Posts Tagged ‘Victim blaming’

Living of East Slavs. In russian: «Жилье восто...

Slavs, the genetic source material for blue eyed Askenazi Jews. Image via Wikipedia

Awhile ago I posted about white female privilege, the ritual fiction of women’s oppression, and its net negative effect on other people who actually take risks for all people, like Ellen Beth Wachs.

I was breaking the second to the  last* taboo, talking about white women’s privilege…and also talking about the blonde haired Jew!

Ellen Beth Wachs is an atheist, humanist hero facing 15 years in prison for making orgasmic noises.  Most white women don’t know that, because they have never risked anything except  fear of big openings that transport human life up and down–you know, like Rebbeca Watsons now famous fear of elevators.

Nor do American white women take actual risks for truly noble and self sacrificing  dissent anymore because lying, hating, and fearing, AND getting funding for phony social morality crusades is soooo much easier! But they sure do talk a lot about it. And Talk, and Talk, and Talk some more.

White women sure can talk!! They are good at that–it’s in their jeans–their true religion descended panties.

Sisterhood is cool as long as woman-whiteys don’t take real risks, and don’t do no time! Sisterhood is even more cool if you can ride your bike with your ass to traffic, and not get called on ‘your shit.’

But where are all those verbose white women on Ellen Beth Wachs??

“A circuit judge granted bail Friday for Ellenbeth Wachs, the embattled legal coordinator for the Atheists of Florida who’s facing criminal allegations that she made sexual noises inside her home that were heard by a 10-year-old neighbor,” says the Ledger.com

I understand deconstruction, and the rhetoric of the body as concerns privilege and the imagery of the human form; i understand the whole white people deconstructing their privilege and all–what I don’t understand is white women not getting it for the long haul.

And then, I remember…I remember for for them, because their fears of lost privilege keep them negotiating for their ‘safety,’ and ‘safe passage.’

White women, especially blondes with blue eyes, were once highly prized slaves from the Khazar kingdom to the middle east, where they were seen as exotic, and alluring; wild animals that were caught and tamed; trained and sold by slavers–may of those slavers Ashkenazi Jews, other Slavs, or Arabs.

And man, did ‘inter-breeding’ piss the Sephardic Jews off to no end!

Here is a kosher link to that factoid so that I don’t get labeled an !! Anti-shemite!! as so many herd-oriented white women, liberals, and

White Female Privilege Has a Long History in a Different Kind of Slavery--their own. The Princesses in the Towers of privilege.

schmucks tend to do once you bring up Jewish history , or Jews owning slaves.

I mean, even Jews have a hard time recognizing he importance of talking about that.

I would be better off being a closet racist who could be called out, a homophobe, a pedophile or a Republican among the feminist leaning left, and liberals, because at least then, they could hate me for something specific that fits into their hate script, and is well documented; something that they could ‘change’ in me or despise. Something they could point a jaded rubber phallus a, or whack me over the head with.

A disembodied, de-humanized, theoretical entity that could be labeled white, and male, or just male –hell that’s enough with some of those people–an objectified persona that they could direct hate , and self righteous missives at. But that’s been done already, long before white females had the social power that was given to them which they now batter people with.

If i never hear another of them talk about circumcision!

…Jews bought slaves who they then circumcised and converted into ‘half’ Jews. In the event of manumission the slave became, with certain very slight reservations, a full Jew, and even while he was a slave he was for ritual purposes regarded as a Jew. He could handle the wine of his owner and do his cooking. Not so the Christian servant, to whom the restrictions of the segregative laws applied.

Man, I can hold my own damn wine–but you whiners? Get another drink, and settle down already….

If I called a spade a spade it is clearly racist, right? If I used a racial epithet, or a sexist trope, I could be called on that and duly crucified in the rhetoric; but I don’t do that. I simply maintain that white women’s privilege is far more ‘un-examined’ than most every other privileged class in our species.

And man, do they hate me for it–you can hear the rage and violent urges kick in, or the sound vacuity cheek to cheek against gravity and the walls of a conversation implode….

If only they would apply that rage to issues and revolutions that require it! Because one or two white women haven’t forgotten the feeling of chains, and have risen to the level that is required of a person in order to mobilise for any kind of equality, or solidarity, doesn’t a sisterhood make.

Running around in a skirt at a SlutWalk might feel great with the breeze between your knees, but try real dissent for awhile–hand cuffs, legal troubles, and three hots and a cot, like most men face every day in prisons across America.

But the point is, most white women do not understand their privilege, and women at large who endure hardship like men face every day are rare. Yet so many are willing to jump on any bandwagon of collective consciousness, or the traveling circus train that demeans the ‘evil white man,’ and sells them to the ‘other man’without ever knowing or caring where he comes from, too.

I think it is because they have forgotten where they come from, and yet expect others to bear the burden of remembrance for them. I am just not that chivalrous anymore; I am done babysitting Gloria Steinem/CIA-feminism inspired white female entitlement.

* the last taboo is discussing women who abuse children, and of course, the third to the last taboo is !!!anti-shemitism!!! with Jewish patriarchal fixation on shiksas of all kinds, and white women being the second to the last–for now: after all, them Asians and them Africans are sure working hard, moving ‘forwards,’ and not ass backwards to get some privileged cops, or YOUR attention…

Related articles

You might have missed this ground shattering piece of journalism about the widespread rape of men in the Congo while you were occupied with immature and divisive conversations about young white women on elevators, the death of third wave, man-beating feminist Amy Winehouse, or the Obama shuffle to the right in matters of both domestic policy, dropping the ball on both the budget, and the treatment of “terrorists”.

But remember how hard last wave feminists were wishing, hoping, and praying that men get raped?

They got their wish.

But men get raped all the time, and nobody gives a shit—except the men who are literally bleeding out of their asses. And when men get raped, it often spells doom for relationships, support networks, and medical help; much less faith in women as allies.

The rape of men

Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world’s conflicts

male-rape-victim-uganda

“The organisations working on sexual violence don’t talk about it:” Chris Dolan, director of the Refugee Law Project. Photograph: Will Storr for the Observer
TESTIMONY OF MALE VICTIM OF CONGO RAPE: “Today, despite his hospital treatment, Jean Paul still bleeds when he walks. Like many victims, the wounds are such that he’s supposed to restrict his diet to soft foods such as bananas, which are expensive, and Jean Paul can only afford maize and millet.”

Statistics on the rape of men are almost non-existent in the feminized, westernized world, and even rarer in war torn regions, despite the available resources, and agencies that could help combat rape.
The Refugee Law Project, based out of Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda is one of the startlingly few agencies that have ever compiled statistics on the subject, despite the billions of dollars spent on that exact topic here in America, every year.

RLP’s gender officer Salome Atim reports that, in addition to the world wide denial of the existence of men who are rape victims—along with a host of other violence directed at them, and the incredible lengths to which western feminists have gone to suppress the data-wives who discover their husbands have been raped most often leave them.

“They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”
One need look no further than to Americas academic culture, science, and scientists, to note the incredibly disturbing trend in America, and the west in general to minimize or deny the pain that men endure in regards to rape is a social construct with damning effects.

The Guardian—the same paper that had the courage to publish Wikileaks documents, points out that “It’s not just in East Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple, of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.”

Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre [sic] reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped.”
As well, many if not all reports of rape-culture formation directed at males has been left out of the literature as pertains to American social policy, as in the case of the CIA’s projects MKULTRA and MKMONARCH.[…]

These numbers are not at all unusual, nor is evidence that men are rape victims in any way an unknown phenomenon, as Jewish and Christian culture has long been known for sexually mutilating men in war and in times of peace[biblical quote about foreskins]; but what is remarkable is how hard and how desperately American women’s groups, feminists, and liberals in general ( the same people who brought us the rape culture analysis) have worked hard to minimize this fact, and keep it out of the literature.

And unlike women who survive rape, male survivors are secondarily and summarily punished in myriad ways.

The Guardian reports that “In Uganda, survivors are at risk of arrest by police, as they are likely to assume that they’re gay – a crime in this country and in 38 of the 53 African nations. They will probably be ostracized [sic] by friends, rejected by family and turned away by the UN and the myriad international NGOs that are equipped, trained and ready to help women. They are wounded, isolated and in danger.”

Making matters worse, documentary evidence of the rape of men is always overlooked, and underfunded, “although a rare 2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence.”

Whereas second wave feminists lauded and oddly, laughed at and approved of women cutting off men’s penises[..], and adulated the original Vagina Monologues rape of a 13 year old girl by a woman, they ensured that the rape of men would continue as a social policy, and even today, work against the safety of women, and the men who know them.

Stemple says that “International human rights law leaves out men in nearly all instruments designed to address sexual violence,” she continues. “The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered.”

Based on Stemple’s data, the preponderance of women invested in rape prevention and social reform, one could even posit that the rape of men is a deliberate social policy in all structures of power, because whether that power is female, or male, it leads to rape.

Other indicators, like the perpetuation of the American prison system and its enormous growth have been piggy-backed onto the political success of women’s groups in generating funding for public fear campaigns that are in essence, a marriage between the police and women’s groups, like the Take Back the Night campaign, or the current round of inflated statistics on sexual exploitation .

American prisons are rape factories, by design, and either women’s groups in America have worked hard to ensure that they stay that way, women have chosen to be part of a campaign of violence against men that is so insidious it demands the suspension of belief in women’s movements.

Ironically, George W. Bush, a white male and a conservative Republican who upheld the rapes of men at Abu Ghraib—as did many Democrats–has been the only world leader to ever publicly go on record and denounce prison rape.

Cover of "Mercy"

Cover of Mercy

Andrea Dworkin‘s Fiction 101: “Lie, for effect.”

The roots of the feminist ‘men are doormats’ dilemma, and why nice guys lose, finally, and always, in feminist theory. They can’t help  themselves–literally! They are dependent upon female narratives.

UPDATE: As predicted, DSK was found innocent and absolved of any wrong doing in this matter, and currently, Naffisatou Diallo is ‘seeking a confrontation’ to avoid being deported, and to vindicate her untenable position.

I am trying to track down this odd obscure detail about Andrea Dworkin, which is probably going to be harder than explaining why the wage gap between men and women is either a  clever falsehood, or a mis-representation of women’s choices.

And even harder than trying to explain why hiding the identity of Dominique Strauss-Kahn‘s rape-accuser, Nafisatou Diallo, is the western version of ‘putting a veil on women.’

Here is Naffisatou Diallo below– false rape accuser, and drug money courier. Her false accusation against Dominique Strauss Kahn could throw the French presidential election.

Tolerating One Lie, Leads to Generations of More Lies: Naffisatou Diallo, false rape accuser

But back to obscure facts for a minute. It seems that John Preston, gay activist, author, and founder of the now-defunct Gay House, Inc. in Minneapolis, remembers Andrea Dworkin being in Minneapolis sometime in 1971.

She claimed she was in Amsterdam at the time as a “battered wife.”

I haven’t the time or the resources to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become truths, and personal truth becomes a lie.

Such is the case in the genesis of Dworkin’s work Mercy, which I will address below. Mercy is also a great part of Dworkin’s belief in lying as an imperative to creating new truths, which is not necessarily ignoble when old truth constructions don’t work anymore but it IS dubious and non-factual nonetheless.

Nor do I want to waste too much time on tracking down one attention getting manipulation of facts, or conflations of statistics after another, like the latest inflation of statistics, or sketchy evidence on sex trafficking by the now soundly debunked Schapiro Group.

But I have a hunch I can find some data about this one claim. After all, Gay House was right up the block from one of my homes.

I am seeking the data because I have a theory that modern feminism is a co-option of womens voices, and a product of CIA social engineering. Sounds all hoolie boolie, huh?

But not so hoolie boolie when you think about a few things:
1) it is now well known that Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative—so much so that Betty Friedan questioned CIA involvement in the women’s movement, and

2)  Dworkin herself was a curiously mobile, though rather penniless  individual who crossed borders, and crossed gender identities so fluidly: not bad for an uneducated girl, until you take into account her affiliation with Steinem[…]; and

3) modern feminism is so deeply allied with the subversion of domestic discourse, and allied with police power that falsehoods are widely circulated as truths—subjectivity has overcome objectivity in truth telling, so much so that the latest ‘study’ of the exploitation of teen prostitutes need only base its assertions on “lookism,” rather than hard data, or what the rest of us know as “facts”.

And then, when you realize that the false rape ideology that drives them, and is popping up all over the media [Assange, DSK , etc.] became a memetic device around the same time that Steinem was sleeping with the CIA chief, and also running around with Henry Kissinger, the great war chief who brought us the severed ears fingers and  hands of Viet Nam, and the sawed off feet of Guatemalan Indians some years later.

Together, they devised perhaps the most clever plan ever of capitalist imperial conquest; and devised one of the best smokescreens against truth in history–next to the bible, of course.

Here, have a look yourself: the word rape is a very popular adword, and a cash cow for bloggers.

Rape is a popular Google Adword--bloggers make money with rape!

But the weight of just one lie can wear you out, and make you feel like nothing is worth it—that life itself is not worth living if lies are the vehicle to truth, or as truth is more commonly known in feminist circles, consensus, monolithic, collective female consensus. And that version of truth is even heavier with the agency of the state behind its telling.

Even so, I am trying to lift Andrea off of my shoulders, and get to the bottom of a simple fact.

More later….

What?? The evul turrorist’s are employing the same techniques that Americans have historically used to propagandize children, the even more evul cartoon??

Sounds all to familiar. Here is a Disney cartoon about Americas war machine.
OOoops. I meant to say Nazi Germanies war machine, which, like America, sought to attach itself to children’s minds, a sort of mental molestation.

In war porn, and violence provoking rhetoric, the evil “other” needs to be controlled, marginalized, and dehumanized. Here in America it is second nature to not question the propaganda that is aimed at children ( and adults via Family Guy, etc.), and Americans are known to not think it through when it comes to the affect that is created in their conscious minds by propaganda.

Cartoons begin the ‘un-thinking’  process which leads to war being accepted as normal; us versus them.

Hopefully Al Qaida will create a cartoon about the effects of depleted uranium on children–but I doubt it, because the minute I hear about new media in under-developed countries, or old media being applied to new audiences, I smell a rat–or a Mouse.

On the surface, the article seems to appeal to all people, in an almost egalitarian manner, despite the fact that it just a snapshot in time, from one locality. And of course, it is a selective example wherein not only do women appear to be greater in ‘victimhood’ but also it compares the existing notions and false presumption (women are victims of DV at greater rates than men) against the facts of DV ( Fiebert’s careful three decade study of DV on initiation and follow through of women’s violence directed at men.)

In brutally simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting.

Now, the facts: in this one study of deaths caused by DV, men lose, clearly, in the common imagination of the layperson, because obviously, more women died in this example. The author then goes on to break down the examples and we find that—surprise!—the men who killed women were abusers, and the women who killed men were no doubt driven to it, by being egregiously abused, while many men also killed themselves ( hot topic in feminist rhetoric ‘men kill themselves to hurt women’—new lows in the debate, while other feminists take a pro-active stance acknowledging that men’s suicide rates are a serious topic…).

What is missing in this particular snapshot is that we have to imagine what could drive a man to murder—and we do not impute males with the same propensity to kill a mate with long term abuse suffered by those males. But enough about this snapshot- one of millions out there that attempt to circumvent the issue of aggression with extreme examples—where are the facts in practice as documented by Fiebert?

Here is what comes next, after the article, when the comments begin:

Notice how the women first ask for a particular male; then, bait the hook—as if men are prey– female two says “wait for it…” as if men are out there somewhere, just dying to hear such dismissive rhetoric—that rhetoric inscribed upon male bodies by women’s lifelong deliberate denial of male awareness of the female voice and it’s impending violence, such as Fiebert has had all along, but which seldom get attention because they are facts, not vitriol, or passive aggressive verbal violence directed at one particular sex.

This style of communication, by definition, is aggressive.

The question the author asks is itself a cloaked threat against men, asking not ‘what can we do about violence,’ but rather, implying that men are the cause of “their own” violence, and then aggressively attempting to provoke an equally aggressive reaction, while neatly overlooking the percentage of men killed by other men that women brought into their lives in the form of boyfriends, police powers, and social workers—a form of institutionalized violence that women do not face.

The example above IS an example of aggression by definition, and an example of the typical aggressive female to male gender-baiting that occurs all over America, every day; it is also an example of the third category of porn: academic porn; semi-informed, or semi interested perspectives about serious issues that masquerade as facts, while dismissing academic empirical evidence that contests the purportedly academic positions.

But what about this one snapshot example that actually examines aggression, and death caused by the dictionary definition of aggression? Not much of it. This study examines one example of homicide—and curiously minimizes the use by women of third parties to enable homicide of males, via boyfriends, and the police. It has virtually no intent other than to victimize males with statistical snapshots, and does nothing to address female aggression against males. It is one more form of gender warporn, and its net effect is to further violence.

The academic appeal is directed in the form that is dummied down and directed at those who do not have access to the entirety of a discussion( in this case the gender based, and separatist feminist based, deconstructionist and quasi-liberal, police infrastructure, and biased opinions about what constitute acts of aggression).

In other words, an early casualty of the debate about domestic violence was the simple facts that women commit many acts of violence in relationships, as Fieberts statistics clearly show.

Acts of aggression can be anything from the person at the grocery store parking their car with its bumper touching yours, to the guy on the bus who sits down without asking, and loudly blares his Ipod; to the person who insults you or demeans you on a daily basis, or the woman who reminds you how quickly the police or her other boyfriend will come if she calls them, no matter what she did to you.

Acts of aggression can also be women depending upon men to not speak up in a relationship when women verbally, sexually, or physically threaten them; or depend on other men to perpetuate the cycle of and by the time a man wakes up in such a situation, it is usually too late.

The best part about these academic websites that prostitute objectivity? They almost always seem to end their threads on the exact note they want, like orchestrated missives to half-wits. This post ended, predictably, with some woman upholding some man who died protecting the right of women to hide their violence behind violent men who protect ‘her’ children—and I don’t have the time to unpack that baggage right now. But last time I checked, we were not chimpanzees.

Men die more often when women use other men to fight battles that women start.

*Sage is a linguistic dictionary, based on WordNet http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ It is based on how English speakers actually use the language, and is NOT to be used to determine what the “correct” or “incorrect” use of the English language is, because political and social trends are fickle, financed, and flawed, whereas the democratic use of language, and common peoples understanding of that language, is democracy in action.

** SUMMARY:  The collection is entitled REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

===================================================

For anyone who is not an academic, ‘school educated person’, here is what I am saying above the non-arbitrary line above you.

Book smart people use the discussion about domestic violence to put more police in your neighborhoods, while keeping you out of their neighborhoods. Academics are people who have college degrees, and write stuff and try to get paid for what they write. What they write is funded-financed—by saying the right things to the government in order to get a paycheck from the government.

These people make a ton of money by talking about how women are abused, and by not talking about how men are abused. And they all hate Jerry Springer.

Remember Jerry Springer, and all those violent women? At least he showed us the truth about women who your man goes to when you are pregnant, because talking to each other about sex isn’t something we are taught to do, and prostitution isn’t legal in America.

Women who hit men, and children; and women who cheat, and then call the police to look like victims are all on Jerry Springer, but the book smart people hate him.

Remember all those women who had babies by a bunch of men? Do you ever wonder why your man doesn’t come home? And when he does do you want to just kill him? The girl on Springer is the one who used your man to get a piece of his paycheck, just like academics get government money. All of us get used by them when they don’t tell the truth.

Do you sometimes want to smack your woman upside her head because she spent two hours talking to the guy at the Waffle House? It’s probably because you don’t have anyone to talk to, because some people like you actually work for a living, and book smart people use words that could put you in jail, where they should be.

But simply put, many women make money by accusing men of crimes, and other women don’t talk about it. Lots of people beat each other up; but only men go to jail for it—because the people who write books about violence get money when they only talk about mens violence. And the cops and academics and social workers are all off fucking each other while your local main street is eaten up by Walmart.

They don’t give a shit about you, and they use the troubles that men and women have in relationships to make money.

So, if you need help in a violent situation, here is a number you can call 1-800-EAT-SHIT, because they are not here to help you.

 

Academic culture is the etic rapist of emic meaning by classification, co-option, and preemption and re-definition of the language of laypeople.

If you are not a book smart person, go here[.], down below the double line under all this talk below. This is written for college people, but I am trying to talk to you about how aggressive women commit violence in relationships, and how other women don’t talk about it, and how men don’t have the words to describe it.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Aggression has multiple definitions in the daily use and paralanguage of lay people, however, in discussions about rape, domestic violence, and pornography, it is the language of the lay person that suffers, and the very duty of linguistics is betrayed, as politically motivated and grant-funded groups and individuals wage war on words that have common understandings to non-academics.

Choose your weapon. I choose the freeware dictionary “The Sage,” by Sequence Publishing* for the purpose of discussing the battles waged against words and people who use them. You can download a copy of the freeware Sage dictionary here.

Violence is clearly, by anyone’s definition, a sock in the eye, a kick in the groin, or a gut punch. But in defining aggression, the jury is still out, denating whether men or women are more aggressive.

It is a slap in the face of anyone who seeks a broader understanding of truth, or issues that confront them, to have to deal with the inherent sexism of such debate. It is indisputable that physical aggression is violence–if one accepts the standard Merriam-Websters definition.

It seems it isn’t as clear in academic minds that aggression takes many forms against all persons before physical aggression takes place, with males being the most prone to being victims of that aggression, and one cause of this opacity of the academic mind is the rhetoric of the body, and feminist discourse about patriarchal violence.

According to Sage, aggression, definition number one is “violent action that is hostile, and usually unprovoked.” I don’t think anybody can dispute that, and many of us have experienced it. However, definitions get a bit fuzzy when we look at words like “usually,” within the definition–even in a linguistic sense. It is a landmine of a word that threatens to throw the whole definition into the toilet. And using a prescriptive dictionary like Websters only exacerbates the problems inherent in the discourse.

Why? Because in this case, ‘usually’ is an ambiguous, an indefinite article of speech. What is ‘usually,’ exactly? Ask your own dictionary, but it basically means ‘commonly occurring,’ and based on Sage, it would be an artifact of presumptive meaning, modal behavior for those who enjoy the modality of ordinary life.

But what about the rest of us? We employ other means by necessity of survival to arrive at meaning–and the means are holistic, not atomistic, as is the case of political, academic intention.

And to that purpose–sans academic politics, and in reference to domestic violence, both sexes commit aggressive acts within relationships almost equally, with women ‘usually’ initiating more violence than men, and more likely to commit physical violence, according to a three decades long bibliography of domestic violence statistics compiled by Martin Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.**

Martin Fiebert, Ph.

Martin Fiebert Ph.D. California State University, Long Beach (562) 985-5027 e-mail: mfiebert@csulb.edu

The combined studies in Fiebert’s not-so-easily-dismissed sampling have an aggregate sample size of 369,800 people, and demonstrate that women commit an equal, or greater amount of violence against male partners.

So, the problem inherent in the academic war against facts is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. Or, in layman’s terms, academics have whored themselves for funding at the expense of truth.

In fact, in acts of war upon language, academia employs the tool of a laypersons possible or theoretical, subjective reality—using imagery of abused women at the expense of using imagery of abused men– at the expense of objectivity. Who can’t feel sorry for an abused woman? And why don’t men just ‘protect themselves?”

These questions have obvious answers, except in the mind of academics, who still deny that women are more likely to sexually abuse children than they are to sexually abuse men. If inquiry were actually a goal of academics, rather than grant writing for popular causes, or politicking, I would imagine that fact would beg a huge research question–yet there is still no hypothesis on the effect of women’s abuse of children on men’s aggression.

Objectivity is a requirement of most standard sciences(never mind gender and culture studies), yet falls by the wayside when political objectives are mixed with propagandists intentions—or, as I discuss briefly in my mission statement, academia has sacrificed truth and scholarship at the expense of objectivity, which for academics is a lucrative industry. This is what I call academic porn.

The net effect of rhetorical ploys over objective reality is that, in the time such rhetoric has been employed against objective truth, the American prison system has nearly tripled incarceration rates of males, with over half of them imprisoned for crimes that ARE NOT VIOLENT CRIMES, nor are the crimes for which they are imprisoned violent crimes against women, or against persons. In fact, more than 50% of imprisoned men are in prison for what they did to their own bodies by using drugs.

Addiction (a side issue here) is almost exclusively anti-social, in that addicts live lives that are solitary, isolated, and incapable of interacting with social norms to the level where domestic violence would even be an issue. Equally, many addicts in prison are victims of violent crimes perpetrated on them y mothers, and of actual rapists, we have known for decades that they are often the victims of domestic violence when they were children.

But back to Sage for a minute, and a reality check. Sage (and I am sure whatever dictionary you are using) has several definitions of aggression—so why stop at definition one?

Definition two is merely the initiation of unfriendly behavior; definitions three onward are really a discussion about initiating aggression, to feelings that arouse thoughts of attacks.

Let’s look at two for a minute. What initiates behavior—what is unfriendly? I will show you one of the thousands and thousands of examples of women’s aggression in action on the web. This example comes in the form of aggressively ‘baiting’ men for aggressive responses to women’s behavior. And mind you—there are no men present in the discussion except perhaps in the imagination of the author:

Typical aggreesion baiting by typical female blogger--the lowest common denominator in the discussion of domestic violence

On the surface, the article seems to appeal to all people, in an almost egalitarian manner, despite the fact that it just a snapshot in time, from one locality. And of course, it is a selective example wherein not only do women appear to be greater in ‘victimhood’ but also it compares the existing notions and false presumption (women are victims of DV at greater rates than men) against the facts of DV ( Fiebert’s careful three decade study of DV on initiation and follow through of women’s aggression and violence directed at men.)

In simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting–which would indeed go unnoticed if only men died from DV.

Now, the facts: in this one study of deaths caused by DV, men lose, clearly, in the common imagination of the layperson, because obviously, more women died in this example. The author then goes on to break down the examples and we find that—surprise!—the men who killed women were abusers, and the women who killed men were no doubt driven to it, by being egregiously abused, while many men also killed themselves ( hot topic in feminist rhetoric ‘ men kill themselves to hurt women’—new lows in the debate…).

What is missing in this particular snapshot is that we have to imagine what could drive a man to murder—and we do not impute males with the same propensity to kill a mate with long term abuse suffered by those males. But enough about this snapshot- one of millions out there that attempt to circumvent the issue of aggression with extreme examples—where are the facts in practice as documented by Fiebert? Based on th definition of aggression, the facts are everywhere, every day, and I will demonstrate that some women use verbal aggression with the explicit intention of provoking male anger.

Rape culture is a concept that nobly, and rightfully challenges the co-option of our bodies, and the existing social order, and attempts to describe a social condition of oppression of women by the co-option of their bodies and choices, and often rightfully asserts that American society, and western society in general, is a society based on the control of womens bodies, and women’s choices in reproduction, and sexual expression.

But this one-winged philosophy denies male experience within that same rape culture, and stifles male voice that could actually enable the tilting of the world —in one great direction–, ensuring the end, not of patriarchy, but of dominance and control models of social and sexual interactions.

That is, dominance and control is what turns these women on and gets their sexual wheels turning, which is likely why they make appeals not to common men, but rather, they constantly appeal to police and state authority for “protection from rapists.” Perhaps womens sexuality is embodied as an object for those who are into voyeurism, rather than objectified as objects of ‘sexual conquest’-an actual physical action, rather than a reaction, to female exhibitionism.

That women are upset at the disjointed reality of the potential actualized and sexual male gaze, rather than the sexualizing female gaze and its voyeuristic, tacit approval of sexual displays, becomes evident whn exploring the formative years of powerful feminists.

Feminist theory stands directly in the way of ending patriarchy, basing its argument from semi-supported, a priori evidence, and studies—endless studies—of purported male sexual behaviours, rather than a posteriori evidence of its own longings, tendencies, and desires in unison or cohesive agreement with human nature, or their own.

In doing so, they have inserted themselves very much like rapists via the vehicle of police state social mechanisms, into a dialogue that is divisive, non-inclusive of reality, and sexually harmful.

Some militarists and extremists in the feminist camp have taken an extreme posture that all sex between men and women is forced or coerced sex, and that all interactions between a man and a woman are exploitative of what women essentially are.They have also suggested that all representations of women and sex that take place in such a sytem are pornographic, and that these images of women do not represent the actual sexuality of women.

They also have implied in most cases, and stated at times that the penis is a tool of oppression, a weapon of control, and also have theorized a world where women rule, and that such a world would give women access to men’s penises for the purpose of sperm production, and conceiving children.

Their views also hold that rape of women–and by extrapolation—children, is the primary aim of men in general, and the particular and specific aim of men in power—the patriarchy. They were not all wrong, and especially as concerns that eras Feudian hypotheses that held that girls engaged in fantasizing about being raped by their fathers, when in fact girls were experiencing actual sexual molestation and abuse; yet they have yet at any length explore abuse of sexual abuse of children by mothers, or particularly by their own mothers.