Domestic Violence

British men - You also need to wake up!

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:08:00 GMT

Boycott relationships. Your country wants you to do it apparently.

Tom Leykis on domestic violence

ArgusEyes — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:09:44 GMT

I haven't done a video in a while so I thought I'd phone one on in and release this interesting monologue from shock jock Tom Leykis. Some are going to complain but I don't relate to most of what Tom says. Occasionally he has an interesting topic like this.

I agree with a lot of what Tom has to say here, there is a limit of how much a person can be completely absolved from a situation. But to even voice thoughts of this kind is called "blaming the victim". Sometimes the victim deserves a portion of the blame. That is reality.

Say I was murdered for walking the docks at night. The person who murdered me should be caught and held to account for the crime. But I played a part in the fate that befell me. The same way that a person accepts the chances of cancer if they were to smoke. Don't cry afterwards because you decided to smoke and then got cancer.

A person who has committed domestic violence has committed violence -- that is illegal. In caring societies we should have laws against violence, and we do. In the past much of DV was ignored and the feminists changed attitude. We should also help people who have nowhere to go, like a housewife with no job skills.

We should help people but we should not capitulate to their helplessness. De-politicise DV, and realise that like all crimes, you cannot completely stamp it out. A lot of it stems from a state of mind.

I am not a fan of MRA's becoming victim mongerers. But I have two problems with DV as it stands in the modern zeitgeist:

1) The services provided are for women only. This is oppressive against men and violates the constitution of the U.S.

2) There are lies spread by the feminists to increase confusion and anti-male sentiment. Their way lies not in the truth.

The Men's Coalition... Stealth feminist apologists?

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:39:00 GMT

http://www.themenscoalition.org.uk/Welcome.html

The Men’s Coalition is a new organisation that aims to put issues of concern to men and boys such as health, parenting and caring, relationships, education, employment, crime and violence firmly on the public policy agenda.

At the bottom of the page it states that the Men's Coalition supports the White Ribbon campaign which bills itself as "Men working to end men's violence against women. As anyone who has seen my videos should know, language like this gets me seeing red a little bit. Why just men's violence against women? If you read their F.A.Q. page then they specify that they are talking about DV and rape.

That is a bit dissapointing but there are many things on their website which seem promising. Could you guys weigh in with your opinion of this?

When feminist don’t care about the murder of women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:33:44 GMT

A while ago I read a story to you about a young girl in Iraq who was horrifically murdered by her father and then thrown into a makeshift grave whilst her family spat on her body.

I have been sitting on this information for a while but I have a sad follow up to the story. The girl who was killed was called Rand Abdel-Qader, and now her mother Leila has been murdered also.

It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'

Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.

Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.

It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.

'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.

'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.'

Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.'

Since February 2006, two other activists from the same women's organisation have been killed in the city. One of them was reportedly raped before being shot. The other, the only man working for the non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a father of five who was responsible for the organisation's finances, was shot five months ago.

Read the full article.

I’m going to stop there. I recommend that you read the full story which I shall link in the video description and in my blog. It goes into more details of how Mariam had to take sedatives to help her sleep at night because of continuous nightmares, and how the police stated that her death was just a coincidence. I don’t buy it.

Here’s what gets me.

Feminists, apparently, are THE people who beat the female drum more than others do.

Apparently, they’re THE cheerleaders for the woman crowd.

This is to the feminists.. Doesn’t this shit piss you off?

When I made the original video all I got were dismissals to the argument, not one feminist stood up to the plate and rebuked this behaviour. Which was what my original point was, that feminists take pot shots at their own culture which reveres women above all others, and fail to criticise a truly misogynist oppressive culture.

They mainly said things like “the fact that there is oppression in other cultures doesn’t mean that we can ignore the problems in ours”. I’m fed up of being asked to defend a position I didn’t posit. This was not the point of my original video.

But I know why they made this point, the idea of criticising Islam so frightens these politically correct cowards that they will grasp at any straw that they can to avoid the real issue, this ranges from making strawman arguments like I read to you or discussing the wage gap. If you do this in response to this video then you are avoiding the truth because the truth is so ugly that it burns to look at it. It’s like the sun, it’s so painful to stare directly at that people will cast their glance askew to avoid it.

It hurts to look at abject evil, but we need to do it.

Also I want to say. Making a comment along the lines of “these oppressions exist in other cultures and doesn’t apply to our own” is not sufficient…

Do the Dutch not have to deal with the religious sensitivity of the Muslims because the Muslims are only in the Middle East? No! The Muslims are there in their own country.

Did the riots in France not happen because the Muslims are another culture? No! The Muslims are in France.

So the evils of Islam are applicable to western cultures. Because they are IN those western cultures. Maybe feminists want to reconsider their attitudes to Muslim immigration if the rights of women matter to them so much. Here in the U.K. the Muslims are gravitating towards implementing Sharia law into the law of the U.K. How does that bode for women’s rights?

Anyone of any stripe who does not have his or her head in the sand, needs to discuss these issues.

So I must reiterate, doesn’t a story like this make you angry dear feminists? It made me furious, I’ve not seen a feminists rebuke this and if you know of one then please let me know:

Rebuking bad behaviour is not difficult, all it takes is a little testicular fortitude. I rebuked the use of the term “feminazi” in a video. I rebuked the commenter who said that Wendy McElroy was just another evil feminist who was tricking us all. Wendy does good work on men’s rights issues and I value her contribution.

And I find it interesting that the one highlighting these issues is a Men’s Rights Activist, it should show you how far feminism has come. And of course, I’m pandering to the bigoted ideas of the radical feminists here because being a Men’s Rights Activist doesn’t mean you’re a misogynist. In fact, after the reactions I got to this horrific event I think we actually care more about women then the feminists do.

And if you want to help women, don’t donate to the western feminists, donate to this women’s charity in Iraq which helps women leave the country, I’ll try to find their identity. That’s all I’ve got to say. This video is in memorandum of Rand and Mariam Abdel-Qader, may they rest in peace.

A very important video

ArgusEyes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:57:23 GMT

This is why we do what we do.

The lowdown on domestic violence against men

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:09:31 GMT

There is an area of the media that complexly lacks any semblance of fairness, or journalistic investigation and credibility. And that area is in how we report domestic violence. The general image we receive is of the nasty man hitting his poor little wife.

I think that Neil Lyndon said it quite succinctly in his book “no more sex war”: [1]

Reeling home with a head full of losses and a gut full of bitter and chips, he clamps his teeth into the cartroid artery of the starving Rottweiler before he rips the rags from the back of the little woman, belabours her with the dogs studded leash and takes his prick to the anuses of his screaming children.

We do not know of this horror on the terms of personal acquaintance. He is not one of us; but we have all agreed that he is out there somewhere and that he is the All-Man.

This is the general image of the modern abusive man.

And I’m not denying that men like this can exist. This is the crux of my whole attitude towards domestic violence and it is an irrefutable position. It is that, even if only 2% of domestic violence victims were men – we would still owe these men the same protections that the government offers to women. We don’t, in this society say that we are going to exclude groups based upon the degree of their involvement in an issue, we don’t say that because a certain minority is only 10% of the population that they somehow get less rights. No, they have equal rights. This is the most sensible approach to take with all problems.

Now it’s much more than 2%, in fact we don’t have a good understanding of the real number because we don’t even try to measure it. Our domestic violence policy is driven by feminists who deny that women can falsely accuse or who downplay the fact that it can happen to men. There is a good website called DV stats.com which contains a variety of studies but a realistic treatment in the media is lacking.

This argument is NOT about stats, which is why I am not presenting any. I don’t want to hear, “well thousands of woman are abused every year” because this argument is not about repealing the protection they get, rather it is about making it fair and equal.

But when we break from our common conceptions we may be surprised. For example, this is an article from the BBC. [2]

Survey finds male abuse approval
More than half of women questioned at a Glasgow university said they approved of wives hitting their husbands.

The Glasgow Caledonian students were among 6,500 women surveyed from 36 universities for an international study into attitudes on domestic violence.

Of the 200 women, 60% said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.

A total of 8% admitted injuring them - the highest rate in the study.

The injured men suffered bruises, cuts or broken bones.

Among European students, only English women were more likely to have carried out assaults, with 41% admitting that they had punched or kicked their partners.

However those inflicting injury was less than in Scotland, at 5%. Just under a quarter of those in Scotland admitted there were occasions when it would be acceptable for a husband to slap his wife.

The article goes on, I invite you to read the whole thing linked from my page. If this indicates anything, it is that we should be addressing how we look at this subject in the media. If those amounts of women think that hitting their partners is acceptable then the onus has been on one side for too long.

And we should stop listening to the feminists telling us what these figures are, they are intellectually computed by their belief system. We don’t go by the sole word of the BNP when talking about immigration or by the words of creationists on the status of science education in America, we need to be unbiased when talking about these issues.

Is this argument only about the media. No. It is also about the laws, when I have to listen to female politicians stating that a new law is to aid the “women and children” of domestic violence, I get incensed by this. They’re called women’s shelters for a reason. And these shelters are also funded by the government which, from a layman’s perspective seems to be an anti-constitutional act.

And where was the law when singer Amy Winehouse [3] admitted to beating up her husband. Maybe the reaction of the police was the same as the reaction of a policeman I saw on a program when a man told him that his wife beat him up – he laughed and snorted. We are so off center as a society that it sickens me. She faced no retaliation for that comment and it would probably be fair to say that she expected none.

How about this article from the Daily mail [4] that reproduces a number of standard nonsensical statements about DV against women. The level of the comments that the women featured in this article make demonstrate how modern women – maybe the kind of women in that Scottish survey, think about the subject.

Not one mention of man, it’s women, women, women. And quite frankly I am insulted as a man by the idea that any pain my gender goes through is lesser when compared with women. They say “women and children first”, our attitude to men is that they are dispensable, this is offensive. We should expect more from the 21st century.

Sources
[1] No more sex war p20-24 ch2, Neil Lyndon, ISBN 0749315652
http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/0749315652/ref=sr_1_1/026-7851468-7467616?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184271691&sr=1-1

[2] Survey finds male abuse approval
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5092100.stm

[3] U.K. Singer/Songwriter Amy Winehouse Brags About 'Beating Up' Her Husband
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=886

[4] Hitting Back
Daily mail, Friday, February 2, 2007

Domestic violence - Ignoring the victims

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:54:10 GMT

Many of these old videos do not have a companion commentary, when I posted this video I had some interesting comments. Most notably I have seen a common effect that I have dubbed "The Africa effect", essentially one cannot make any comment to counter the feminist most heinous arguments because they'll say "but in Africa …[fill in space]".

Essentially I cannot argue against domestic violence because in Africa violence is commonplace. Now, I'm not sure if this is correct but for the sake of moving forward I'll accept it. Now, why do feminists always try to pass tougher and tougher laws in western countries when they all agree that there is a genuine problem in Africa?

The answer, the Africa effect is an excuse (stay tuned for a video about it).

Also in the video is one of my strongest views, that you'll convince no-one at all with statistics. When talking about political issues people usually come down on one side and stick to it. Statistics are preaching to the converted. Now I try not to use statistics in my videos, partly because they are boring and take a long time to research but mainly because I will convince absolutely no-one with them. To quote a comment on the video:

"Ever heard the term lie, dam lies and statistics. You can get your figures from any where and giving the fact that violence has no standard criteria which would label a certain amount of violence or abuse in a marriage as such you can pretty makeup whatever statistic you want."

Exactly. What I try to do is make my arguments based upon logical reasoning. The argument that no matter how many men are actually abused, they are as deserving of protection as women in a compassionate and equalitarian society is hard to debate by all but the most die-hard of feminists.

Domestic violence, new law in India - Renuka Chaudhary

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:51:15 GMT

Nuff said.