Tell Me This Does Not Pertain to Feminism
Yes, I blame feminism for propagating the idea that men are responsible for most domestic violence. That is why I am sharing this video today.
There is no creditable evidence that men commit 95% of domestic violence, as the feminists have drilled into our brains for so many years. This is not by any stretch a "fact"; it is merely an assertion. Or, if you will, a thing asserted. And anything, but anything, can be asserted -- even the most flagrant humbuggeries. Yet it remains never more and never less than a thing asserted, and that all by itself counts for diddly.
Now, it seems that men in fact commit only half of all domestic violence. Truckloads of highly creditable academic studies, made to the best specifications you could hope for, all bear witness to this, while the documentation for the feminist case is paltry. Yes I know, for I have looked into it. Trust me, the non-feminists have a far stronger case.
So, that means that men are being assaulted and battered by women. And the question naturally arises: what ought we to do about this? Open up existing shelters to male victims? Or, as some have suggested, construct all-new shelters for men? Certain malicious jackasses, of the feminist persuasion, have wondered out loud why "the MRAs" (whoever those are) don't "build domestic violence shelters for men."
Well, I can't answer for every activated non-feminist on planet Earth. But for myself, I must confess that I have no immediate plans to run out and "build a domestic violence shelter" for men. Nor do I have any long range plans to do this. In fact, I have no plans at all to do this, and I can honestly inform you that I will NEVER do this. I would have absolutely no idea how to carry such a project into effect. I haven't got the know-how, the connections, the savoir-faire, the moxie, and so on, to do such a thing. I wouldn't know the first thing about it, let alone the tenth or twelfth or fourteenth thing about it.
So I am recusing myself from such a responsibility because I feel I am eminently unqualified for it. My talent lies elsewhere, as likewise my agenda. Plenty of other people, whether they call themselves "MRAs" or something else, would know exactly what to do in order to "build a domestic violence shelter for men", but I lack even the necessary construction trades knowledge, and I damn sure would have NO idea of what the day-to-day necessities would be in running such an establishment. Also, I would probably need some kind of college degree in social psychology or the like, in order to be a domestic violence shelter operator. Wouldn't you suppose? And I haven't got any such diploma, so I guess I am out of luck. Finally, I am pretty sure I would need to be a "people person" to succeed in this line of work, and honestly now, I am not much of a people person.
And besides, my plate is full. My life situation would not be compatible with building or operating a domestic violence shelter, even if I did know how in heaven's name to go about it. I simply haven't got the time.
And so, in case anybody is wondering, that is why I am not personally "building a domestic violence shelter for men". I can only speak for myself, but if you wanted to query a bunch of others, I am sure they would have plenty of perfectly good reasons why they, too, are not "building a domestic violence shelter for men". In fact, reasons largely similar to my own.
As an activated non-feminist, I feel it is my calling to attack the problem at a more upstream location. And so my endeavor is not "activism" as that word is commonly understood, but rather, agitation. I am not accountable to any "activist" frame of reference because I am not involved in such a theatre of operation in the first place -- and more significantly, I do not pretend to be.
I wish to attack feminism as a movement and as an ideology, to slow it down, to muster forces against it, to discredit it, and eventually liquidate it altogether. And I am going about this with nothing more sophisticated than the power of words, combined with the wonders of modern-day information technology. If I were living in the eighteenth century, I would likely be writing pamphlets or something along that line. But nowadays, in the twenty-first century, cyberspace is how we pamphleteer.
As regards the issue of domestic violence, what interests me chiefly is using it to score rhetorical points against feminism. That is a worthwhile endeavor if you accept the premise that feminism is a bad thing, and has got to go. To score rhetorical points against feminism is all part and parcel of the larger endeavor, and just one of many operations that will conduct ultimately toward the desired outcome. It's all in the game, and it's all good.
And so, I am an agitator who wants to score rhetorical points against feminism in order to assist in bringing about its ultimate collapse. And I use the issue of domestic violence as a device or prop, or "springboard" if you will, toward that end.
Feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has a lot to answer for. Yes, feminist guilt lies heavy indeed, for as I said earlier feminism is responsible for spreading that vile story that men are physically assaulting women, in the home, in plague proportions -- and that women, like innocent doves, are doing nothing remotely comparable to men.
And why would the feminists conduct such a despicable, reprehensible character assassination against half the human race? Well, I am not the devil's proctologist so I won't go there now. But we know that the feminists are indeed NASTY THINGS, as Angry Harry would say, and that their nastiness must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. It is an urgent priority that we do this.
We know that feminists spread lies with reckless abandon, and in our micro-dealings with them on a conversational level, we have discovered that they are the most shameless, arrogant and repulsive little weasels you will ever meet. We know they are appallingly fanatical people who twist words and distort meanings fourteen ways from Friday, that they have gained much too much influence in the world, and that it is past time somebody shot them out of the saddle.
Some people want to focus the conversation entirely upon the problem of domestic violence as such -- in order to get feminism off the hook by drawing attention away from it. However, I am only secondarily interested in solving the problem of domestic violence. I am primarily interested in solving the problem of feminism. This is called setting your priorities straight by attacking the root of the difficulty. For if feminism remains in business, it will most undoubtedly breed more and worse violence than you can ever hope to imagine.
So yes. In the end, my endeavor is to HELP MEN. And along the way, everybody else.
And the most upstream way to help men and everybody else, which taps the source directly, is to attack feminism and damage it any way you can.
That is elementary, and just as plain as broad daylight.