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.