Rethinking Domestic Violence

Started by whome112, Jun 15, 2006, 12:17 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "whome112"
Strauss, Gelles and others have gone over the CTS many times. They have addressed every complaint. The feminists still refuse to accept the measurement scale. The reject because it is a scale which includes male victims.

Now, there is good reason to pay attention to who gets more hurt. It is the ones most hurt which we want to put most of our money on.


I strongly disagree for reasons outlined below.

Quote from: "whome112"
The thing is, among the most hurt we're looking at about 1/3rd men. The feminists though think that hurt men are guilty of something strictly because they are male. The governments agree with the feminists, so do the courts. This is an area of law wherein innocents are being hurt & rehurt for the political & religious aims of a bigoted minority.

Moreover, children are hurt by watching DV. We want to stop children from being hurt. But, feminists think that children CANNOT be hurt by watching female offender DV. The Governments agree. So we have children being hurt to support the political & religious views of a bigoted minority.


This is exactly my point vis-a-vis prevention vs. reaction.  Every ill the you (correctly) cite above is a result of domestic violence after the fact.  What I'm saying is that reacting to DV isn't the way we should be going with our efforts; IMO prevention should be the focus.  However, because women instigate more between-partner fights (the valid, peer-reviewed literature shows this clearly) and DV (ditto re. literature support for this), the femininsts are practically hysterical about changing the focus to 'who gets hurt more,' which as I've said before, to me is not very important.  Keeping our focus on prevention so nobody gets hurt in the first place should be the priority.

Quote from: "whome112"
NOTE: I say religious when speaking of feminists. Their point of view can only be upheld if it is viewed as a para-religious viewpoint. What they believe is faith based; the facts are never relevant. Any view differing from theirs is viewed as "Satanic." Thus, feminism as it exists in the here & now is a religion.

whome


No doubt we've been traveling in similar but different circles.  I've been advocating changing the definition of feminism from "political movement" to "religion" since the mid-1990s.  As you note, most of modern feminism is based on blind faith and beliefs, not facts.  And as such, I've called it everything from  a "dopey New Age religion" to a "secular religion" which IMO more accurate characterizations.  

I think we should really push harder to get feminism re-defined so that funds to feminist organizations, women's studies programs, etc., can be cut back or even better, completely cut off.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Go Up