On the last Tyranny of Tolerance post, I wrote that:
The author of Tyranny of Tolerance informs us that:
“Relying on “scientific” data—really extrapolations of statistical extrapolations grossly exaggerating the incidence of spousal abuse (indeed, the data clearly show that spousal abuse is trivial in comparison to abuse by unmarried cohabitants) (Tyranny of Tolerance, p. 59)…”
Once again, "Domestic Violence" is the battle cry of the Leftists.
As seasoned MRAs know, not only do women commit intimate partner violence on par with men; women far and away beat and kill their children.
Next time, we dig deeper into the Death of Men's Rights.
As promised, we are going to take a closer look at the bloodshed that women cause.
(Serious students of the subject can look at the Enlighted CounterFem's blog here. )
As noted by my anonymous friend:
Since the Matriarchy has come to power in the United States (i.e. Roe v. Wade in 1973), over 48 MILLION unborn children have been snuffed out.
According to Guttmacher.org:
Approximately 46 million abortions were performed worldwide in 1995 (Table 1). Of these, about 26 million were legal and 20 million illegal.‡
The abortion rate worldwide was about 35 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages and stillbirths), 26% were terminated by abortion
That, ladies and gents, is infanticide on a massively evil scale.
In comparison, the number of people killed in World War II numbered about 62 million souls.
Feminists justify their agenda by claiming that their policies protect women.
Let's do the math!
According to the Howard Hughes Medical Center, the probabilty of a girl child being born is about 50 percent.
If we take Guttmacher Institute figures for the number of babies killed in the United States for the year 2000:
and calculate the number of possible female children:
We had, in 2000, 656495 children aborted that would have grown up to be women.
And now, let's compare this figure to the number of females killed by homicide in the same year:
656495 aborted females - 1407 female homicide victims (281,421,906/100,000)*.5)in the year 2000 = net female babies aborted 655088.
Or, the number of aborted females outnumbers the number of female homicide victims in the year 2000 (656495/1407) by a whopping 466.5 times!!
So who is the biggest killer? Feminists, or your average Joe Sixpack guy on the street??
Hint: It's not us!
Women are the biggest killers of babies, hands down.
Moving on to women and child abuse stats:
Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.2More supporting evidence via our Canadian cousins:
… Despite 100 years of hard evidence on the well-known role of women and mothers in severe and lethal child abuse, many maintain a state of disbelief and denial. This disbelief must be suspended as evidence on feminine aggression enters our consciousness.
(Medea, killing her children by Jason the Argonaut)
The Greek tragedy dramatist, Euripides, in 431 B.C. wrote "Medea," a play about Medea and Jason, and Medea's murder of their two sons. Medea, the Greek enchantress, had helped Jason obtain the Golden Fleece. When Jason deserted her for another woman, Medea, in revenge, planned and performed the murder of their two sons.Hmm... looks like mothers are doing a bang up job!
Let no man think I am a feeble, frail-hearted woman who sits with folded hands: no, let them know me for the opposite of that - one who knows how to hurt her enemies ...
Medea mused that the cruelest way to hurt her husband Jason was to kill their children. In pledging her maid to silence about this deed, Medea revealed the essence of today's problem of detecting and addressing child abuse and neglect, saying:
Say nothing of the plans I have prepared; don't say a word, if you are loyal to your mistress and loyal to the race of woman!
Euripides articulated the modern problem of loyalty to the race of woman and its attendant silence on feminine aggression, particularly mothers' aggression towards their children. This terrible silence is murderous.
Honourable senators, abuse and neglect in the death of children is historical. In a work published in 1972 entitled Checks on Population Growth: 1750-1850, William Langer, professor emeritus of history at Harvard University, wrote on the widespread use of infant homicide as population control.
One popular method of killing children was the use of Godfrey's Cordial, a poisonous mixture of opium, treacle and sassafras. Another was overlaying; that is, smothering the child as it nursed at its mother's breast. The perpetrators in most cases of child killing never reached the courts, and those who did, Langer informs, "...were usually let off with a light sentence; ..." Langer writes that a London coroner, Edwin Lankester, testified in the 1800s that he:
... had never known of a woman's being punished for killing her baby, no matter how flagrant the circumstances.
Langer also quotes Dr. William Ryan in 1862:
... that infanticide is not looked upon in the same light as other murders by the public generally... There is no crime that meets with so much sympathy, often of the most ill-judged kind…
… Honourable senators, in 1994, the Toronto Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse released a study entitled "The Ontario Incidence of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect." This study reviewed the 1993 child maltreatment investigations, 46,683 total, by all 54 Children's Aid Societies of Ontario. Child maltreatment is defined by this study as any one of physical abuse, sexual abuse, child neglect, or child emotional maltreatment.
The findings were as follows:
Of the total substantiated cases of child maltreatment, mothers were perpetrators in 49 per cent and fathers in 31 per cent of the cases. In the category of child neglect, mothers were perpetrators in 85 per cent of the substantiated cases. In the category of child physical abuse, biological mothers were perpetrators in 39 per cent of the substantiated cases, and biological fathers in 40 per cent of the cases. In the category of emotional maltreatment, mothers were perpetrators in 79 per cent.
This study found that:
Boys were most strongly over-represented in the area of physical abuse, especially in the 0- to 3-year-old category where boys accounted for 59 percent of investigations.
Male children aged 4 to 11 years accounted for 55.5 per cent. The single largest number of investigated families, 35 per cent, was the single-mother family.
Honourable senators, child mortality is terrifying. The survival of male children has received little attention in recent times. Let us review the state of survival of male children. I just mentioned that 59 per cent of the investigations of child abuse are male children aged 0 to 3 years old. Male children are the recipients of most physical abuse from parents and mothers.
Dr. Eleanor Maccoby, in her book Social Development: Psychological Growth and the Parent-Child Relationship, writes that this is so even in lower primates, such as monkeys.
We should be aware, however, that even among monkey mothers, a certain amount of differential socialization takes place. For example, they administer more punishment to male than female young, just as human parents do…
Just in case you just can't believe what you just read... one more source for your reading pleasure.
From the extremely informative Fathers for Life website:
American government agencies report numbers that are more objective, not as subjective as those Jeff White selected. In the US in 1999, 70.3 percent of perpetrators of child abuse were female parents acting alone or with others. Out of an estimated 826,000 victims of child maltreatment, nation-wide, 1,100 were fatalities. Their perpetrators break down as follows:
PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIP 
31.5% Female Parent Only
10.7% Male Parent Only *
21.3% Both Parents *
16.3% Female Parent and Other
1.1% Male Parent and Other *
4.5% Family Relative
6.1% Substitute Care Provider(s)
* "Male parent" in that context most likely is just about anything but a biological father.
That means that, acting alone or with others, female parents were responsible in 69.1 percent, and male parents in 33.1 percent of cases of fatal child maltreatment.
It should be beyond doubt that women are far more dangerous to their children than men are.
Or should I say, can be. I want to stress that children need their mothers, just as they need their fathers.
According to the Supreme Court's line of reasoning however, because women are clearly a potential threat to their children, and the government has clear information that would cause it to reasonably fear for the lives of said children...
... THEN MOTHERS SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS.
Impossible you say?
The Cultural Marxist end game is the "liberation" of all children from their parents.
The end game is to transfer all children into the hands of the State.
More about this when we discuss Plato's The Republic.
For right now, let’s move to intimate partner violence between adults.
This link gives close to 200 studies that confirm that women abuse just as much as men do.
The magnificent Media Radar.Org provides more articles and proofs that women are violent on par with men in their relationships.
DV Stats.com provides searchable Domestic Violence data that proves beyond doubt that women beat, batter, and abuse just like the guys do.
It's an Equal Opportunity society that we live in, after all.
Let’s go back to Planned Parenthood decision. This is what the Court says with respect to Domestic Violence:
Section 3209 of Pennsylvania's abortion law provides, except in cases of medical emergency, that no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman without receiving a signed statement from the woman that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The woman has the option of providing an alternative signed statement certifying that her husband is not the man who impregnated her; that her husband could not be located; that the pregnancy is the result of spousal sexual assault which she has reported; or that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her. A physician who performs an abortion on [505 U.S. 833, 888] a married woman without receiving the appropriate signed statement will have his or her license revoked, and is liable to the husband for damages.
The District Court heard the testimony of numerous expert witnesses, and made detailed findings of fact regarding the effect of this statute. These included:Gentlemen...
"273. The vast majority of women consult their husbands prior to deciding to terminate their pregnancy. . . .
. . . . .
"279. The "bodily injury" exception could not be invoked by a married woman whose husband, if notified, would, in her reasonable belief, threaten to (a) publicize her intent to have an abortion to family, friends or acquaintances; (b) retaliate against her in future child custody or divorce proceedings; (c) inflict psychological intimidation or emotional harm upon her, her children or other persons; (d) inflict bodily harm on other persons such as children, family members or other loved ones; or (e) use his control over finances to deprive of necessary monies for herself or her children. . . .
".... 281. Studies reveal that family violence occurs in two million families in the United States. This figure, however, is a conservative one that substantially understates (because battering is usually not reported until it reaches life-threatening proportions) the actual number of families affected by domestic violence. In fact, researchers estimate that one of every two women will be battered at some time in their life. . . .
"282. A wife may not elect to notify her husband of her intention to have an abortion for a variety of reasons, including the husband's illness, concern about her own health, the imminent failure of the marriage, or the husband's absolute opposition to the abortion. . . .
"283. The required filing of the spousal consent form would require plaintiff-clinics to change their counseling [505 U.S. 833, 889] procedures and force women to reveal their most intimate decisionmaking on pain of criminal sanctions. The confidentiality of these revelations could not be guaranteed, since the woman's records are not immune from subpoena. . . .
"284. Women of all class levels, educational backgrounds, and racial, ethnic and religious groups are battered. . . .
"285. Wife-battering or abuse can take on many physical and psychological forms. The nature and scope of the battering can cover a broad range of actions, and be gruesome and torturous. . . .
"286. Married women, victims of battering, have been killed in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. . . .
"287. Battering can often involve a substantial amount of sexual abuse, including marital rape and sexual mutilation. . . .
"288. In a domestic abuse situation, it is common for the battering husband to also abuse the children in an attempt to coerce the wife. . . .
"289. Mere notification of pregnancy is frequently a flashpoint for battering and violence within the family. The number of battering incidents is high during the pregnancy, and often the worst abuse can be associated with pregnancy. . . . The battering husband may deny parentage and use the pregnancy as an excuse for abuse. . . .
"290. Secrecy typically shrouds abusive families. Family members are instructed not to tell anyone, especially police or doctors, about the abuse and violence. Battering husbands often threaten their wives or her children with further abuse if she tells an outsider of the violence, and tells her that nobody will believe her. A battered woman, therefore, is highly unlikely to disclose [505 U.S. 833, 890] the violence against her for fear of retaliation by the abuser. . . .
"291. Even when confronted directly by medical personnel or other helping professionals, battered women often will not admit to the battering, because they have not admitted to themselves that they are battered. . . .
. . . . .
"294. A woman in a shelter or a safe house unknown to her husband is not "reasonably likely" to have bodily harm inflicted upon her by her batterer; however, her attempt to notify her husband pursuant to section 3209 could accidentally disclose her whereabouts to her husband. Her fear of future ramifications would be realistic under the circumstances.
"295. Marital rape is rarely discussed with others or reported to law enforcement authorities, and of those reported, only few are prosecuted. . . .
"296. It is common for battered women to have sexual intercourse with their husbands to avoid being battered. While this type of coercive sexual activity would be spousal sexual assault as defined by the Act, many women may not consider it to be so, and others would fear disbelief. . . .
"297. The marital rape exception to section 3209 cannot be claimed by women who are victims of coercive sexual behavior other than penetration. The 90-day reporting requirement of the spousal sexual assault statute, 18 Pa.Con.Stat.Ann. 3218(c), further narrows the class of sexually abused wives who can claim the exception, since many of these women may be psychologically unable to discuss or report the rape for several years after the incident. . . .
"298. Because of the nature of the battering relationship, battered women are unlikely to avail themselves of the exceptions to section 3209 of the Act, regardless of [505 U.S. 833, 891] whether the section applies to them. 744 F.Supp., at 1360-1362 (footnote omitted)…”
If you were to examine the decision and look for any Court cited references about women abusing their children, battering their intimate partners, or committing infanticide on a wide scale, you won't find it.
YOUR SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has banished Men from the family forever and ever. You have been relieved of your duties, because, you are a potential batterer.
Feminist friendly studies have been known to be flawed.
They have made up their mind.
The truth is the last thing our lovely Supreme Court wants to hear.
This decision is nothing but a PRETEXT to advance the Cultural Marxist agenda.
But just wait!
It gets worse.
We'll cover that... next time.