Monday, June 25, 2007

The Story of a Real Life Father

No, I'm not talking about some ratty cartoon figure in a comic strip created by a moral midget. This here is the real deal, folks - and I thank the MRA in Great Britain who brought this story to my attention:

Jailed for Waving at my Daughter
Daily Mail, UK

Denied access to his three children after his divorce, Mark was jailed for standing outside his house to wave to them. It took ten years and 133 hearings before they were reunited. How CAN the Government insist cases like his are kept secret?

Every day there is some reminder of what Mark Harris calls 'the lost years'.

It could be his daughter's reference to a particular birthday party or a family holiday. It could be talk of exams sat, dentists visited or pop stars worshipped.

Each time it happens, he feels a stab of regret. 'I missed so much,' he reveals, with understandable bitterness. 'They took my daughter's childhood, her formative years, from me. Lisa is 20 now. I didn't see her between the ages of ten and 16. An awful lot happens in a child's life in that time, and I missed it all.'

Reunited: Lisa, 20, with her father, Mark Harris

Lisa missed a lot, too. She sits by Mark's side as he talks, a beautiful and assured young woman, but one still coming to terms with the fact that her father simply wasn't there when she needed him - and for an entire decade she did not know why.

'There were times when I needed a father figure - for reassurance and advice,' she says, with quiet restraint. 'There just wasn't one there.'

But the story of what happened to the Harris family isn't just another tragic case of broken homes and estrangement. Mark, Lisa and her two younger sisters were wrenched apart by the state.

Mark was not a feckless, irresponsible father. He did not walk out of his children's lives. Rather, he was ordered out by the family courts, and when he objected - insisting it was his right to see them - he was dealt with in a scandalous way.

Mark Harris went to prison for his girls. He was jailed for waving to them after a court order demanded he sever all contact. It was the most shameful chapter in an extraordinary ten-year custody battle.

He has now 'won' - today, two of his daughters live with him - only because they shared their father's determination to re-establish their relationship.

He has lived every father's worst nightmare, and every miserable step is etched on his face. 'It took ten years, 133 court appearances before 33 different judges, two prison sentences and a hunger strike before I was given permission to be with my daughters again,' he says quietly.

'What happened to my family is unforgivable. And that it was all sanctioned - ordered - by a system that is supposed to help families is outrageous.'

The controversial family court system has much to answer for in this case. Mark Harris isn't the first father who has questioned how it operates. Family court proceedings are notoriously secretive, and campaigners have long appealed for the proceedings to be more open and judges more accountable.

That is not to be, however. Last week the Lord Chancellor ruled that proceedings must remain secret . . .

Read the full article here...

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Berk Breathed's Despicable Comic Strip

"Comic", did we say? No. There is nothing comical about it. It is not comedy; it is not funny.

Jennifer Roback Morse has written a piece about this "father's day kick in the teeth" over on Townhall.Com. The article was not bad. It was...."okay".

What interested me far more was the reader comment section immediately following. About half of the comments were written by abject moral idiots who couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Head on over there and see for yourself:

Not His Magnum OPUS

You may notice a contribution by your humble blogmaster - by far the weightiest entry of the lot. (I had to register at Townhall.Com in order to leave that comment, but it was worth it!)

Consider adding your own voices, if you feel as strongly about this as I do.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Mothers Abusing and Murdering Their Children

This from Salon.Com:
"In November 1997, the journal Pediatrics published the results of a terrifying experiment. Doctors at several hospitals in Great Britain had decided to covertly videotape 39 parents -- most of them mothers -- whom medical personnel had begun to suspect were deliberately bringing their young children to the brink of death. What they saw astounded them. In 30 of the 39 cases, the parents were observed intentionally suffocating their children; in two they were seen attempting to poison a child; in a third, the mother under surveillance deliberately broke her 3-month-old daughter's arm. Many of the parents seemed as methodical and as brazen, as scoured of fear or conscience, as any serial killer. "Abuse was inflicted without provocation and with premeditation, and in some instances, involved elaborate and plausible lies to explain consequences," the study's authors wrote. "For example, one mother claimed that she had suffocated her son because of stress related to his crying and continually waking her from sleep. However, under surveillance, the mother was seen, with premeditated planning, to suffocate her infant when he was deeply asleep. The majority of other cases showed attempted suffocation when the child was asleep or lying passively on the bed. Children did not appear to provoke their parents into abusing them."

Read the rest of the article here:

Maybe I should have saved this one for Mother's Day, but since it makes such a perfect counterpoint to the immediately foregoing Father's Day post, I decided to insert it here.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Marc Rudov

I have just recieved the following e-mail, which I share verbatim:
"Marc Rudov is a key figure in today's men's movement, especially here in North America. If you don't already know him, he is the author of two books and has had many television and radio appearances. He is known as The No-Nonsense Man.

On fridays he debates Lis Wiehl on Fox about gender biases in dating, marriage, divorce, the workplace, etc. After each debate there is online voting to determine who "won" the debate. Marc has been doing very well, but the more votes he gets the more people will realize how important his arguments are.If you haven't seen any of Marc's publications, I urge you to visit his website (

On Marc's site you will find links to his debates with Lis Wiehl. Marc also has a mailing list that you can subscribe to to stay informed about his activities."

Friday, June 15, 2007

More Big News About the Bike Trek

Rob Pedersen has provided the following link, asking that I share, so.....I share:

In a nutshell, the two Robs (Rob Pedersen and Robb MacKenzie) are scheduled for an interview on the Radio Lia program - where they'll be talking about the Equal Parenting Bike Trek, among other things. This is a nationwide broadcast with a massive listener base clear across the USA, and into Canada also! I gather that the Radio Lia audience consists of Country music fans to a very large degree, and Lia is well-connected in Country music circles. THERE is a demographic which is keen upon traditional family life. Spread the word among that crowd, and you're pumping some serious political iron, all right!

The snowball grows interestingly indeed , eh? ;-)

Dr. Don's Duluthic Dissections

Here is some excellent reading that won't cost you one thin dime! A complete book chapter in PDF format:

Thinking Outside the Box: Gender and Court-Mandated Therapy - By Donald Dutton

Highly recommended. You might enjoy this alongside of the other Don Dutton article I linked to earlier, in the post entitled Does Patriarchy Explain Domestice Violence?

Here' s a sample:
"The theoretical problem with the Duluth model has been explored here and in other papers .... Simply put, it is that the evidence for patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and contradicted by several data sets, including data showing that male-dominant couples constitute only 9.6% of all couples..., women are at least as violent as men..., women are more likely to use severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse ..., powerlessness rather than power seems related to male violence, and there are no data supporting the idea that men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable .... To the contrary, only 2.1% of U.S. men think it is acceptable for a man to strike a woman to “keep her in line” .... Finally, abuse rates are higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships ..., suggesting that intimacy and psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than sexism."

Hey, here's a fun little goody: Did you know that Ampersand (Barry Deutsch), the well-known collaborationist blogger, once confessed that he had never even heard of the Duluth Model..?? I, Fidelbogen, was the first person ever to educate him upon this subject; I provided him with a web link so he could learn about it. I wonder if he ever followed that link...

The Equal Parenting Bike Trek: Update

A while ago, I blogged about the Equal Parenting Bike Trek (from Lansing, MI., to Washington, D.C.) which is scheduled to happen in August, culminating in a rally at which 100,000 people are expected. The latest news on this is excellent; it seems that the media coverage will be phenomenal! Indeed, the word is spreading like wildfire already, even though the event is still two months away!

For all you political strategy wonks out there, this is an event which bears serious watching!

As a sympton of the massive grassroots attention which the Bike Trek has attracted, we hear of a HUGE spike in daily visitor traffic on DaddyBlogger.Com, the cyberspace "headquarters" for Bike Trek planning and publicity:
"We are averaging over 400 unique new visitors daily!! We are simply stunned at how DaddyBlogger has exploded in popularity. Our Technorati rank has increased so rapidly we, at first, thought maybe there was some type of error in the reporting. To have our rank with the millions and millions of blogs that are out there is truly an honor. So - thank you again - this has touched Robert and I so much."

The entire page on DaddyBlogger, from which the above is excerpted, is bursting with exciting news like juice from a ripe pomegranate, so, rather than me summarizing it, I'll send you directly over there now - to bump up their visitor count a tad bit more!

Oh, by the way... they can use donations and volunteer help.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs

I would like to undertake an interrogational scrutiny of feminism's motivational sequiturs.

As the word implies, sequiturs are things which "follow", logically and consequently, from one to the next, with a discernible nexus running through them all. Motivational sequiturs then, are sequiturs of motive—that is to say, stages along an operative sequence decipherable in terms of a unifying goal or ambition.

Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried beneath the seeming non-rationality and non-coherence of feminism's outward manifestations.These sequiturs operate at the occulted core of the women's movement. Among such sequiturs, we may discern the following tacit presumptions which embody the vector sum of feminism's seemingly non-rational and non-coherent outward manifestations:




If you allow the truth of certain presuppositions embedded in these items, you will see that the items entail each other logically enough in terms of sequence.

Feminism implicitly seeks revenge. Revenge may be named as a goal or ambition which operates, for feminism, as a motivator. But...revenge against WHOM? Revenge for WHAT? Answer: Against MEN, owing to something that "MEN" collectively have done to "WOMEN" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.

In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).

Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which presuppose individual identity and agency will necessarily suffer infringement. The actual extent of such infringement will vary to the same extent that collectivism has been embodied in the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning, what they can prudently get away with under the circumstances, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.

At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no PARTICULAR female can be held to account for her behavior—for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.

So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from particles which are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.

Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all—meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".

Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing cannot but be composed of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with its own terms, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not presently interrogating the actual truth or falsehood of that paradigm—only attempting to display its internal logic.

So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. Therefore, by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an INNOCENT moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.

Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass particles which are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt. So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Absurd as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.

Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody—men and women alike—of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if somewhere down the road this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?

However, I pass that by....

Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually striving beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation". Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is necessary is for each item to enhance the worldly advantages of women in some manner. When you strip away the truly contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement insofar as they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy—or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."

Feminism, for nearly a half-century, has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot declare openly their drive for female supremacy—that wouldn't sound very nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to admit this openly—but only a few. A larger number are willing to say incredible things that might seem to condemn men to the doghouse, yet they deploy all manner of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what they seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU somehow. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"

Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large—a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain—are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to say rash things more openly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a certain extent they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.

Even so, when the radfems periodically get ahead of the curve and become too intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing—which they tend to do—we can predict a general movement (on the part of the lessrads) to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement, in order to dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminism's occult machinations continue to creep in the night.

The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a baffling smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.

Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.

For example, during the Duke lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in all of its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold...........

Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.

Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar—which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.

In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.


Friday, June 08, 2007

Using Brain-Twisters to Untwist Twisted Things

Here is a domestic violence scenario or, as they nowadays would call it, an "intimate partner violence" scenario.

A saintly, long-suffering and completely blameless husband endures years of psychological violence from his shrewish hell-wife. He pleads with her, he reasons with her, he exhausts all negotiatory possibilities.....but no luck!

One day, in the middle of another emotion-flaying session, he finally can't take any more and snaps, sending the wife sprawling across the room with a broken jaw - an injury that requires hospitalization.

The police arrive and haul the man off to jail. He eventually gets convicted and sent to a batterer's treatment program which is built upon the Duluth Model. In this program, he is forced to confess that he is a perpetrator. His case goes into a repository, and some time later it is harvested by a feminist researcher who is working on a report about male violence, to be presented to a legislative committee which is debating whether to pass more laws to increase funding for women's shelters, and to ease the standards of evidence needed to convict men of intimate partner violence in order to "get more convictions", which will enhance the male violence statistics that future feminist researchers will be harvesting for the purpose of encouraging the legislature to pass more laws that will make it easier to put more men in jail or in Duluth programs.

All right, let's break this down. A typical feminist would argue that male domestic violence against women is NEVER, under ANY circumstances acceptable. The man was just plain wrong to hit his wife. No excuses, mister!

Very well, riddle me this. If the man was entirely at fault, and nothing that the wife did could possibly "excuse" his action, then what can we say about the behavior of the wife?

We surely wouldn't care to assert that she was at fault, since that would be blaming the victim, right? He alone made the decision to smack her; she didn't "make" him do it; the burden was upon him to practice anger management and control his own physical behavior.

All right, so we might allow in theory that the wife bears no culpability for what the husband did with his fist on that occasion. Correct?

But take note of a distinction: Granting that she is not to blame for what HE finally did to HER at the precise climactic moment, is she in any way accountable for the years of emotional torture that she inflicted on him prior to that moment?

In other words, was her behavior during all of that time in ANY way reprehensible? Whatsoever? Is she deserving of ANY censure, ANY reproach, ANY condemnation of ANY kind? Or is she, categorically by any measure, an innocent dove?

Does the question of guilt for her long-standing behavior require examination in any context whatsoever? OR... is that point too frivolous to merit discussion in light of the 'male violence' which her husband finally inflicted, and more broadly in light of the violence which men are said to inflict upon women in society at large?

Think about this very, very carefully.

Now let's try something different. Picture a scenario number two, in which the husband continues to "suck it up" and "take it like a man", and the jaw-breaking episode does not occur. Got that on your monitor? Good. Now ask yourself, what precisely is the qualitative difference in the wife's behavior as between scenario number one, and scenario number two? Is there any qualitative difference whatsoever?

Consider, that the only way in which the two scenarios differ is the brief moment of impact of the husband's fist against the wife's jawbone. The entire time leading up to that moment - measured in years - was identical in both cases, yet the sole circumstance of the occurrence somehow makes everything "different".

Or does it?

The simple objective factuality of the wife's behavior has not been modified by the occurrence. What is pivotal to the present discussion is her possible blameworthiness. We know that her objective behavior was identical in both scenarios, but would you then aver that her behavior was rendered less culpable solely by reason of her husband's eventual action? Does that action somehow retroactively erase the wife's guilt?

Very well, supposing this last to be the granted, let's consider a further point. Does the husband's action somehow modify the wife's creative agency in bringing about the final occurrence? More precisely, does the husband's action retroactively cause the wife's creative agency to NOT BE creative agency after all? Quite apart from question of moral accountability, does the husband's action retroactively annihilate the sheer objective possibility that the wife co-scripted the final outcome in ANY way. Does the husband's final action literally erase history and re-write it?

Now: Can you plausibly argue that the husband was operating from motives of "patriarchal control" or anything of that sort? That the wife mentally tortured him until he couldn't take it any more, and the resulting violence was......"patriarchal"? That he only wanted to "control" her in order to maintain his "male privilege"? Consequently, would you say that the wife's behavior needn't be taken into consideration in any way, and that everything necessary to understand what took place is contained in what the husband did?

To summarize: In the case of scenario number one, are you going to argue both that the wife's behavior was undeserving of blame, and that her behavior had no causative link whatever with the eventual violence? Would you argue further that the outcome in this scenario flowed exclusively from the husband's patriarchal control needs while the behavior of the wife had no creative significance, whereas in scenario number two the husband did nothing "patriarchal", and that in such a context the identical behavior by the wife took on a completely different meaning?

Would you insist that the wife had zero creative agency altogether, and therefore zero culpability because both her creative agency and her culpability were retroactively cancelled by the impact of her husband's fist? Would this accurately summarize your thoughts upon the matter, and would you be willing to sign your name to it?

If you would answer yes, then let me tell you this: you are as good as calling it acceptable for women in general to inflict psychological violence upon men in general, and affirming that if a man eventually answers this with PHYSICAL violence, then the woman is in no way accountable for the genesis and eventual outcome of the situation.

If you admit such a conclusion in this one hypothetical case, then you cannot in good consistency deny the extension of your rule to any similar case anywhere at any time.

You are saying it is perfectly fine, in an absolute global sense, in principle, for women to inflict mental violence upon men. It is impossible to escape such a conclusion, given that you are complicit in the absurdity that the wife's behavior was essentially, qualitatively different as between scenarios one and two. You have effectively concluded that the wife's behavior in scenario number one was blameless and lacking in causative agency, whereas the absolute identical behavior in scenario number two was exactly the opposite. By so doing, you exercise a double-standard: you make use of the "patriarchy" explanation in a completely arbitrary manner, for no other reason than because it is convenient to your case in scenario number one! So if you wish to eliminate the double-standard, a burden of consistency lies upon you: either make the wife blameless and causatively inert in BOTH cases, or make her a culpable causative agent in BOTH cases....but whatever you do, get off the fence! If you employ the patriarchal explanation in scenario number one, consistency requires that you employ this explanation for scenario number two likewise - EVEN though that would land you in difficulties because it so patently inapplicable there. Your only alternative is discard the patriarchal explanation altogether and admit that the wife had some degree of causative agency, hence culpability, in either scenario equally. But clearly, you'd be loath to do that if you were a feminist!

Therefore, being a feminist, you would have only one choice: to apply the patriarchal explanation in BOTH scenarios - pointing to the conclusion that I explained above, namely that it is perfectly fine, in an absolute global sense, in principle, for women to inflict mental violence upon men. (Possibly citing the well-known feminist claim that nearly all female violence - physical or otherwise - is in self-defense.)

Have fun with these thoughts. Digest them. Grind them in your mill. Improve upon them. Dilate upon them. Put them to work in your own preaching. Devise a hundred creative ways to catapult these ideas back into the ranks of the enemy like crackling missiles of greek fire.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

It Happened Just Today...

I had left the house to go on an errand. I was driving along, with Telemann's Wassermusik playing on my CD deck, feeling tranquil and very much at peace. It was the kind of day that supplies negative ions, you understand. A rainy day, although not a torrential rain at all- more like an extremely heavy sprinkle.

I drove by a certain bus stop, and I noticed a young girl standing there - aged 16 or 17, but maturely dressed. Blended Asian-Caucasian ancestry, to judge by her looks. Rather pretty.

She caught my eye and fluttered her hand in the air, her lips forming words, signalling that she wished to speak to me. What the hell; I pulled over next to the curb and rolled the window halfway down.

I gathered that she was waiting for a bus which had somehow not appeared as expected. She wanted a ride to the main bus stop at the bottom of the hill half-a-mile away. And without any clear say-so from my side, she tried to open the door and get into the car.

The door, of course, was locked.

Now, the most parsimonious explanation is, that she was a naive and trusting person. I myself am no such person. Our present world is such, that to be naive and trusting is not a wise thing.

I politely but rather brusquely informed her that I would not be giving her a ride to the bus stop at the bottom of the hill. Then I rolled the window up, put the car in gear, and took it down the road - leaving her standing in the rain.

And while I was driving away, I could not forebear to reflect on how symbolic it all was....

Monday, June 04, 2007

Does 'Patriarchy' Explain Domestic Violence?

I recommend the following paper, by Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia's psychology department. After reading this, you might develop a craving for Dutton's books!






A critical review is made of feminist analyses of wife assault which postulate that patriarchy is a direct cause of wife assault. Data is reviewed from a variety of studies which indicate that

1) lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering

2) that no direct relationship exists between power and violence within couples

3) that no direct relationship exists between structural patriarchy and wife assault. It is concluded that patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology.

During the late 1970's a number of single factor explanations for male assaultiveness toward women were proffered. These included sociobiology, psychiatric disorders and patriarchy (Dutton, 1988). Dutton argued that no single factor explanation for wife assault sufficiently explained the available data and proposed instead a nested ecological theory examining interactive effects of the broader culture (macrosystem), the subculture (exosystem), the family (microsystem) and individual characteristics (ontogeny).

Dutton (1988) argued that psychiatric "explanations" were not actually explanatory, since they did no more than link assaultiveness to existing diagnostic categories without etiological explication. They also frequently overlooked important contextual factors that contributed to assault causation.

Sociobiological explanations were based on the premise that the primary motive of men is to maximize their contribution to the gene pool (e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1988). By extension, male rage over sexual threat was viewed by sociobiologists as having "survival value" (Wison 1975). Dutton (1988) argued that socially learned notions of anger and violence added explanatory power to the individual variation in behavioural responses to sexual threat. Dutton (1992) extended this argument to show how the source of rage in intimate relationships was not kinship per se, but ego identity factors naturally confounded with kinship. In elaborating the learned aspects of rage behaviors, Dutton was able to account for individual variation amongst males in response to a common stimulus. This variation is not explicable via broad sociobiological notions.

The last of the single factor causes of wife assault described by Dutton (1988) is patriarchy. Since new data have appeared since Dutton (1988), the focus of this paper is to present these data with a view to reformulating the role of patriarchy in causing intimate male violence. The thrust of this argument is that macrosystem factors such as patriarchy cannot, in themselves, explain individual behaviour. They commit what Dohrenwend called the "ecological fallacy" (Dooley & Catalano (1984)."

Go here to read the full paper as HTML:

Or download the paper in RTF format here:

Sunday, June 03, 2007

The Face of the Enemy—This is What
a Moron Looks Like

"Give them enough rope", as the saying metaphorically goes, "and they will hang themselves." I think that is a fine maxim - right up there alongside "Don't attack: undermine!"

And I would even take the maxim a step further: let them spin their own rope!

Today, I would like to introduce you to a somewhat thin-necked person who very likely needs no introduction; a person who has been diligently employed about the rope-spinning trade for quite some time. Yes, I think you have heard of her. Her name is Amanda Marcotte, and she is the proprietress of a web log called Pandagon - located at

It is always a special moment, I think, when you finally put a mug to a long-familiar name. That special moment arrived, for me, only today - and I would like to "share". Just in case you too still lack a face for this name which has gathered such notoriety. Yes, Amanda has earned quite the little reputation as a "shoot from the lip" gal. The Spiro Agnew of feminism, as it were!

Amanda has a unique and endearing talent for attacking her weak, stupid critics while completely ignoring the strong, smart ones! She is very clever that way; it is her preeminent claim to distinction. Remember all the tortuous, smarty-pants blame-shifting that she did in the wake of the Edwards embarassment? But, scrye that face. What is your gut sensation? Mine is, of a serpent coiled to strike. And take note of the eyes, how close-set they are, suggesting that the space between them is rather narrow. Beyond that, I would peg Amanda as a rather weak, brittle person who is either hiding something, or hiding behind something. Such is the impression that I garner.

But here, let Amanda damn herself out of her own mouth FAR more effectively than I, with my feeble power of invective, could ever hope to do. We have supplied the name; let her supply the shame:
Amanda Marcotte of writes:

"Baldwin is living up to the hint of abusive f*** that we gleaned from his phone message to his daughter. He’s proceeding to live out the MRA (Men's Rights Advocate) script—passive-aggressively abandoning his job so he can dedicate himself to full-time whining that he doesn’t have the subservient wife and children he feels entitled to and blaming his victims (”I’m only an ass*** because my ex-wife made me be one,” is the entire theory behind the made-up syndrome “parental alienation syndrome”)...Just more evidence of the theory that oppression hurts the oppressors by dehumanizing them—in this case, Baldwin is victimizing himself by being more attached to his sense of male entitlement than he is to his impressive talents as an actor.

"What are [the fathers' rights movement's] legitimate issues? That paying child support is unfair unless the recipient is forced to deliver some pussy once a week? That men who beat their wives should have the courts help them continue the abuse after she escapes by enabling non-stop lawsuits? Good luck finding a non-abuser to be its face. Non-abusive men tend to avoid the father’s rights activists, because there’s nothing the FRAs have for men who aren’t eager to find legal ways to continue abuse.

"FRAs want to give men more leeway to pursue illegit grievances. I oppose allowing men to make up reasons to sue their ex-wives repeatedly so that they can continue to abuse women who are trying to escape their abuse."

There! See how simple that is? All we need do is hang up their very own words in the public square, to twirl in the breeze. Although I admit that I couldn't resist a few acid quips on THIS occasion.

**(Notice how she can't keep straight the distinction between MRA and FRA....)