There is so much clear and convincing evidence that this is the effect of systematic efforts by feminists over the past decade or more, that I hardly know where to begin. It's clear that this is not just a rare example, or just a weird judge, or just an isolated injustice. It's the direct result of the lobbying and other efforts of feminism, through NOW and its many local chapters, through rape crisis centers and battered women centers, and many other forms of feminist activism. I think it's "burying our heads in the sand" to say otherwise. One of our members talks of "convenience feminism," or whatever term he uses. This area, to me, is a prime example. We often hear, "Of course there are a few weird feminists, and I don't agree with them. But it's unfair to blame the feminist influence for these rare examples of injustices."
Through the efforts of NOW and feminists, the federal government now spends well over a billion dollars a year under the Violence Against Women Act. This is not enough. NOW is vigorously campaigning to increase the funding for battered-women shelters by 33.3% in the bill it's promoting, VAWA II, or renewal and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act.
One element of this is what NOW calls "training for recalcitrant judges." They're not talking about neutral, professional training programs about the dynamics of the "dance of anger" that leads to domestic violence. The position is clear, that women are innocent victims and men the perpetrators. The training is offered by domestic violence centers and rape crisis centers, by staff that fully buy into this scenario and brook no opposition. So much so, that it's a Seattle Police Department policy that if there's any dispute or cross-allegations, it is the man who will be arrested. NOW has also called on local chapters to institute "court watch" programs, to attempt the removal of judges who disagree with their viewpoint. As Paul Goetz writes in "Monkey See, Monkey Do," published in M.E.N. Magazine a while back, he wasn't even able to file a complaint against a battering wife who'd sent him to the hospital, because the court was dominated by the Minneapolis domestic violence programs.
Judges are elected officials. They know full well the consequences of "bucking the trend."
What happens to people who have opposed this view that women are always the innocent victims and men the batterers? They're threatened with physical violence (e.g. Erin Pizzey, author of Prone to Violence, the book's publisher, and Suzanne Steinmetz, a researcher who found women about as likely to initiate violence, all of whom received bomb threats), slanderous attacks (as by the head of the Canadian commission on domestic violence, who was forced to apologize for repeated slandering of researcher Murray Straus as being abusive to his wife -- Straus also found women likely to initiate violence) or ruining of their professional reputation (as where feminists forced the university to pull researcher Gellis' access to the Internet to promulgate his research findings and promote further research).
18Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by Blademaster
. Which confirms my suspicions, companies would be seeking to employ more women because it is comparitively cheaper. Heck, when we start going fully-post-industrial, us men might permanently be jobless! 
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
Share this thread with friends: