Against Flood I

Welcome back to Kumogakure School!

Today begins the thorough refuting of an essay written by one Michael Flood, which is posted on the Anti-antifeminist blogspot.

While Mr. Flood's work seems somewhat authoritative at first glace, two things quickly become apparent:

1) Anti-anti feminist, like many feminists before her [a][b], relies heavily on the work of MEN in order to advance her argument that anti-feminism is just, "silly."

You'll have to do a lot better than this Anti-Anti, if you want your assumptions to be taken seriously. Otherwise, expect to be overmatched by superior MRA logic and analysis.

Upon reading feminist works, it becomes clear that these women are like children playing with fire: they can read about and advocate an ideology, but they have no real understanding of the full implications of said philosophy.

Or maybe some of them DO get it and they just don't care about the harm that they cause, and the people they hurt. Either way, it is a unfortunate state of affairs we find ourselves in, that women such as these control our social and political institutions based on such glaringly false, misandric, and flawed ideas.

However, the truth is coming to light, and someday soon, things will be set back to rights. Feminism will eventually be consigned to the waste heap of failed philosophies, never to be resurrected again forever and ever. We will move to an enlightened state where the liberties and rights of all citizens, Man, woman and child, will be protected, and Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws will apply to all.

2) Mr. Flood comes across in his writings as a World Class Mangina and traitor to real men worldwide who are heroically battling against tyrannical feminist doctrine.

His is the sort of flawed, inconsequential writing that brings much sorrow and misery into the world. His insane ramblings about Patriarchy and feminist supremacy are like a fifth of Jack Daniels that the bitter alcoholic consumes morning, noon, and night, a poison that warps the senses and destroys the soul.

He is the kind of man that urges naive and uncritical thinkers onwards to their personal road to feminist hell, a place where even celebrated feminists such as Germaine Greer eventually end up.

As lies and chicanery are intolerable to the Kidd, it becomes my duty to utterly rip into pieces this miserable excuse for an essay.

Let's begin.

Michael Flood

A recent research project claimed to find that men and women are equally likely to be the perpetrators of domestic violence [Headey, Scott and de Vaus, 1999]. Studies such as these have been taken up by anti-feminist men to claim that 'husband battering' is widespread. In the article below, Michael outlines a critique of such claims.

Men in fathers' rights groups and men's rights groups have been claiming very loudly for a while now that domestic violence is a gender-equal or gender-neutral phenomenon - that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects. They claim that an epidemic of husband-battering is being ignored if not silenced.

Catherine Gilda Bettman, in her work Patriarchy: The Predominant Discourse and Font of Domestic Violence, directly contradicts Flood's insinuation that there is no such thing as a suppression of the fact that women beat, batter, and abuse at rates highly comparable to men:

... Another concerning indication of the gaping questions still to be answered in the area of domestic violence, is the argument by some that women’s violence against men is as much a social problem as men’s violence against women; that victimisation, as well as fear of victimisation, should not be seen as the exclusive domain of women (Hogg & Brown, 1992). Petrachek (1999), for example, asserts that the reality of women who batter cannot continue to be ignored by the media and by researchers. Likewise, McNeely, Cook and Torres (2001) claim that domestic violence is not a gender issue but a human issue and that women are as likely to engage in physically abusive acts as men are. Based upon nationwide sample survey data, Strauss (1993), in the United States, as well as Headey, Scott and de Vaus (1999) in Australia, even suggest that women initiate and carry out physical assaults on their partners as often as men do. In addition, there are suggestions that men are the hidden victims of domestic violence and that women’s violence towards their male partners is either underreported, ignored or covered up (Bagshaw & Chung, 2000; Heady et al., 1999); even that the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Office for the Status of Women have falsified and suppressed statistics that would otherwise have shown the true extent of women’s violence against their male partners (James, 1999). McNeely et al. (2001) also claim that reports in the press and scholarly articles have enshrined a false and inaccurate perspective of the problem in people’s minds and that this has had legal and policy ramifications for men.

Please note that this author is a hardcore feminist who ultimately blames so called stereotypical, patriarchal, misogynistic, and homophobic male attitudes for the existence of all violence in the world. Keeping this in mind, it is all the more amazing that this woman at least has the courage to mention vital studies that disprove Flood's assumptions. It also speaks volumes about Mr. Flood's incredible ignorance, or deliberate deception regarding this sensitive subject area.

Speaking of violence and the Dreaded Patriarchy, we will disprove this hypothesis as false later in the discussion.

Flood continues:

To substantiate their claims, men's rights and fathers' rights groups draw on a body of American studies which use a particular methodology for measuring violence. This is the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), developed and used by Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, Suzanne Steinmetz and others [Steinmetz, 1977/78; Steinmetz & Lucca, 1988; Straus et.al, 1980, Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990].

It should be noted that the research of Gells, Straus, and others that use the CTS method, whose studies number in the hundreds, is in no way the only approach to measuring intimate violence in order to prove that domestic violence is a human failing, and not a male only problem, as we shall see shortly.

Since it is critical to Flood's thesis to dismiss the hundreds of studies that use the CTS method as being flawed, I would like to give one of the CTS advocates, specifically Straus himself, the opportunity to defend his research before we go any further.

Thanks to the Wise Counter-Feminist, and the Bold Davout, I found this PDF entitled Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence.

Straus notes:

Graham-Kevan’s paper raises the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment modality [The Patriarchal Dominance model] could have persisted for 30 years and still persists, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence that PV has many causes, not just male-dominance. The answer is that it emerged from a convergence of a number of different historical and social factors. One of these is that gender symmetry in perpetration of partner violence is inconsistent with male predominance in almost all other crimes, especially violent crimes.

Another is the greater injury rate suffered by female victims of PV brings female victimization to public attention much more often. Although there are many causes of the persistence of the patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence.

Straus continues:

Methods Used to Conceal and Distort Evidence on Symmetry in Partner Violence

Method 1. Suppress Evidence

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including some of my own colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below).

Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims...

... Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

I could list a large number of journal articles showing selective citation, but instead I will illustrate the process with official document examples to show that this method of concealment and distortion is institutionalized in publications of governments, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. For example, US Dept. of Justice publications almost always cite only the National Crime Victimization study, which shows male predominance (Durose et al. 2005). They ignore the Department of Justice published critiques, which led to a revision of the survey to correct that bias. However, the revision was only partly successful (Straus 1999), yet they continue to cite it and ignore other more accurate studies they have sponsored which show gender symmetry.

And speaking of the CTS model, the author states that:

Another example is the claim that the Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al. 1995) does not provide an adequate measure of PV because it measures only conflict related violence.

Although the theoretical basis of the CTS is conflict theory, the introductory explanation to participants specifically asks participants to report expressive and malicious violence. It asks respondents about the times when they and their partner “...disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood, are tired or for some other reason.”

Despite repeating this criticism for 25 years in perhaps a hundred publications, none of those publications has provided empirical evidence showing that only conflict-related violence is reported. In fact, where there are both CTS data and qualitative data, as in Giles-Sims (1983), it shows that the CTS elicits malicious violence as well as conflict-related violence. Nevertheless, because there are at least a hundred articles with this statement in peer reviewed journals, it seems to establish as a scientific fact what is only an attempt to blame the messenger for the bad news about gender symmetry in PV.

Mr. Straus concludes:

Finally, it was painful for me as feminist to write this commentary. I have done so for two reasons. First, I am also a scientist and, for this issue, my scientific commitments overrode my feminist commitments. Perhaps even more important, I believe that the safety and well being of women requires efforts to end violence by women and the option to treat partner violence in some cases as a problem of psychopathology, or in the great majority of cases, as a family system problem (Hamel and Nicholls 2006).

Now that we have heard from one of the leading proponents of the CTS model, which has been used in hundreds of studies to prove that women beat, batter, and abuse at rates equal to, or slightly less than men do, let us continue with our analysis of the Flood essay.

Let us assume for a moment, that Flood is correct (which he is not) when he says that CTS studies should be excluded from discussing intimate partner violence.

If we were to do such a thing, we can still find HUNDREDS more examples of studies that confirm the findings of the CTS research that have different authorship and methodologies.

For example, if we look to Mediaradar's Analysis of House Resolution 590 source list, we find that the (American) Centers for Disease Control has posted findings that support the general outcomes of the CTS reports:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Dating Violence Among High School Students

--- United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 19, 2006. Table 1.www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5519a3.htm

If we look on the Battered Men website we have several reports from:

Statistics Canada
The British Government
The Rev Sam and Bunny Sewell

and others not cited by Mr. Flood as researchers who are using an allegedly "flawed" methodology as he believes the CTS method is.

The Impeccable Baskerville, in his impressive book Taken into Custody [c][d][e], cites (P.338, citation 548) the following authors when he states without hesitation that women batter, beat, and abuse on par with men:


Farrell, Warren, Women Can’t Hear What Men Don't Say

Young, Cathy, Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality

Dutton, Donald G, Rethinking Domestic Violence

Archer, John, Sex Differences in Aggression Between Hetrosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review.

(Be sure to read another of his papers, Cross-Cultural Differences in Physical Aggression Between Partners: A Social-Role Analysis here.)

X.B Arriaga and S. Oskamp, Violence in Intimate Relationships

Moving onwards, we find that even the USA TODAY, that Bastian of political correctness, has acknowledged the truth about partner violence (albeit imperfectly, but it's a start!):

Studies shatter myth about abuse

By Karen S. Peterson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — It is not just men who hit women. Women hit men, too. And the latest research shows that ignoring the role women play in domestic violence does both women and men a disservice.

There is little doubt that women get hurt more than men. She may slap him. But then he may hit her harder or more often.

By not understanding the mutual role they often play, women are at great risk for injury, new studies show.

Still, the newest findings challenge the feminist belief that "it is men only who cause violence," says psychologist Deborah Capaldi of the Oregon Social Learning Center. "That is a myth."

The number of women who hit first or hit back is "much greater than has been generally assumed," Capaldi says. She says she is surprised by the frequency of aggressive acts by women and by the number of men who are afraid of partners who assault them.

Capaldi and two other female researchers call for a re-evaluation of treatment programs nationwide. Such programs focus on men and ignore women. Men are court-ordered into some type of rehabilitation, and their women are told in support groups or shelters that they had nothing to do with the violence, Capaldi says.

"Prevention and treatment should focus on managing conflict and aggression for both young men and women," Capaldi says. Each needs to understand the role both play while still putting a "special responsibility" on the man, who can inflict greater injury.

But wait!

There's MORE.

I have so much data to utterly refute Mr. Flood and the feminists who love him, that I need to save the rest for another day so ya'll can take in today's information. But don't sleep, as there is much more to come.

Kumo out.

Against Flood: End.

Good morning!

This is the last installment in a series.

We left off last time with the fact that, while marriage is the best living arrangement for men, women, and children, feminists and their backers have conspired to destroy it [1][2].

Now that this fact has been established, let's continue on with the essay as written by Mr. Michael Flood.

Mr. Flood writes:

Secondly, CTS studies [measuring Domestic Violence against Men by women] such as Headey et.al's treat violent acts out of context. They only count violent acts. They do not tell us whether the acts were in self-defence. They do not distinguish between offensive and defensive acts. They do not tell us whether they were a single incident, or part of a pattern of violence.


They do not tell us whether the act was intended to hurt the other person; a joking kick or a slapped hand are counted the same as a violent kick or blow to the face. Most CTS studies do not tell us whether the victim was injured, or how badly [Dobash et al, 1992]. These studies only look at violence in one year, and they don't consider the history of the violence in the relationship. And, obviously, the murder of partners and ex-partners cannot be measured by self-report surveys.

In previous installments, the majority of these criticisms of CTS studies have been overwhelmingly debunked.

And once again, as mentioned earlier, since there is NO excuse for Domestic Abuse, Everything that our author has noted can easily apply to people of both sexes. For example, Men and women wrestle and playfight. Men and women smack each other on the ass or other areas of the body from time to time. Men and women playfully threaten one another with symbolic acts of "violence." Indeed, some people go so far as to incorporate spanking and other forms of "violence" into their lifestyles.

So to say that we should look into the mitigating circumstances of women’s violence, and yet not consider the same circumstances with respect to male violence, is SEXIST at best. Any and all of these objections to the CTS studies that our author brings up could sway the numbers to indicate a greater amount of female or male incidents of "Domestic Violence."

More dangerously, this whole debate of "Man Bad, woman good," and the feminist ideology that attempts to paint an entire class of people as villains and abusers muddies the waters to the point where we as a society unnecessarily, and unconstitutionally interfere in the lives and the relationships of innocent people, and yet let the truly needful victims of REAL violence go unserved [3][4][5].

On the matter of self-defense, I agree that every person has the absolute right, as well as duty to protect oneself from physical harm. A man has every right to defend himself against any aggressor, male or female, using reasonable force to neutralize any assault on his person.

It should be plain by now that I don't believe in Chivalry. If some woman gets it in her head to attack me (which has happened before, by the way) like a man, then she had better be prepared to get BEAT DOWN like a man. Fair is fair, and I don't discriminate!

So then, it becomes even clearer that Mr. Flood's objections have in no way disproved the fact that women BEAT, BATTER, AND ABUSE ON PAR WITH MEN.

Mr Flood continues:

Headey et.al's survey did ask about injuries, and they found that men are as likely as women to be victims of domestic assaults that lead to injury and pain (and the need for medical attention). They note that this runs counter to medical and police records, that this is the finding in which they have least confidence, and that these issues need further research [Headey et.al, 1999: 60-61].

I believe that our author is saying that it is doubtful that men need medical attention for the injuries they receive at the hands of their angry female partners.

Oh really?

Get a load of this (courtesy of the Good men at Battered Men.com):

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Official Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians
August 1997 volume 30 number 2
Copyright © by the American College of Emergency Physicians

Domestic Violence in an Inner-City ED
Amy A Ernst, MD*, Todd G Nick, PhD‡, Steven J Weiss, MD*, Debra Houry§, Trevor Mills, MD

Study objective: To determine the prevalence of domestic violence (DV) for male and female ED patients and to determine the demographics of DV.

Methods: The study design was a descriptive written survey of adults. We used the Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA), a previously validated survey tool. The study was set in an inner-city ED with approximately 75,000 patients annually, most of them indigent. Patients 18 years or older who were able to give consent were included. Patients were excluded if they had a language barrier, were a prisoner, or had never had a partner. All patients presenting during 31 randomly selected 4-hour shifts during July 1995 were considered for the study. DV was defined as either physical or nonphysical on the basis of ISA scoring. The prevalence was determined for present (in the preceding year) and past (more than 1 year ago) abuse.

Four violence parameters were calculated for patients who had a partner at the time of presentation: present physical, present nonphysical, past physical, and past nonphysical. Only the “past” parameters were calculated for patients who had had a partner in the past but had no partner at the time of presentation. We used the chi2 test to determine individually significant predictors of the four parameters. Logistic-regression models were constructed to determine the significant predictors of DV. Associations among the present physical, present nonphysical, past physical, and past nonphysical abuse categories were determined with McNemar’s test.

Results: We enrolled 516 patients, 233 men and 283 women. On the basis of ISA scoring, 14% of men and 22% of women had experienced past nonphysical violence (P=.02, men versus women), and 28% of men and 33% of women had experienced past physical violence (P=.35).

Of the 157 men and 207 women with partners at the time of presentation, 11% of men and 15% of women reported present nonphysical violence (P=.20), and 20% men and 19% of women reported present physical violence (P=.71). Using logistic-regression models, we determined that women experienced significantly more past and present nonphysical violence but not physical violence than men.

For all four parameters, the victim’s suicidal ideation and alcohol use were independently associated with DV. The victim’s family history was strongly associated with past abuse. Using McNemar’s test, we found that physical and nonphysical abuse were correlated in the past and present.

Conclusion: Using a validated scale, we found that the prevalences of physical DV for men and women are high and that they are not statistically different in this population. Using chi2 testing, we found that women had experienced significantly more past nonphysical violence than men; using logistic regression we found that they experienced significantly more nonphysical violence (both past and present) than men. DV was frequently associated with suicidal ideation, alcohol use, and family history of violence.

My my.

Another Flood argument has been flushed down the drain!!

A NON CTS study has found that Men and women visit the emergency room at VERY SIMILAR RATES; ALMOST EQUAL.

Flood continues:

Most CTS studies also ignore the issue of fear and intimidation. Headey et.al's survey did ask about threats and intimidation, and it was here that they found the only statistically significant gender difference in domestic violence in the survey. More women (7.6 percent) than men (4 percent) said they felt "frightened and intimidated" [Headey et.al, 1999: 59].

Well of course they do! Some women are very good at telling people what they want to hear.

Consider:

A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection, is an interesting read.

We find on page 172 of the report that:

An Abuse Prevention Order (M.G.L. c. 209A) is a Massachusetts’ civil court order designed to protect victims of domestic violence. Although a civil order, its violation is a criminal offense, punishable by 2.5 years in prison. The research found male and female defendants in these cases known to the court were almost equally abusive.

The second part, presented here, measures the court’s response to these same allegations. By measuring how the court responds to similar male and female allegations, gender differences in that response is determined.

Examination of living and parenting status is also conducted and compared to the effect of gender on court response to see if living status, parenting status, or gender has the greatest effect.

Massachusetts’ domestic violence victims can first request protection from abuse at an Ex Parte Hearing before a district court judge. The defendant is usually
not present during this hearing and therefore does not have the opportunity to defend him or herself…

… The Measure of Court Response report, on page 174 tells us:

Table II. Court Response at Ex Parte Hearing by Gender

Male plaintiff
Response (N = 44)
Deny: 11
Defer: 23
Grant: 66

Female plaintiff
(%) (N=238) (%)p
Deny: 5
Defer: 5 .0003
Grant: 91 .00006

Note. df = 1; p: probability according to Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail),
ns: not significant.

The numbers tell us some interesting things here.

The sample sizes, 44 for men and 238 for women, affirms that women overwhelmingly file for restraining orders more than men do, even though men and women abuse at the same rates.

Based on these numbers, once again we find that women file (238/44=5.4) for these orders five times more than men do. Why?

Secondly, we find that women are granted their orders 91% of the time!

Why?...

Could it be some women speak the magic words, “I’m in fear” in order to gain an advantage of some kind? Could it be a reasonable assumption that women have been literally brainwashed into automatically playing the fear card in order to gain attention and sympathy?

Please see here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/baskerville/baskerville10.html
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/04/comments-about-media-radar-part-ii.html

Now I’m not saying that all women are lying about being in fear. In incidents of serious, non-consensual, injurious violence, I am quite sure they feel fear then, like any normal human being would.

I'm only saying that the truthfulness of this kind of statement is questionable based on the well documented cases of the “fear factor” being invoked against men in order to seek vengeance, obtain some form of advantage, or bolster a campaign of character assassination: kind of like the Girl who cried Wolf.

And on the other side of the coin, a man who openly admits his fear of his woman is labeled as a weak, pussy, punk ass bitch, by men and women alike. So it would be natural to speculate that when men are asked these kinds of questions on DV surveys, some might, for the sake of their pride, answer in the negative, which could also help explain the discrepancy between men and women in response to the fear question.

Hell, I know I would be "fearful" if my wife told me that she was going to call the Boyz and have my black ass put in jail. Maybe these surveys aren't asking the right questions!

Speaking of discrepancies, they become more understandable when we realize that, as the Kemetians would say:

Words are not truth, only truth is truth.

And the truth about partner violence lies somewhere in the middle of two extreme points of view, as it usually is in most cases. The fatal flaw of people like Flood is that by taking the extreme view that all violence is Male sponsored in nature, he and others like him have directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of laws and policies that actually harms the people that they are trying to protect, and causes all manner of unexpected consequences.

As it's been said, some people know just enough to get themselves into trouble!

But, I digress.

Flood writes that:

Rather than seeing domestic violence as referring only to physical acts such as hitting or pushing, we need to recognise that verbal, psychological and emotional abuse is an important aspect of domestic violence.

Hmmm...

Mr. Flood is making this TOO easy for me! Someday, I really have to thank him.

Because, it's interesting that Michael would mention the verbal, psychological and emotional aspects of aggression. Because you see, it seems that women are VERY good at such things:

PHYSICAL, VERBAL, AND INDIRECT AGGRESSION

There are good reasons to doubt whether it is meaningful at all to debate whether one sex is more or less aggressive than another. One has to take into account the type of conflict. Firstly, is it a matter of aggression between groups, or of interpersonal aggression within a group, or within a family. Secondly, the sex of the opponent is of critical importance: male-male, female-female, and male-female encounters should clearly be distinguished from each other. With respect to interpersonal aggression, same sex encounters are, for instance much more frequent than between-sex encounters (Bjorkqvist and Niemela, 1992; Burbank, 1987).

If we limit aggression to physical strategies only, then it is certainly true that males are more aggressive than females, at least in Western societies. But, as anthropological studies have shown, such as research by Fry (1988, 1990, 1992) and Cook (1992), it is not a universal truth. It does not hold for all cultures.

As far as domestic violence is concerned, the well-known study by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1974) found no sex difference in the amount of violence by husband and wife, in a North American study. Severe physical injury was, however, more often reported as a consequence of male violence. It should perhaps be noted that husbands and wives were not compared with respect to the severity of mental injury and pain induced in their conflicts.

There is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males. But being physically weaker, they simply have to develop other means than physical ones in order to reach successful results. Accordingly, one should not expect women to develop and use exactly the same strategies for attaining their goals as men do. If strategies for aggression and conflict resolution are learned, not innate, then women are likely to learn different methods than men. Important aspects are power and capacity, not only physical, but also verbal, and social. Human beings have nonphysical powers which are far beyond those of any other animal. Accordingly, human aggression has faces and forms, inconceivable within the realm of animal aggression. Extrapolations from animal studies are, therefore, misleading…

… According to this theory, aggressive behavior tends to appear in the above mentioned order: 1) direct physical, 2) direct verbal, and 3) indirect aggression. Indirect aggression was by them defined as social manipulation as mentioned above: The target is attacked, not directly, but circuitously, and the aggressor can thereby remain unidentified and avoid counterattack.

Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen (1992) showed that indirect aggression increases drastically at about the age of 11, especially among girls. However, also among boys, the mean level of physical aggression decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect means of aggression...

Canadian Children's Rights Council notes that:

In her recent work, Dr. Nikki Crick of the University of Minnesota has challenged the assumption that girls are not aggressive (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996). Dr. Crick argues that girls have not been found to be aggressive in previous studies because researchers have been looking at the wrong kind of aggression.

Most of the previous research, as well as interventions with aggressive, peer-rejected children, define aggression as either physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt another person. Crick believes that girls, in general, do not engage in this type of aggression against their peers. They do, however, employ relational aggression. Relational aggression is behavior specifically intended to hurt another child's friendships or feelings of inclusion in a peer group.

An example of relational aggression would be a child spreading hurtful rumors about another child so that other children are less inclined to be friendly toward her. Or, a child might retaliate against another child by not including her in the play group. Relational aggression, then, is deliberate manipulation on the part of a child to damage another child's peer relationships.

Crick's work with elementary school children has demonstrated that the degree of aggressiveness exhibited by girls has been underestimated, mainly because it is difficult to measure. Clearly, when one child hits another, that child is behaving in an overtly aggressive way. In contrast, how do you tell when one child has started a rumor about another?...

Blackwell Synergy gives us the following:

The Myth of Female Passivity: Thirty Years of Revelations about Female Aggression

Authors: Richardson, Deborah South
Descriptors: Females; Aggression; Gender Differences; Interpersonal Relationship

Source: Psychology of Women Quarterly, v29 n3 p238-247 Sep 2005
Peer-Reviewed: Yes

Abstract: This article reviews an extensive program of research that has examined gender differences in aggressive behavior. Early research in the aggression laboratory that was designed to explain why females were nonaggressive actually revealed that females did respond to provocation and that they could not accurately be depicted as passive individuals. Subsequent studies that examined both indirect and direct aggression revealed that women were at least as likely as men to employ indirect aggressive strategies and that the nature of relationship is a better determinant of aggressive action than gender. Directly relevant to the theme of this volume, the later research revealed that males and females reported equally high levels of direct aggression in interaction with romantic partners.

Did anyone catch all that??

Women are just as, or more aggressive than men, but in a hidden, circumspect, and cunning manner. They retaliate against slights both real and imagined. Once again, we see that women beat, batter, and abuse on par with men, and this "abuse" is both MENTAL AND PHYSICAL.

So it would seem that if we did include these non-physical aspects into the CTS system, the percentage of female domestic abuse aggressors would undoubtedly be much higher than what numerous studies have already reported.

But more importantly, this goes to show that some women are more than willing to USE AND MISUSE the system in order to get what they want, and to punish those men who have "wronged" them.

HAVE WE ALREADY FORGOTTEN THE PROVERB, HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED?

THIS IS WHY our Constitution protects the rights of the accused from BASELESS allegations of any kind, especially when Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY (and yes, children are property of their parents according to the Common Law) are involved.

This is why we, in most cases, DEMAND proof, testimony, and evidence before we allow the State to play God and ruin people's lives. Because justice based on tearjerking and he said/she said is no justice at all.

And, most of all, THIS IS WHY I HAVE REJECTED FEMINISM AND ALL OF ITS TEACHINGS. It is beyond obvious that this "Smart Dumb Muthafucker" has his knickers in a twist; spouting off feminist bullshit that is half-baked, half-assed, half-cocked, erroneous, dangerous, and tragically flawed.

Dangerous for men, dangerous for children, but also dangerous for women. Because, as I've said previously, this warped line of philosophy that Mr. Flood advances can just as easily be used to STRIP WOMEN OF THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS TO THEIR CHILDREN. Government is a wild animal, who can turn on its owner at any time.

Just because feminists have successfully used the justice system to advance their goals today, doesn't mean that a new campaign of persecution against women can't happen tomorrow.

So women need to be very careful about advancing false theories such as the Flood thesis; because these campaigns are laying the philosophical groundwork for the government to come in and protect children from "women's violence."

But I digress, again.

I know this has been a long post, but I need to hit you with one more fun fact, that will put the nail in the coffin of this lamentable and strange essay by one Mr. Michael Flood:

However, surveys such as the one by Headey et.al are likely to miss a second important form of domestic violence, what Johnson calls "patriarchal terrorism". This represents some husbands' practice of a terroristic control of their wives. It involves the systematic use of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation and other control tactics [Johnson, 1995: 284]. This violence is patriarchal because it is based in patriarchal ideas of male ownership and control of their female partners. This second form of domestic violence involves much more frequent violence (although the men using this can also control their wives using other tactics), the violence is more severe, and it is very likely to escalate over time.

Ummmmmm.... no. Don’t think so.

While it may be that some violence is motivated by a man wanting to dominate his partner, to say that all violence is based on the "Patriarchy," or even that MOST violence is motivated by similar concerns, is dead wrong.

Again, it should be noted that some couples do seek to determine who wears the pants in the relationship. In most cases, this assignment of roles is negotiated ahead of time, and does not lead to non-consensual, injurious, life threatening violence, because the MAJORITY of relationships are non violent. If someone doesn't like someone, they break up, they divorce, they separate. They don't stalk, break and enter, and murder in the vast majority of cases.

Some people DO negotiate and agree upon specific roles, which may include corporal punishment methods if a partner violates the rules of said relationship. In these cases, care is taken to insure that the submissive partner is not seriously injured.

Finally, some people unilaterally impose their will upon their partners. They do not obtain consent to do what they do. They are angry, reckless, and out of control. They inflict pain and injury indiscriminately. These people may escalate their violence in order to keep the unwilling victim in line.

Now these are the folks that, when they violate perfectly good laws such as battery, assault, breaking and entering, stalking, murder and attempted murder, and the like, should be arrested if probable cause is present, they should receive a fair trial with equal protection and due process of law, and if found guilty by a jury of their peers, suffer the consequences thereof.

These people are the ones who need treatment and counseling, and their victims need the same, as some people become addicted to the pain and the torment they receive.

At no time, however, should we cast blame on an entire class of people, nor should we pass laws that infringe on the natural rights of people, nor should we be dismantling the most effective and wealth producing institution ever known to Man; the married family.

Now then, it should be noted that even when men are NOT present in a relationship, incidents of violence among females (lesbians in this case) are still comparable to violence among (gay) men. Hence, women are fully capable of violence against their intimate partners, and labeling the “Patriarchy” as the root cause of domestic violence is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

According to the American Bar Association:

Same-Sex Violence

Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships as it does in heterosexual relationships. The acronym LGBT is often used and stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

• 11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner.

Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).

• 11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner.

Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).

• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Now then, according to the ABA, women are more at risk from OTHER WOMEN THAN THEY ARE FROM MEN. This shouldn't be surprising however; as feminist women (some of whom are lesbian) have been doing great harm to more traditionally minded, feminine women for decades now.

According to Aardvarc.org:

Myths: Violence is a male biological trait. When women fight, no one gets seriously hurt. Lesbians don't abuse their spouses. The truth revealed in Janice Ristock's groundbreaking book is that lesbian relationships sometimes do turn violent.

Based on interviews with more than one hundred lesbians who have suffered abuse and seventy-five case workers, No More Secrets is the first in-depth account of this startling phenomenon. Although one in four gay and lesbian couples are affected by domestic violence, the problem has remained hidden for several reasons. First is the fear of homophobic backlash should lesbian violence be acknowledged.

More significantly, Ristock argues, the lesbian feminist culture has readily adopted the idea that men are more violent than women in order to validate lesbian relationships. Recognizing abuse among lesbians would undermine the cemented belief that domestic abuse is an expression of patriarchy and gender bias. The definitive book on the subject, No More Secrets combines extensive research on the nature of lesbian battering with close-up analysis that will change our understanding of crimes of intimacy in heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. By giving voice to the victims, Ristock helps women to address violence by breaking silences, sharing secrets, and naming the forms of abuse.

And finally, according to MUSC.edu:

Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet

Suzana Rose, Ph.D.
National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
University of Missouri at St. Louis

What is lesbian partner violence?

Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.

How common is lesbian partner violence?

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13). Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

Disrupting other’s eating or sleeping habits

Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting (11).

Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians (12).

Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians (1,5,6,11,14).

For serious students, here is a long list of research that deals with same sex violence. In addition, one can search the "Research on Domestic Violence Against Males" sidebar, hosted by the Noble DVstats.com website, that appears on this very blog.

Now there is more to the Flood essay, but I will stop here.

It should be plain to all that domestic violence is NOT a male dominated pastime; that women do indeed BEAT, BATTER, AND ABUSE on par with men, and that women are even crueler to each other than men are to women, based on the evidence cited above.

Indeed, men have their own problems, besides being portrayed as monsters and patriarchal abusers, as rape and violence against men is much higher than most people would care to imagine [6][7]. The least that society could do is to acknowledge that being a man is a tough job, and more often than not, a thankless one.

The overall goal of this series was to prove to myself that the evidence is clear and convincing that feminism is a driver of violence, that domestic violence victims can be of either sex, be it equally or a figure very similar, and that feminist men like Mr. Flood are indeed full of hot air.

I believe I have done so.

Ultimately though, while studies and research are helpful for measuring the scope of the violence problem, it only proves what people in real life already know, that human beings, of all races, sexes, orientations and such, have the potential to do violence. It is my firm belief that feminism, and the larger ideologies to which it is beholden, are DRIVING the violence, the frustration, and the despair that both men and women seem to be feeling about everything these days.

With regards to the issue of intimate partner violence:

The best solution to this entire Domestic Violence problem has two fangs.

Number one:

Domestic violence cannot be ended until effective treatment and counseling programs, devised by medical professionals, are implemented to cure both batter and victim of the sickness of violence, strife, and conflict. This program needs to be sex-neutral, and it should address the fundamental failings that all human beings, regardless of sex, are susceptible to.

We need spiritual and medical systems that enable people to elevate their minds and their souls above the need to dominate and control other human beings against their will, and will encourage and enable people of all stripes to follow the road of justice, truth, and righteousness. On a longer term basis, we need to encourage a healthy marriage culture (monogamous or polygamous), because the safest and best living arrangement for men, women and children to be in is the married family.

Number two:

Repeal all of these unconstitutional, unlawful, and irrational domestic violence, child custody, no fault divorce and other feminist inspired statues, and bring back our classical American traditions of fault based divorce, the bill of rights that protect parents, male and female, from the reach and power of tyrannical and abusive governments, local, state, and federal;

Enact a presumption of shared custody in the event of divorce, guarantee, for both men and women alike, rock solid due process of law and equal protection under the law for both parents in all proceedings, civil or criminal, and the presumption that both parents in any family related proceedings such as domestic violence, child abuse, or any other crime or tort, are innocent until proven guilty in a jury trial of their peers, as the jury system is the ultimate check on government tyranny.

The feminists said that “the personal is the political.” What we must do then, is to eliminate all vestiges of feminism from our legal and social systems, and replace them with a spirit of justice, truth, compassion, fairness, and accountability.

Only if and when these things are done will men and women alike be secure enough to express true and genuine love and commitment again. Only by the careful and deliberate delivery of true justice will both parties (most of the time anyway) respect and honor the decisions that family and other courts hand down.

There will be a minimum of fighting, strife and violence because all can see that all of their rights and responsibilities have been carefully weighed in judgment. No one will be able to accuse the other side of special favoritism, because the rights of parents will be secure at all steps of any legal proceedings, civil or criminal.

Unless is this done, and liberty is guaranteed for all, expect the ideological divide to widen, and the relations between the sexes to sour even more than they are today. But the first step to re-establishing justice is to recognize that no class of humanity is “better” or “more violent.”

Only with the realization that humanity itself is flawed, and that all people are entitled to EQUAL rights, and not SPECIAL rights, can true freedom be maintained. No house divided against itself can long endure, and neither can a nation who can’t even have man and woman live in peace, as God intended.

The clock is ticking, and we don't have much time before events force us to make very unpleasant decisions.

Kumo out.

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

Forecasting the End of Feminism

What's good?

Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving holiday!

Most readers know that I am optimistic about the future of Men's rights, and I believe that Political Feminism will be put out of its misery in the near future.

So let's talk about why I think the femmes are doomed.

Let's go!!



Radar: First they ignore you.



Not too long ago, a valued reader asked me why I was so optimistic about the future of Men's Rights. How could I be so confident, he wondered, that the power of political feminism is beginning to wane?

Firstly, I want to make it clear that political feminists still have a lot of clout, and that terrible injustices are happening to men and boys day in and day out. That is the reality. And we shouldn't forget that change happens very slowly; political feminism will do everything it can to prolong its unnatural life. Political feminism, in other words, is still armed and extremely dangerous.

In making statements about the future of feminism, I evaluate the ideology in the same way I evaluate the future prospects of an investment. I am looking for trends; small and subtle happenings that could lead to huge manifestations at some point in the future.

I forecast the ebb and flow of political feminist dominance using a variety of tools. One method I use, because I believe that feminism is an expression of psychic forces and human will, is the law of In and Yo (more commonly known as Yin and Yang).







As I mentioned in a previous post, I belong to a certain school of knowledge that prepares one for a wide range of combat and survival scenarios. When one is engaged in a military operation, forecasting the winds of fortune becomes a valuable skill.

One method to try to determine the outcome of an engagement in advance is the art of forecasting using In and Yo.

The law of In and Yo is fairly simple. The universe is cyclical in nature. All things ebb and flow. There is a waxing and a waning cycle that applies to all things.

The stock market rises and falls. Nations rise and fall. The moon waxes and wanes. People are born and then they die.

Nothing rests indefinitely, and everything is in constant motion.

Nothing in the natural world lasts forever, and, by extension, no ideology lasts forever either.

This is a simplified explanation of the law of In and Yo. With this knowledge, one can look for signs and cues and determine where we are at in any particular cycle, and one can also look for clues for expansion or contraction.

If one determines that feminism is in its ascending phase, then it is wise to get out of the way unless one wants to be crushed underfoot.

If one determines that feminism is entering into its descending phase, then one can help the process along by intense criticism and activism. In other words, we as Men's Rights Activists can help hasten its fall as the inescapable force of gravity takes hold of our favorite hate movement.

I believe there is enough evidence out there to suggest that political feminism is in decline.

One must also remember the 80/20 rule: 80 percent of outputs are caused by 20 percent of inputs. As Mr. Koch explains here, small, seemingly random events, such as, for example, a man in the UK writing a blog post critical of political feminism, could cause massive waves. Add a court decision here, a breakthrough study there, an economic crisis on top of that, and all of a sudden, the ship of political feminism could face the perfect storm that could potentially tear the vessel apart and run it aground.

There are Universal Laws that can be observed and applied to real life events and situations. If one is looking for clues as to the future trends affecting an event, a nation, or an ideology, one can determine whether or not it is waxing or waning. One can also determine if it is wise to confront the ideology directly, or attack it subtly. Sometimes it is better to keep oneself out of harms way, and other times, bold and direct opposition is the best course of action.

It should also be pointed out that movements and ideologies that violate Universal Laws will not long survive, as they go against the Universal grain. It takes massive amounts of energy and capital to overcome resistance and advance the unnatural social organization that political feminist public policy demands, and I believe it is beginning to run out of steam as various forms of drag begin to take hold. As more men (and women) free themselves from the Fematrix, the political, economic, and social will to continue on with our Matriarchal public policy will dissolve along with it.

And, as a wee bit of evidence to support my ramblings, allow me to share this recent Radar alert:

"First they ignore you, ..."

Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived1 publication "Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."2

This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be accused of is objective reporting.

On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights' groups go mainstream"3 that adds no new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X article to Salon's readers...

... Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1.

Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far. Let's keep it up!

Respect to RADAR, Glen Sacks, and countless other MRAs who are on the front lines in the battle against Political Feminism.

Let's take a moment to look at the Double X article:

"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

They’re changing custody rights and domestic violence laws.

By: Kathryn Joyce

At the end of October, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, members of the men’s movement group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting [2]) gathered on the steps of Congress to lobby against what they say are the suppressed truths about domestic violence: that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.

“It’s now reached the point,” reads a statement from RADAR, “that domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era!”

RADAR’s rhetoric may seem overblown, but lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.

Ahh yes. You can feel the fear. The political feminists are worried, and for good reason. Their deceitful, harmful, and hurtful movement is going to be dumped like so much trash, and THEY KNOW IT.

The times, they are a changin'. And, in this next paragraph from Double X, we have a prime example of why feminism is toast... their entire movement is based upon lies, falsehoods, and propaganda:

... In this, critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal. Additionally, MRA groups’ predictions of future violence by fed-up men wronged by the family-law system seem an obvious additional correlation, with the threat of violence seemingly intended to intimidate a community, like a fearful spouse, into compliance...

Good ol Michael Flood.

It turns out that I have already debunked his entire line of reasoning, and exposed his thesis as fundamentally flawed [a][b][c][d]. As usual, feminist rhetoric is trumped by correct reasoning and irrefutable evidence.

In any event... political feminism is a dead hag walking. It simply cannot stand up to any objective scrutiny, and its only a matter of time before it collapses upon itself like a ton of bricks. And believe you me... the feminists know this to be true.



Conclusion


The art of forecasting is an inexact science. My timing could be wrong, or something might happen to totally alter my prediction.

However, I see that the trends are lining up to sink the ship of political feminism. And, as they say in the world of finance, "the trend is your friend... until it ends."

So, until further notice, I will continue to assert that the best days of political feminism are behind it. Going forward, they are going to face ever mounting scrutiny and analysis.

Unfortunately for political feminism... an ideology based on deception and lies simply cannot take the heat. And I believe the day is coming when feminist public policy will be overthrown.

I, for one, can't wait for that day.

Gyokko.