ere is a portion of an e-mail which I got today, which, as you can see, is a call to activism. And as my custom is, I am passing this along for the benefit of all who would act upon it as due consideration might incline them.
Obama, it seems, wants to "strengthen" DV laws. And what could that
possibly mean, other than making it easier to arrest and prosecute?
What, apart from some such, would make DV laws "stronger"? And against which chromosomal cohort, in particular, would the enhanced "strength" of these laws most likely be exercised? Ponder that question if you please:
"The President has unveiled a new domestic violence program that is transparently designed to sway the upcoming November 2 election. WE MUST ACT NOW.
"On Thursday and Friday, Oct. 28-29,2010, we are asking you to telephone your Senators and Representative in Washington DC at 1-202-224-3121 and deliver this simple message: 'Stop playing politics with Domestic Violence. Speak out against President Obama's untested DV plan. We need abuse prevention programs that are based on sound science, and do not ignore half of all abuse victims.'
"Don't call just once. Call several times, spacing your calls about an hour apart.
"And for extra emphasis, send an email to White House Domestic Violence czar Lynn Rosenthal: public@... with the same message. Politely direct Ms. Rosenthal to SAVE's plan to improve domestic violence programs [I have no idea what Rosenthal's e-mail is, and can't find it - Fidelbogen]:
SAVE Plan- - http://tinyurl.com/24kcjtf
Below is the propaganda sheet from the White House, which foments the hysteria:http://tinyurl.com/25zu3ml
And also, if it pleases you, a place to look up Congressional contact information:
o all right, here's a question: why do we hear so much hype on the subject of "violence against women"? Why is violence against women even an issue at all, and why does anybody even bother their head about it one way or the other? Why, why, why??
Why is violence against women in particular
so commonly singled out from among all other
forms of violence? Why is such a harsh and obsessive spotlight trained upon THIS kind of violence in preference to the many, many other forms which violence may, on varied occasions, assume? Why has violence against one arbitrarily chosen class of people
been boosted to such a peculiar and dizzily exaggerated altitude of public importance?
These are serious questions indeed, and yet they are nearly always swept under the carpet. Dirt, too, is swept under the carpet by those who, while disinclined to make proper disposal of it, are anxious to uphold propriety "on the cheap".
Let us suppose that I and a friend were to arm ourselves with baseball bats, go to the nearest public park, and belabor about the face and head the first two luckless Sunday strollers we chanced upon -- and with the additional detail that my friend attacked a man, and I a woman. Now, on the face of it, you would say that we had committed the identical crime; that of battery.
In purely cosmetic terms, to be sure, our work would afford no basis for mutual distinction. And yet. . . I would have committed violence against a woman,
whereas my friend would have committed (we are led to infer) an altogether more venial species of infraction.Violence against women,
you see, inheres as a uniquely differentiated category within the discourse of law and jurisprudence, but violence against men
And that is why we have a corpus of federal law in the United States known as the Violence Against Women Act -- or VAWA. For it is no longer the case that violence is simply violence irrespectively, as a lump sum. Heavens no, my pulverizing of a woman's face into an unrecognizable mass of sticky pulp, is of a qualitatively different order than the identical transformation wrought upon a male subject! We are not, overall, given to understand why this is so, yet we are proffered the most solemn assurance touching the wisdom of our intellectual superiors in this and related matters.
For example, we are not given to understand why the actual pattern of violence
in the world is not taken into account. It is widely and generally acknowledged, even by learned experts, that the bulk of all physical violence on planet earth is directed against male targets. That being so, common sense might seem to require that violence against men
-- rather than violence against women -- would be singled out as a special category in the discourse of law and jurisprudence. But such are the paradoxes, and our intellectual superiors assure us that common sense is wayward, that we really do need special laws which single out violence against women
for unique attention, and that we now need to "strengthen" these laws -- because apparently they still
aren't strong enough!
We might compare the field of human violence to a terrain with mountains and lowlands. Violence against men
would compose the Alpine, Andean and Himalayan heights -- which peak and spike! Violence against women, by contrast, would be like unto the Coast Range of Oregon.
Now, I don't know if you have ever been there, but Oregon's coastal "mountains", in the more dramatic stretches, could better be described as rugged hills --
and in the less dramatic stretches, not even that. Oh very well, I grant you that Mary's Peak, west of Corvallis, looks impressive on the skyline.
they are not. Andes
they are not. Himalayas
they are not. In fact, they resemble nothing so much as a kid brother to the much mightier Cascades
-- just across the Willamette valley to the east.
Yes, "violence against women" is the Oregon Coast Range, and "violence against men" is the Himalayas. There is no comparison -- although it is true that you could
have an equally violent rock-climbing accident in either region!
Yet, notwithstanding the stark disparities, our intellectual superiors do assure us, most assuredly,
that violence against women
is "special", and must be specially categorized in the discourse of law and jurisprudence, and given a proportionally greater percentage of cultural mindshare. It isn't just violence like any other violence, mind you: it is violence against women
-- and you know how terrible that
sounds . . . right? So, violence against women deserves a Himalayan
amount of mindshare despite its Oregon Coast Range
proportions, while violence against men (so it seems) deserves an Oregon Coast Range
amount of mindshare despite its Himalayan
Because you see, our intellectual superiors, in their infinite wisdom, are always one jump ahead of us. They understand, as we do not, that we are, all of us, living in something called "the Patriarchy". And they (our intellectual superiors) would therewith kindly make us understand, in that infinitely patient and obliging way they've got, that while it is true that most violence is suffered by men, it is also true that most violence is inflicted
And aye, forsooth, it arrives as a balm and a soothing ointment unto our souls, that we are made to understand at last the true bearing of this. Men inflict the majority of violence, women suffer the minority
of violence, and for that very reason, violence against little old YOU (unlike violence against "women") deserves no separate consideration in the discourse of law and jurisprudence. Violence against "women" is just special
in that way. . . but there is nothing "special" about violence against little old YOU. Is this all becoming clear to you now?
Men, you see, commit the bulk of all violence in the world (or so we are told by our intellectual superiors), and this entrenched regime of male violence is called "the Patriarchy". Our intellectual superiors have assured us, most assuredly, that this is true. Men collectively,
we are given to understand, use the aggregate of their male violence in order to exercise what is called "patriarchal power and control", and . . . this patriarchal power and control
reaches clear down into the smallest transactions of individual
life. Yes, virtually everything operates according to the wise "body of theory" which our intellectual superiors (in the superiority of their intellect) have kindly mapped out and made available as a guide for all of our lives.
And that brings us to the clincher -- that although it is true that most violence is suffered by men, this fact is far overshadowed in importance by the fact that most violence is committed
by men. And the reason men collectively commit that statistical mass of violence in the first place, is to exercise patriarchal power and control over other men,
and finally. . . . over women too!
Yes, our intellectual superiors have been teaching us for years -- or at least trying
to teach us -- that a catastrophic, pandemic forest fire of domestic violence
is raging through society, and that 95% of this DV is initiated by MEN -- for the simple, universal, invariable and infallibly diagnosed reason that they (men) wish to exercise patriarchal power and control over the women in their lives.
Yes, that is precisely what men are always doing in such cases! Our intellectual superiors have taught us this. They know this for a fact,
and they know it is true clear across the board --
true even for multitudes of men and women whose lives they have never personally investigated! And although a lot of MRAs and other ungrateful curs have suggested that they (our intellectual superiors) are "just pulling that stuff out of their ass", it should not in the least concern us to know what part of their bodies our intellectual superiors are pulling that stuff from. For us, it is enough to know that they ARE IN FACT our intellectual superiors, and that we ought to respect our intellectual superiors, and that whatever issues from them
-- orifice notwithstanding -- is "more evolved" than we are.
So never mind that our intellectual superiors have got zero conclusive evidence to prove that men commit any more than half
of all domestic violence! And never mind that our intellectual superiors have constructed their case on a foundation of shamefully shoddy scholarship and even downright lies; never mind all of that! For they, being our intellectual superiors, ought to be respected, and ought to be taken on faith as serving a higher good which is not directly known to us -- yes: they have their reasons!
That they, our intellectual superiors, have for one-third of a century built their game upon a method morally indistinguishable from the Big Lie recommended by Josef Goebbels, might at first sight appear to lend additional credence to the term feminazi!
But feminazi is a filthy, filthy word
-- and don't you ever, EVER call our intellectual superiors by such a name!
Just get busy with your broom, and sweep this all under the rug. I won't say nothin' if you won't! Shhhhh!!