PC Feminism and the DV Courts
Political correctness is not, as many believe, the act of being non-offensive. It is, rather, an ideology resulting from the transformation of the Marxist concept of class oppression. Orthodox Marxism teaches that the world is made up of two economic classes, the capitalist class and the working class, and that the capitalist class oppresses the working class. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
When the orthodox Marxist theory of class oppression was shown to be a dead end, some leftist intellectuals turned their attention from economic classes to social classes. It’s not capitalists oppressing workers, they determined, it’s dominant social groups oppressing non-dominant groups, as in whites oppressing blacks, heterosexuals oppressing homosexuals, Christians oppressing non-Christians, and men oppressing women. Of the various branches of political correctness, PC feminism has arguably been the most successful.
PC feminism is not your mother’s feminism. As Cathy Young states in her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, we owe a lot to the feminists of the past. “They deserve credit for helping break down the barriers of discrimination in the public arena; for making gender neutrality an accepted legal principle; for challenging stereotypes about women’s nature. Thanks to them, achievement and ambition are no longer considered unfeminine and women are expected to make something of themselves, not just marry. Thanks to them, most of us believe that both parents can nurture young children.” Thanks to PC feminists, in contrast, we have the theory of the patriarchy and the PC conception of domestic violence (DV), two ideas that are responsible for widespread violations of the civil rights of men and pervasive damage to father-child relationships.
PC feminist Adrienne Rich defines patriarchy in her book Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution as “the power of the fathers: a familial–social, ideological, political system in which men–by force, direct pressure or through ritual, tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women should or shall not play.”
In her article “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State,” law professor Linda Kelly states the PC feminist definition of domestic violence “as the use of physical power by men against women not motivated simply by a desire to inflict physical pain or even emotional suffering but rather as part of a larger effort by men to gain and maintain control over women.” A more detailed explanation of the relationship between domestic violence and the patriarchy is provided by social psychologist Donald G. Dutton, in his article “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,” where he observes that according to the PC feminist theory of domestic violence, “wife assault is seen to be a systematic form of domination and social control of women by men. All men can potentially use violence as a powerful means of subordinating women. Men as a class benefit from how women’s lives are restricted because of their fear of violence. Wife abuse reinforces women’s dependence and enables all men to exert authority and control…. Wife assault is mainly ‘normal’ violence committed, not by madmen who are unlike other men, but by men who believe that patriarchy is their right, that marriage gives then unrestricted control over their wife and that violence is an acceptable means of establishing this control.” Wendy McElroy sums up the PC feminist approach to domestic violence in her book Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women this way: “men are said to beat women to retain their place in the patriarchal power structure.”
A critical component of the PC feminist conception of domestic violence is the denial that women commit domestic violence against men. Studies of domestic violence have consistently revealed that women are at least as likely as men to commit domestic violence, that in about half of all cases, minor and severe, the aggression is mutual, that about 38% of the people injured by domestic violence are men, and that self-defense accounts for less than one-fifth of domestic violence committed by women. PC feminists, however, refuse to accept the findings as true. Linda Kelly explains why. “Domestic violence is not viewed as just another tool used by men in the subordination of women. Rather, it is considered ‘one of the most brutal and explicit expressions of patriarchal domination.’ Such strong roots in patriarchy have produced an equally strong force against accepting female violence. Acknowledging female violence risks negating the very basis of the existing domestic violence definition.” As Kelly perceives, “[d]omestic violence represents the prized gemstone of … [the] message that our legal, social, and cultural norms are fashioned in a manner which permit men to engage in a constant and pervasive effort to oppress women by any and every available means.”
If the PC feminist theory of domestic violence was only being taught to womens’ studies majors, that would be one thing, but it’s being taught to judges charged with the responsibility of granting temporary and permanent DV restraining orders, and, to some degree, with the responsibility of deciding custody and visitation issues. In a report entitled “Education for Injustice,” RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) identified a number of examples of this. Here are two: West Virginia’s benchbook on domestic violence, the official judicial handbook, states, incorrectly, that “women are overwhelmingly the typical victims of domestic violence;” similarly, Alabama’s benchbook puts forth the false claim, “National crime statistics show that about 95% of spouse-abuse victims are women.” This “education” is funded by the federal government pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
For years, many family court judges have held the view that fathers are ice cream, moms are the meal. Dads are nice, but nonessential. Kids can easily do without them, just like they really don’t need dessert. In 1985, the “Honorable” Richard Huttner, former chief judge of the King’s County (Brooklyn) Family Court took this further, telling New York Magazine: “You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved: he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o’clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological.” VAWA was passed in 1994. Considering the “men are bad and women are victims” ideology that’s been promoted since then, one can only believe that the bias against fathers is even worse than it was in the 1980s. Fathers are not just useless pains in the asses, they’re evil.
+++
David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.
Stumble It!
Posted in: Culture, Men's Rights Activism, OP/ED, Vox Populi | 11 views
Comments • comment feed
The MOST up-to-date study of DV was published just a few days ago. Every man should have it cut and pasted to file and printed off to carry in his wallet.
Here it is. Note the date and the publication. Note the numbers (I have put asterisks next to important points).
Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence.
Joan Arehart-Treichel | Psychiatric News | August 3, 2007
In addressing intimate partner violence, the focus is usually on women who are physically battered by husbands or boyfriends. However, women sometimes hurt their partners as well.
Women are doing virtually everything these days that men are—working as doctors, lawyers, and rocket scientists; flying helicopters in combat; riding horses in the Kentucky Derby. And physically assaulting their spouses or partners.
In fact, when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators.
These findings on intimate partner violence come from a study conducted by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The lead investigator was Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., a behavioral scientist and team leader at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the CDC). Results were published in the May Journal of Public Health.
In 2001, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health attempted to amass data about the health of a nationally representative sample of 14,322 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. The study also asked subjects to answer questions about romantic or sexual relationships in which they had engaged during the previous five years and whether those relationships had involved violence.
Of those subjects, 11,370 reported having had heterosexual relationships and also provided answers to the violence-related questions. So Whitaker and his colleagues decided to use the responses from these 11,370 subjects for a study into how much violence is experienced in intimate heterosexual partner relationships, who the instigators are, and whether physical harm accrues from the violence.
The 11,370 subjects, Whitaker and his colleagues found, reported on 18,761 relationships, of which 76 percent had been nonviolent and 24 percent violent.
That almost a quarter of the subjects had engaged in violent relationships may seem high to some people, but “the rates we found are similar to those of other studies of late adolescents and young adults, a time period when interpersonal-violence rates are at their highest,” Whitaker told Psychiatric News. Also, he added, “these rates demonstrate the magnitude of interpersonal violence as a health and social problem.”
Furthermore, Whitaker discovered, of the 24 percent of relationships that had been violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had **experienced** nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had **taken part **in ones involving reciprocal violence.
Regarding perpetration of violence, **more women than men** (*25 percent versus *11 percent) were responsible.
In fact, *71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.
This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.
As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence **it was the men who were injured more often ** (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time).
“This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.
Of the study’s numerous findings, Whitaker said, “I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner.”
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, upon which this investigation was based, was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development with co-funding from 17 other federal agencies.
August 21st, 2007
communism and fascism are both totalitarian forms of government and are easy to mix up when comparing the two!!
August 21st, 2007
“for making gender neutrality an accepted legal principle”
Give me a break. What gender neutrality? The legal principles are now a bedrock of legal preference and superior rights.
“and women are expected to make something of themselves, not just marry.”
So how is a marriage movement expected to solve men’s problems if women including this author view marriage as a low-class occupation (albeit with a mega lottery windfall anytime she chooses)?
“Thanks to them, most of us believe that both parents can nurture young children.”
Get real. Father’s are seen as abusers and future abusers.
The bottom line is that when you connect the dots PC feminism is the bastard child of feminism. Modern feminism started from the Women’s KKK in the 1880’s.
From November 2005:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/
Feminism Lite was first sold to establish a political footing. Once that happened it’s true colors were safely shown and PC feminism was, and always has been, the ultimate aim.
August 21st, 2007
Damn you Denis! You got your claws in feminist apologist Cathy Young first! But if you don’t mind I would like second pickin’s at this carcass:
As Cathy Young states in her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, we owe a lot to the feminists of the past. “They deserve credit for helping break down the barriers of discrimination in the public arena
Er, no. At best, feminists ONLY broke down “barriers of discrimination” for a certain class of WOMEN (that’s why it’s called FEMINism!) They disingenuously claimed to want to tear down barriers against men but those were always viewed as low priority while any form of discrimination against women had to be acted against (turn up the volume) NOW!
; for making gender neutrality an accepted legal principle;
This is such a total laugh. Whenever feminists created “gender neutral” language, it was always addressed at situations that benefitted women (alimony as “compensation” rather than just protecting divorced housewives) or abortion rights (which favor women) while overlooking “child-support” laws that target mostly men.
And this was all BEFORE it turned outright ugly but the fact is that their agenda was plain to see from the beginning.
for challenging stereotypes about women’s nature.
I’ll agree that the feminists of the past were heroically portrayed as striving for equality, etc. but most women really never wanted it and consequently these women realized that they would be lone martyrs. So they just sought to bash men rather than ask women to join them in picking up the dinner check.
Thanks to them, achievement and ambition are no longer considered unfeminine
Yes, greed and averice are now feminist traits. Congratulations! We now see women CEO’s dumping toxic waste into schoolyard water fountains in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Thanks to feminism, women have embraced the worst materialistic and power hungry natures of men.
But feminists still haven’t embraced the side of men that built civilization: supporting and protecting two parent families.
and women are expected to make something of themselves, not just marry.
And now many of these women who “make something of themselves” CANNOT marry because they can’t find men who earn at least as much as they do (I nicknamed them the “at leasters”)
They often get to die childless as a failed Darwinistic experiement.
Thanks to them, most of us believe that both parents can nurture young children.”
This is outright false. Feminists have done their best, and successfully, to push fathers out of the home and schoolyard and even to make women into rotten mothers dumping their children into daycare.
August 21st, 2007
Marxist theory was explained well for me, as I have not heard before. It was clear and made sense.
The definition of words like “Domestic Abuse” and “power of father” that the feminist authors offer do not match the government’s law enforcement’s or does it match the laws language, nor the policy and procedure in Family Court.
There is difference in academics theory and what is practiced.
August 21st, 2007