I said I wasn’t going to do it
again, but I came across a recent story reported by the Press Association,
which I take to be the UK equivalent of the Associated Press, that brought to
the fore the hypocrisy I despise so much; the story merely confirmed my own
suspicions of what is going on in this country. But before I get to that, I
want to first mention that I have just discovered a 2006 National Institute of
Justice program that solicited proposals for grants for research into “violence
against women.” Grants would go to, among other things, proposals that suggest
“solutions” to stop male-on-female violence. However, these proposal must not “suggests”
that women “share” blame in violent behavior to be considered for a grant.
What other studies would not be
eligible for funding?
“Proposals for research on
intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females
under the age of 12.” Meaning, of course, only adult women. I told you that these
people are the most self-obsessed on Earth, contrary to the usual myths. Truth is not the principle function of such studies, but politics.
There are, of course, unfunded “studies”
such as a 2001 report by the State University of New York at Stony Brook, which
claimed to be a “dispassionate” look at domestic violence by women. On the
contrary, it derided studies that showed that women were more likely to initiate
violence than men, preferring to cite other “studies” that indicated the opposite.
It went on to disregard domestic violence by women, because violence between
the two sexes was “asymmetrical,” and it assumed that most violence by women
was in “self-defense.” It also made the absurd claim that women were less
likely to commit domestic violence because it was, well, “unladylike.”
Yet in the UK, partisan and
politically-influenced “studies” that are deliberately skewed to arrive at
pre-determined conclusions are regarded more as propaganda than
scholarship. If one starts off with the
“answer” in search of a “question,” there is the inevitable attempt to make the
“data” fit the conclusion—or worse, only accounts for data that “confirms” the
“answer.” This is all too often what
occurs in the gender politicized U.S.—where anything that suggests that women
have any defects is likely to lead to hysterical personal attacks or charges of
“misogyny.”
Careful gathering and analysis of
data without regard to personal prejudices is apparently appreciated in the UK,
as well as professional ethics. In a study released this past June, Dr.
Elizabeth Bates of the University of Cumbria found that contrary to popular
belief, women are more likely to be
“controlling and aggressive” than men:
Previous studies have sought to explain male violence towards women as
arising from patriarchal values, which motivate men to seek to control women's
behaviour, using violence if necessary. This study found that women
demonstrated a desire to control their partners and were more likely to use
physical aggression than men. This suggests that IPV (Intimate Partner
Violence) may not be motivated by patriarchal values and needs to be studied
within the context of other forms of aggression, which has potential
implications for interventions.
“Potential implications for
interventions”? Could this possibly mean making women accountable for and
controlling their own behavior too? That women as the “gentler sex” is a media
and victim advocate “myth”? I mean, Janay Rice did initiate the violence—and it wasn’t about “self-defense”—and
how often is that “missed” or explained away by the media and gender activists?
We remember all the “outrage” when singer Chris Brown was accused of striking singer
Rihanna inside a car; what wasn’t widely mentioned was that her own behavior in
this incident was not that of a passive “wallflower,” either.
This study also revealed the
following:
Women were “more verbally and
physically aggressive” with their intimate partners than vice-versa.
Men tended to display more
physical aggression to other men rather
than to women—quite the opposite of women, who tended to show far more physical
aggression toward men than to other women.
Women were just as “terroristic”
in their abuse as men, pairing “controlling behavior” with “serious levels of
threats, intimidation and physical violence.”
This is in sharp contrast to the
findings of a University of Michigan in the 1990s, which claimed that “intimate
terrorists” were “almost always” men (of course, the university is also the
home of Catherine “all heterosexual sex is rape” McKinnon, who once gave a talk
as a guest speaker that I was “persuaded” to cover as a campus newspaper
reporter. A reporter from the city newspaper and myself were the only males in
the packed auditorium, which obviously was too small a sample for her not to go
off on misandrist tantrum). Bates criticized this oft-referenced study by
Michael P. Johnson, noting that his study was deliberately skewed by examining
only men in prisons and women in shelters, rather than gathering data from the
population at large—particularly since men are much less likely than women to
discuss violence perpetrated on themselves.
Bates noted that this "wasn't
just pushing and shoving. Some people were circling the boxes for things like
beating up, kicking, and threatening to use a weapon…In terms of high levels of
control and aggression, there was no difference between men and women…The
stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does
occur but research over the last 10 to 15 years has highlighted the fact that
women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too…A contributing factor
could be that in the past women have talked about it more. The feminist
movement made violence towards women something we talk about. Now there is more
support for men and more of them are feeling comfortable coming forward."
Of course, none of this matters
in this country; all truth does is inflame the mendacious of mind to greater
efforts of hypocrisy. Or a matter of “amusement.” When former Brady Bunch star Barry Williams claimed
that over a period of time his intimate female partner repeatedly hit, kicked and
attempted to stab him (as well as stealing nearly $30,000 from him), many in the media, such as E! Online, poked
fun at him, contrasting his claims with comic scenes from the Brady Bunch show.
At the airport I happened to
overhear—well, I couldn’t help but overhear, because they were about two feet
from where I was sitting—four girls, who appeared to be 13 or 14 years old.
They seemed quite knowledgeable about the subject they were speaking about:
Girls they knew who they referred to as “gangstas.” Something was mentioned
about how a clique from one city felt obliged to prove they were “tougher” than
one from another city. There was also made mention that these “girls” thought
nothing of fighting “rivals” to maintain
the “respect” of their particular city, and these “girls” also “hit” boys to
prove they were “tough” too. Needless-to-say, I was “fascinated” by this
conversation.
But why even bother discussing
the problem like “adults” in this country? Even when men call 911 to report
being the victim of domestic violence, they—and
not the female abuser—are three times more
likely to be arrested.
No comments:
Post a Comment