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.
3 thoughts on “Domestic violence- feminists push deliberately divisive agenda”
Red, what they’re not telling you is in America, both parents are custodians. The father is legal custodian making day to day decisions, and the mother is the day to day custodian. But here in New Zealand the only custodian is the guardian who looks after the child on a day to day basis. A protection order is a guardian’s order, which can include a property order meaning they get the property. So therefore with one stroke of the pen, by defining guardian that way in the care of children’s act, a woman can come at a man with a golf club, and just holding her back is domestic violence. Any kind of holding someone back against their will is violence.
In fact if the father says you’ve been a naughty girl no trip to Hawaii, that is domestic violence, unless we stop this bill from becoming law. See section 3.
What’s more in Holland in the case of child abuse, both parents lose the child, which is better than the man losing from just one malicious lie. I also have pamphlets on domestic violence, protection orders etc, and it says to get legal aid you must have a solid chance of winning. And if your case involves you as looking after the children, you will get it automatically. As far as I’m concerned all it is, is National promised they’d deal with the DPB, went back on their word by saying we make an exception for violence, and now the way you use your money is violence, and so if the woman wants to leave you are violent, and you deserve to lose your wealth.
Now here’s the trick, if instead of investing in bricks and mortar people invest in silver. Suppose your rent is $500 a week, and to buy the bricks and mortar means a mortgage of $800 a week. That extra $300 a week is investing in bricks and mortar. If people were to put that extra into silver, you would get exactly the same result, except that in the case of a split, you just give half of your silver and its done. Whereas if you own a house the real estate agent, the banker, and the lawyer all make money out of you selling the house and not knowing what its exact worth is, and you arguing over the silliest things.
Feminists gain more power–and funding–by demonising men as a class. To them, men are collectively perpetrators; women are collectively victims. IOW, they’re Marxists. When you can get away with demonising one half of humanity you can get away with anything, as Erin Pizzey (legitimate domestic violence campaigner) has said.
The result is a failure to tackle the issue objectively. Anyone who dissents is accused of being against women, and for abusers (that Marxist dialectic!). Rational discussion is rendered impossible.
It also results in quotes like this: “I’m sorry for being a man.”–David Cunliffe
Please look up Erin Pizzey. She has been involved in the domestic violence issue from the get-go, when she started the first ever women’s shelter, in England. She’s witnessed the hijacking of a legitimate social issue for political and financial reasons as closely as could be (absent her being a Marxist turncoat perhaps…) Her story is really an eye opener.
This is her just recently interviewed by Stefan Molyneux. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lxoStFBrjo
Comments are closed.