I didn’t want to write about this issue really, but there’s very little going on elsewhere and I’m having a Twitter conversation at the moment with one of those feminists who have so viciously attacked Australian columnist Miranda Divine for the crime of expressing an unapproved opinion.
Firstly, there’s the issue of Chris Brown, some no account “star” of the kind I have to struggle to take an interest in on any level. I’m not going to argue the point on whether he should enter NZ, (or Australia) and to me there’s only one real issue here. That is that if there are regulations used to bar Brown from entering, then those regulations are used fairly and consistently.
I do not agree with an extra-ordinary application of the regulations merely to make a political point. If Brown is barred, then so should every like incomer be barred, no matter if they’re black white brindle female or male.
My second issue is the blurred definitions being used in the overall discussion. My understanding of Domestic Violence is a husband who is mostly pretty ordinary, but who comes home drunk occasionally or frequently and beats his wife because she doesn’t have his dinner on the table, or any such similar in house in family situation.
When women involve themselves with drug pushers, motorcycle gang members, assorted violent criminals, known alcoholics, and other such losers, then find themselves suffering some kind of assault in these relationships, does it really meet the definition of Domestic Violence?
Also, does violence in casual relationships, frequently referred to as “hookups”, meet the definition of DV? I don’t think so.
Yet the intent of the feminists seem to be to smear all men by means of the actions of a sector of society made up of social rejects and losers that women should have the good sense to steer clear of.
Most men are good men who have enough on their plate looking after their own families without having the responsibilities of women who make bad relationship choices thrust upon them as well.
The real problem behind all of this is an excess of tolerance in the law enforcement sector. There are just too many violent criminals out on the streets. If those men who commonly perpetrate violence are locked up, they can’t bash those women silly enough to get involved with them.
Lastly, there’s the assumption that domestic violence is solely down to males. This is more divisive feminist BS that is easily disproved by stats that show women are just as capable of initiating violence in the home as men.
Finally, there is the back story to this. Feminism is really just the same old same old Marxist strategy. Introduced into impressionable young minds by Marxist academics it just another tool to divide our society, make it weak and incohesive and easy prey to the Marxist political paradigm that looms over us with increasing intensity every day.
It sits alongside a cluster of like issues, all false, all generated from the same sources, all introduced into mainstream discussion by the same paths, and all designed to divide. Racism is about the most prominent example of an offshoot of the same cause. So frequently falsely alleged as a means to divide and or shut down opposing argument. Readers know there is a score of other such issues.
Progressive political ideas are at the root of all of this. Once there were such people as Ladies and Gentlemen. Apparently this was a bad idea as it was steadily eroded by “new and improved” progressive ideas. The uncivil society we see today is the outcome of this mistake.