Against Flood III

Greetings!

Today we continue with our examination of Mr. Michael Flood's extremely flawed and misleading essay, that holds that domestic violence is part and parcel of Patriarchy and Male domination. For those who are joining us for the first time, please make sure you read parts I and II.

Picking up where we left off:

Marriage is the safest and best living arrangement for men, women, and children, and studies prove that the rate of violence inside marriage is much lower than intimate violence in other types of relationships (See Against Flood II).

Common sense tells us this is so because for married couples, the members usually feel some sort of affection for one another. And besides, there is a steady weight of social responsibility and expectations associated with marriage that tends to moderate against overtly unruly behavior on the part of the spouses. Furthermore, the individuals inside the marriage itself, man, woman, and child, tend to keep one another in check, preventing abusive behavior.

Furthermore, in many societies, the married parties come to the table with clearcut roles, duties, and privileges, and these too serve to minimize conflict. This is why I advise you, gentle reader, to make sure that you thoroughly negotiate all aspects of your relationship (not marriage, as it is truly a death trap) beforehand.

For example, the Japanese husband is the official leader and head of his household. However, the Japanese wife holds considerable power at home, and also maintains the power of the purse. This is the cultural pattern, refined over centuries. While a few Japanese are more "Western" in their outlook, the vast majority of Japanese marriages conform to this pattern. Therefore, there is no need for discussion or conflict in most cases, as the husband and wife have clearly established roles. Every player knows their part to perfection. In most societies, marriage roles and duties evolved over very long periods of time, as our distant ancestors struggled for day to day survival. Thusly, "traditional" marriage patterns should not be dismissed lightly, as Men neither "live nor die in vain."

And clearly, our so called experts (more affectionately known as Smart Dumb Niggas around my way) have utterly failed to improve upon the progress made by our ancestors. If our feminist researchers and our sociologists had all the answers, Western Civilization wouldn't be teetering on the brink of cultural suicide [1][2], now would it?

In addition, although to discuss such things is quite taboo today, in some cultures, and even in this country, married couples (and others) have a system of rules in force, and in enforcing those rules, they sometimes resort to corporal punishment [a][b][c][d].

But Kumo, you cry, isn't this the same form of "violence" that feminists claim marriage is all about?

Yes and no.

In the Western context, such as in Domestic Discipline (DD) and BDSM, the parties negotiate beforehand and agree to use corporal punishment for the purpose of punishing offenses against the relationship. It should be noted that both men and women can play the Master or Mistress roles (although the concept of Male Headship is more predominate in DD), and great care is taken to avoid injury during the administration of said punishment. Those who are involved with these kind of relationships are quick to define what is or isn't abuse [e][f], and surprisingly, among people who move in these circles, women are actively involved in all levels [g][h]. In my readings on this subject, it seems that Men are more hesitant about participating in this lifestyle, due to ethical, moral, and legal reasons.

It should be noted, as our friends at Feministing show us, that the concept of institutionalized "beating" inspires mixed feelings.

In the Islamic context, this seems to be based on a more "traditional" concept. Clerics who speak about punishing the wife are quick to point out that it is an option of last resort, and that injury to the wife is to be avoided. This idea is similar to the traditional Western idea, that moderate punishment to preserve the stability of the marriage was tactfully acceptable, but bullying, cruelty, and serious injury were definitely not [i][j].

While this entire subject is very uncomfortable for some, the fact remains that small numbers of men and women do utilize corporal punishment to resolve internal disputes, and that some people seek out this sort of relationship, but end up in violent, detrimental, potentially life-threatening relationships instead, most likely because of societal norms that force the more "experienced" BDSM and DD players underground.

What grown, CONSENTING adults do in the privacy of their own homes is not my concern. Note that I said CONSENT. I do not believe that a man should take it upon himself to beat up his wife, just as I don't think a woman has the right to attack a man with impunity. However, if legal adults agree to engage in Domestic Discipline or BDSM, then that is their right and their business. I know people for whom such alternative lifestyles work out quite swimmingly, and they swear by the benefits of institutionalizing and regulating what is probably a deep seated need for order and stability, and yes, dominance and submission.

In my view, femininity and manliness are not fixed; but they are on a sliding scale. Some men will be more take charge, just as some women will wear the pants in their house, and all the laws in the world cannot and will not change innate human desires. And while the vast majority of people wouldn't dream of entering into formalized arrangements such as DD and BDSM, some people will choose to express themselves in this manner. So long as all parties have full disclosure, and no one is forced into these systems against their will, to each his own.

So what is the point to all this?

To construct a thesis that claims that only men are perpetrators of violence, while ignoring the fact that women beat, batter, and abuse on par with men, and while also ignoring the reality that some people choose to enter into consensual, corporal punishment based relationships, only muddies the waters as we as a society struggle to eliminate non-consensual, harmful, injurious, traumatic, and life-threatening violence from the realm of acceptable discourse, as it should be. The vast majority of human beings are moral creatures, and while most people respect order and discipline when it is just and correct, they rightfully despise tyranny, in all of its forms.

Furthermore, to use such an erroneous theory to trample the Natural rights of men and bar them forever from their own flesh and blood, is harmful to liberties, dangerous to family and society, and downright insulting. Our laws against men say that we are vicious animals that deserve not the least bit of human kindness; and that we have contributed nothing positive to civilization. I find this libel to be infuriating every time I come across it, especially when it is based on so flawed a philosophical base.

For those that really wish to eradicate intimate partner abuse, they should read books such as Erin Pizzey's Prone to Violence. A shocking and disturbing read, we find that certain people are physically addicted to pain and inhuman suffering.

In this case, we as a society need to move towards a model of protection of individual rights (for example, police functions towards investigating and arresting those who commit battery, assault, and other violent crimes, regardless of sex, with full respect for the Constitutional rights of the accused), and TREATMENT for people that addresses the root causes of their behaviors. Such treatment models should NOT depend on flawed feminist assumptions that all Men are violent abusers, and commit violence simply because they are upholding the Patriarchy.

In, DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE, we read that:

1. The Development of the Patriarchal Definition of Domestic Violence

The “discovery” of domestic violence is credited to the battered women who came forward in the 1970s and began telling their stories in the new female focused community centers of England.101 Of course, violence against women was certainly not a new phenomenon.

It had not only been previously recognized, but also, on a sporadic and brief occasion, been delegitimized.102 However, it is the 1970s’ attention to the domestic violence suffered by women which marked the beginning of the current effort to eradicate domestic violence.

Consequently, it is this identification of domestic violence as a woman’s issue that shapes today’s understanding of domestic violence.

Because of this background, the definition of domestic violence has developed as the use of physical power by men against women not motivated simply by a desire to inflict physical pain or even emotional suffering but rather as part of a larger effort by men to gain and maintain control over women.

While such a definition may now be accepted without question, the characterization of the male as sole user of physical force and the female as sole recipient was revolutionary in several important respects.

103 Recognizing domestic violence as a social phenomenon, the male as batterer/female as victim perspective largely dispelled earlier understandings of domestic violence as an illness suffered by both the batterer and the victim.104 From this medical perspective, a batterer’s use of domestic violence had been explained as the product of illness.105 Likewise, a victim’s inability to leave a battering relationship was understood as a manifestation of her own masochistic or pathological nature.106

This understanding of Domestic Violence as illness, Ladies and Gentlemen, sounds a thousand times more realistic than the foolish premise, previously debunked in previous posts in this series, that DV is nothing more than a tool of Patriarchal Male Domination.

Now then, DD, BDSM, and other acronyms aside, marriage is the safest place for women.

So what did the feminists do? They destroyed it [k]!

According to Mr. Albert Mohler:

The story behind America's love affair with no-fault divorce is a sad and instructive tale. As Baskerville documents, no-fault divorce laws emerged in the United States during the 1970s and quickly spread across the nation. Even though only nine states had no-fault divorce laws in 1977, by 1995, every state had legalized no-fault divorce.

Behind all this is an ideological revolution driven by feminism and facilitated by this society's embrace of autonomous individualism. Baskerville argues that divorce "became the most devastating weapon in the arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the most personal level." As far back as 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers [NAWL] was pushing for what we now know as no-fault divorce. More recently, NAWL claims credit for the divorce revolution, describing it as "the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken."

The feminists and NAWL were not working alone, of course. Baskerville explains that the American Bar Association "persuaded the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] to produce the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act."

(The fact that marriage and divorce are now "uniform," dear reader, is why NO MAN SHOULD EVER GET MARRIED IN THIS COUNTRY. You have all the legal protections that God gave a mollusk. Make your life a lot easier, and DON'T GET MARRIED!)

So then, now that feminists, and other "enlightened" folks have succeeded in destroying marriage, and now that violent people, and their victims, can no longer receive the effective and gender neutral clinical treatment they so desperately need, no one should be surprised that acts of violence against women occur most often during the divorce stage and/or its aftermath.

It is common knowledge that marriage is among the greatest immunizer against violence and social ills of all kinds, and it is also common knowledge that feminists conspired to destroy the institution.

Hence, the elimination of political feminism and its very flawed assumptions would go a long way towards solving the intimate partner violence problem in such a way as that Constitutional rights, as well as the family unit, do not get trampled in the process, as they are today.

More to come.

Kumo X