). In both cases, the demonization of one side encourages the other side to feel that it can do what it likes by way of correcting a supposed injustice. Women feel justified in lying, cheating and committing violence of their own; ethnic minorities feel justified in criminal behaviour and violence against whites.

He said...

"There are three types of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

Miss Ondrya said...

There you go again, you see, taking the words out of my mouth. I don't know why I even bother to form my own thoughts anymore. I can save myself the trouble and just read the blog.

John Dias said...

Quote:
"Well, if what the feminists are saying about DV is true, the evidence should be plain to see. You should be able to stand in the middle of Oxford Street on a Saturday and look at the crowds. Half of those people are women, and one in four of them is being battered on a daily basis. So my question is, where are they? I would expect to see women all around me with black eyes and broken teeth and bruises. And yet I can't see any at all. How can you explain that?"

The common assumption is that "battery" is the same thing as "wife beating." But it turns out that the word "battery" does not necessarily refer to physical aggression. The word has the connotation of physical beating, but it can include threats, screaming, a raised voice, a scowl, a slammed door -- and in some jurisdictions, even a claim of one's own innocence!

You were correct in pointing out that there is a Marxist influence on all of this. But the Marxist influence is in the redefinition of language itself. A word with a previously solid and distinct meaning can be mangled until it has more than one meaning. "Beating" becomes both "beating" and "battery," but battery has multiple meanings. It is the effort to constantly redefine or dumb-down the language that allows the perception of objective reality to be increasingly difficult.

daveinga said...

the feminists have played the same game w/ the word rape. i thot i knew what it meant. but todays definitions include he didn't stop when i said to, he didn't call me back, i had a drink, or she just didn't like it, or whatever she decides, whenever she decides. i even had a rehab counselor tell me it was lying to a woman to get sex. and again, like DV by women, no penalties for false accusations.

Anonymous said...

domestic violence is not always physical violence.

Danny said...

piezochris hit it right on the head. While it is a fact that men do commit DV against women it has sudden become okay (and even encouraged) for women to commit DV against men simply because they can play the gender card and get away with it.

Isn't it odd that women claim to be equal to men but will then claim that there is no way a woman can beat a man up?

Anonymous said...

There is one additional facet to this: encouraging women to display violence against men increases men's violence against women, even in self-defense, therefore making the lie true. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

Taking it one step further, if men don not react to female's violence by more violence, women will be encouraged to become even more vilent on the excuse that if men do not defend themselves, it is proof that they feel guilty and must be punished.

The DV industry generates tons of money: probably as much as the divorce industry. Money is the basic reason for so-called DV.

Anonymous said...

This is probably an oversight, but do you know that in any city, 10 women out of 10 will die during the course of their lifetime?

And now, what are we going to do abaout that? Eh?

Davout said...

Nope its 9.99999999 out of 10. Remember the Virgin Mary ;-). Jesus died and then rose so that should confuse the number counting on the male side a bit.