Domestic violence- Stop smearing all men!

I am offended by the assumptions behind the White Ribbon Campaign and other such anti-domestic violence campaigns where it is implied that all men are guilty.

Browsing through a few articles on the issue I notice that almost all are accompanied by a graphic of a white male mistreating a white female. Like this for example-

Like so many other issues we face today, dreamed up by the media/ govt conglomerate I wrote on here, the truth is hidden under a thick layer of feel good fake altruism.

Here’s an example graph that tells you all you need to know on the DV issue. Its the truth the MSM and Govt will not dare address.

NSW DV chart



10 thoughts on “Domestic violence- Stop smearing all men!

    • One of the most contradictory things about the secular progressives is their willingness to embrace Islam and all of the repressive social ideas it brings with it.

      As you point out Carol, the things Islamists do to women, they way they regard them as a commodity and/or second class citizens, and also their hatred of homosexuality, all seem to get a pass from the liberals, who otherwise claim to hold these things as inviolate.

      Yet Christians refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s “wedding” ceremony and all hell breaks loose.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. DV, abuse .Males are the problem all the way until you dig down.
    Have been reading over the last year and find some of the stories very disturbing.
    The word abuse is used far too widely these days.
    I listened to two councellors discussing family violence and abuse and one said if a guy is so upset and says he may committ suicide that is mental abuse. There whole discussion was focused on male perpetrator female victim.
    The matrimonial property Act is stacked in favour of the female and if one starts fighting it can become a very big hole to extract oneself from.


  2. There’s a woman, Erin Pizzey who’s an absolute must-listen on the issue of domestic violence. She opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter decades ago, in England. She talks about the generational nature of family violence and how many times victims are also violent themselves, to children and their partner. She speaks from a lifetime of experience helping victims.

    She also talks of how she was treated by the Marxist Feminists back in the 1970s, who eventually drove her out of the country. These ‘anti-violence’ campaigners were actually giving her death threats, and the police were screening her mail to protect her. Her great sin against feminism was in being concerned with domestic violence regardless of who the victim was. She was actually helping whomever showed up for help.

    OTOH, the feminists were only interested in a sexist narrative where all victims are women or children and all abusers are men.

    I think girlwriteswhat (Youtube) quoted that there were about 160 (or 180?) in-depth studies of domestic violence now; and all show domestic violence is committed roughly equally between men and women. This accumulation of research on the issue has been quoted for years, but the Marxist men vs women narrative still holds sway.

    As such, it’s sobering to realise the Marxist Feminists must outnumber the real campaigners like Erin Pizzey. Do-gooders like David Cunliffe, who apologise for being a man thus associating themselves with men who abuse women*, only enable them.

    (* I’ll coin the term Brown Knight for them, because, in the course of pandering to women (“White Knighting”), they only get crap on themselves by their association with the actual guilty party, despite thinking themselves exonerated. Why sit in the gutter just to raise yourself out of it? Consciousness-raising nonsense.)


  3. A number of things. First of all, 33% divided by 20 = 1.67%. So even if 33% of women have had a violent relationship, if they’ve had 20 relationships, you can see that 33% sounds big, when the real statistic is much lower.

    2ndly follow the money. Just the way you use your money is domestic violence.

    And that’s because domestic violence is not a tort. A tort is the part of law that is independent of contract (according to my law dictionary). When you drive on the road, driving is contract. You use the roads, you pay, you have safety obligations, but you gain a privilege. Therefore a driving offense is not a tort, it is a contractual violation. When you kill, slander or steal, that is tort, as that is an act of lawlessness that is applicable in all situations. Contract is only applicable in certain situations, like using the roads. Also a tort, (according to my law dictionary) gets you trial by jury. Domestic violence family court has no juries just judges. And the judge is the one who supplies a remedy, at a cost.

    Therefore, as stated in sections 4 to 6,,d.dGY

    a marriage licence is a social contract, with the state as a party, that the person looking after the child is guaranteed income support. And public policy is the lawyer’s terms for social contract. So all that is happening is the lying Nats want to convince you they’re doing all they can about the DPB, but they’ve left a loophole called domestic violence, they’ve defined it as even the way you use your money, they’ve eliminated cross checks. So all she has to do is say he did this and that’s it.

    Now is their hope for us men, yes their is, how about avoiding malicious liars. Within a week I can tell how much of a malicious liar my date is, or how much of a prudent (Proverbs 19) or virtuous woman (Proverbs 31) she is. Let your yes be yes and your no be no is the key (Matthew 5). The context is right after that teacher said to avoid making oaths. And the only way you can avoid making oaths is to be totally reliable in everything that you say. Because, those who’ve done business with me, know if I’ve said I’ll do this, then it definitely will happen.

    So, if you’re with a woman who plays games with your head, manipulates the facts to get her way, the law protects her if you are in that social contract which says if the marriage partnership fails, you pay up. That’s all their is to it. Or you can be like my brother who moved to England before he had a child. Or you can set up a trust first, and have that go to your children when they are adults. Or you can simply just not bother buying a family home. Because a family home is for the family. Like that she can get the house (see property order)

    , unless of course you sell it, making the real estate agents and family lawyers rich.

    When you look at what this is all about, us men are being totally ripped off, and this whole white ribbon society is all to make it look like we deserve to pay. Oh a few things I forgot to mention, the child is a ward of the court, and the person looking after the child is the guardian. And I am pretty sure that part of the reason for this, is their are 7 billion of us, and their plan on saving the environment is less children, and that’s exactly what this does, this injustice only exists if you have children. The earth charter says to protect the environment, and says to protect women, but nothing about men. And Gorbachev is the brainchild, and the 3rd plank of the communist manifesto ‘abolish inheritances (from fathers)’

    But again I know how to win. If you don’t enter into that social contract, you are not bound to it. If you do enter into it, and your with a malicious liar, watch out. All of this I can prove with my law dictionaries. And that’s what stands up in court. No, I’m not making this up.


    • I hear on the news today that Amy Adams has announced a review of the property Act 1967? Some woman welcomed the review and said that there were trusts set up to get round issues and that needed to be addressed.
      I think that means that woman want no barriers to claim more than their fair share.


  4. Oh no, this is terrible. People set up trusts, to protect themselves. Now even that might be gone. Well here’ s the thing, they have records of anything that can generate income. If an investment gets interest or dividends, it is subject to income tax. And in the link about protection orders, when it had information about property orders (which they took off), said that we will look at the property records first to see if its on it. Their’s one piece of wealth and property, where their are no records to. Gold and silver. Its not subject to tax, so it is invisible.

    So again for me, this is just another way in which it makes more sense to put it in one asset that they can’t that easily touch, than to put it in anything else. Next thing they’ll be after is your kiwisaver. But it also goes to show, this is not about violence, this is just about more money, for malicious liars.


  5. And the reason the National Party is doing this, is it means the more the woman has, from what her husband has, the less DPB the state has to pay out.


Comments are closed.