California Court Finds Clue

October 15, 2008 at 4:17 pm 3 comments

Any person familiar with the facts of domestic violence realizes that men and women are equally likely to be victims, as a 2007 study conducted by the Harvard Medical School reported. In fact, in 70% of cases of unilateral violence, women are the aggressors. Another peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Public Health confirms this.

Overall, 24% of heterosexual relationships report some degree of violence. Within that group, 50% of all domestic violence is reciprocal; and in cases of reciprocal violence, the woman is usually the first to strike, and the man is more likely to be physically injured. In cases of unilateral violence, 70% are initiated by women, and 30% by men; though, due to men’s greater physical strength, women sustain 6% more injuries.

The point here is that study after study confirms that domestic violence isn’t a one-way street — it is “equal opportunity” for both sexes, with women being more likely than men to be the initiators of violence. This is a simple fact. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, back at the special-interest ranch, Radical Feminists — whose technique for social deconstruction depends upon inculcating victim-mentality in women while providing female supremacist rights to women over men — have spent decades procuring special (rather than equal) rights for women with regard to domestic violence.

No place is this more evident than in so-called “battered women’s shelters,” from which men of any sort, even men who are victims rather than perpetrators of violence, are categorically excluded.

In fact, such shelters are so incredibly hostile to members of the male sex that, when a woman with children flees to a shelter, she is allowed to keep her female children with her while male children must be placed in foster care.

The legislation that enables and funds these centers, in many cases, is sex-specific with men being categorically denied help or facilities of any sort.

Today, after decades of injustice, California’s Third District Court of Appeals ruled, in Woods v. Shewry, that ” … The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.”
The lawyer who won this case, Marc Angelluci stated: “We’ve been through the daisy wheel of judicial activism on this issue. Now the courts have finally addressed the injustice, but the struggle is not over. Many taxpayer-funded programs, especially in Los Angeles, still deny men services such as counseling, advocacy, shelter or hotel vouchers, which is endangering their children.”

While Attorney Angelluci has made a dent in the system for Californians; grave injustices of this sort are extremely common all across the country.

According to self-identified Individualist Feminist Wendy McElroy, the incredible legal bias against men in this country is leading to a very large unstated strike by men against marriage and reproduction.

Some black folks are fond of the saying “no justice, no peace; know justice, know peace.” It really says a lot. It turns out that the massive infrastructure that has been set up against men in this country has a similar, and even more sinister effect; and it could be spelled out like this: “no justice, no babies.”

This is much more sinister than the implied threat of violence in the popular African American slogan; because there is a certain apocalyptic quality to the fact that “no babies = no future.”

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Gender fairness. Tags: , , , .

Abolish the Federal Reserve!

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. steveintheswamps  |  October 17, 2008 at 8:31 am

    Very interesting article! I agree with supporting father rights out of principle and best interest for our people.

    As evidenced above, the female version of misogyny in official policy, is detrimental. Easy and nasty divorce breaks up families, thereby permanently ruining the lives of children. It also discourages men from marrying, and even married men from procreating with their own wives. Easy divorce has limited our already low birthrate.

    There is also some irony. The marriage experts tell us to marry later, to have a more stable marriage. And now, White people are getting married later; but our divorce rate is increasing rapidly, to about 50%.

    It’s my hypothesis that waiting longer helps procure a stable marriage, in and of itself. However, the better approach, is to make society less sexually open and more basic (whereby women don’t have to compete with men). We also need to make it harder to divorce, and make it a level playing field; also lessen the incentives for divorce. I don’t think it’s fair for a woman to take advantage of the divorce courts, to cheat a man out of his hard-earned assets and even his children.

    With the proper preparation, the benefits of earlier marriage (around 20 or early 20’s), would outweigh the theoretically increased risk of divorce.

    Reply
    • 2. Andrew  |  September 17, 2010 at 2:43 am

      In the absence of harm to uninvolved others, the state has no moral or spiritual authority to infringe an individual’s right to associate with whomever he or she chooses for any reason, or to disassociate from whomever one chooses for any reason. Marriage is a voluntary covenant between two free and sovereign individuals – or more than two in certain cultures, including our own, during certain historic or prehistoric times. Why involve the state as a superior party to this contract? Moreover, why allow the state to dictate the terms of its dissolution? Marriage and divorce are not the business of any agency of coercion, especially modern socialist autocratic governments. Furthermore, taxes extracted from the citizenry should not be used to fund shelters, counseling, or any other kind of domestic violence services for either women or men. Such functions are more properly the province of non-coercive authorities such as the extended family, church, or mutually respected elders of the clan. My 2 bits.

      Reply
  • 3. wordsworthwhile  |  October 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    Thank you for highlighting an area that needs much proper attention and thought.

    The reports specified ages 18-28.
    Violence among other age groups unreported.
    Race unspecified.
    Occupation, education, and income unspecified.
    Urban, suburban, and rural settings unspecified.

    Would be interesting to know the statistics according to more of these groupings.

    The studies also neglected to report the non-physical violations which permeate the milieu of those who resort to physical violation.

    A great deal was not reported. Nevertheless, the subject has been broached.

    The massive campaign against men can end.

    It requires men and women, to be noble-minded, virtuous, and honorable. Men and women need protection, care, love, and nurturing from each other.

    We must all learn to “rend our hearts, and not our garments”. How can we stand before God when we can’t stand with each other? We must do both.

    Thank you for another very useful article.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

October 2008
M T W T F S S
    Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Recent Posts


%d bloggers like this: