Domestic Violence

Indian wife abuses husband in front of son

ArgusEyes — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:09:47 GMT

This has been passed onto me by a good friend so I won’t do too much of my own commentary and simply report the videos which are on YouTube. They aren’t in English unfortunately. It is a 4-parter.

Indian Wife Abuses Husband, Son Witnesses (on IndiaTV)

Purushottam Mahajan was physically and mentally abused by his wife, he has videotapes of about 60 days of abuse, many men do not even have this evidence, some of them suicide!. The Police has not yet taken action on Purushottam's complaint against spousal-abuse, even after 2 years of his complaint to various police and other authorities.

What is Feminism?

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:22:47 GMT

This is about as intellectual as many discussions on feminism get. I focus on feminism in my videos so much because no other political movement is so demonstrably wrong and stupid as I believe feminism to be, and yet people still swallow the blue pill and whisper comforting myths to themselves as to the true nature of feminism. This video is a very condensed description of feminism as it exists now, in the modern world, there is not time to cover the history of feminism and I am speaking about the people who form the academic and activist vanguard of the movement.

The first step is to deconstruct the term “feminism”. When we put “ism” on the end of a word we do so to denote a belief system. So apparently feminism is a belief system of the feminine or of acting in the interests of the feminine, as is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the term:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

3. feminine character.

This sounds perfectly reasonable, and the early feminist movement has done a lot to raise awareness of the need for women and men to have equal rights but it has been perverted, as most movements eventually do. Here it is mentioned that feminism is a doctrine advocating equal rights but a lot of people mention it as advocating equality. These things are not the same and words have meanings and it is important that we go beyond the beyond to examine how these philosophies play out in real life.

We understand equality, in terms of mathematics most clearly, as two sides of the equation being the same. But a lot of us understand that humans cannot be made uniform, we vary naturally as a species in ability and drive so when using the word equality, libertarians and classical liberals refer to the equality of opportunity and the non-discrimination of law. Whereas socialists and collectivists use the word equality to denote equality of outcome or sameness. Therefore the libertarian definition of equal rights is closest to what this dictionary definition says and the actual feminists are farthest from it.

The feminist stands for the socialist collectivist model, you can see this in the types of arguments they make. When a feminist argues that the fact that women earn less than men and therefore this is proof of discrimination, they never try to explicate whether or not women are making personal decisions which result in less pay, as Warren Farrell proves in his book “why men earn more”, or whether or not this is really discrimination. Feminists assume that the existence of a difference is, in and of itself, proof of discrimination and that is the end of the story for them.

This un-academic and simple minded treatment of a complex subject betrays the religious nature of what feminism actually is. It is a system of beliefs that are not open to examination, they are faith based. Nothing is more faithfully held to the feminist than the belief that the roles men and women assume are socially constructed, that is that the differences between the two are largely due to conditioning and that the main difference is physical.

As much as feminists will try to deny this, the wage gap argument that so many feminists make is one proof for the veracity of this argument. If you assume that an outcome in numbers is all that is needed to prove discrimination then you are tacitly admitting that the two sexes are the same but of course this is not true, any reasonable person can understand this through his or her interactions in the daily world. Male female difference is one of the favourite topics of comedians because it strikes at the heart of the differences between us and our angst at those differences.

The feminist meme that gender is socially constructed, whilst true in some, is ultimately a denial of science. If one is to admit that men and women differ physically and that the brain is a physician organ like any other. Then it stands to reason that men and women have different behaviours due to different brain compositions and hormonal balances and this is exactly correct. As a science geek myself I have read numerous studies about the differences between men and women. I know of not one peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that men and women are the same. Feminists simply do not back up their claims like their detractors do, such as Steve Moxon does in his book “The woman Racket”.

A good example our innate differences is the case of David Reimer who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision left him with no penis. David rejected his indoctrination and changed his gender back to male but suffered mentally and eventually committed suicide. The case was hailed as a success in the media but after the truth came out, Dr Money, who suggested the change, rejects criticisers as being part of the “anti-feminist movement”. [1]

Numerous surveys report that young woman want to stay at home, put more emphasis on the family, prefer male bosses, marry up to men making more than they do and have a different sexual nature to men. However, this evidence does not get incorporated into feminism because they already have their conclusion and they use evidence like a drunk uses a lamppost – for support rather than illumination, this is a prominent feature of many other pseudosciences such as creationism and homeopathy. A good example of reality falling on deaf feminist ears is this extract from the BBC’s women’s hour program.

(please see the video for audio)

The outcome based view of the feminist makes them an enemy of liberty. Since, in liberty you have the opportunity to fail or to have the effects of your actions affect the standing of the social group you are in. Such things are reprehensible to the collectivist so the solutions they propose are always to push for big government intervention into all of our lives.

This is happening constantly, the latest event I am aware of is of “Harriett Harman” the “minster for women and equality” proposing an “Equalities Bill” which would force companies to publish average hourly rates for their male and female employees. In very recent news she will now use this bill to force banks to hire women.

'Sometimes we have to take scary methods in order to achieve worthwhile results,' she told a mainly female audience. 'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".'[5]

I must use brevity in light of the fact that I am physically shaking with anger and rage whenever I read the latest fascist proposal from this worm of a human being. But the next time you hear a feminist squawking about what whatever is disturbing their system at that particular time then just remember this, this is what they believe in and this is what they will do. Female supremacy, sexism and socialism bordering on fascism.

Despite Harman’s efforts to put women on a pedestal, one of the big myths around feminism is the notion that it acts in the interest of women. In fact not many things are more disdainful of women than feminism is. This is exemplified by a famous quote from Simone de Beauvoir in reference to stay at home mothers:

"No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it."[3]

The arrogance of this is staggering. Surely the person who should be acting in the interest of a woman is that individual woman. One of the actions the left performs is that it monopolises a group and pretends to be the only legitimate and allowable moral voice in representation of that group. A woman who subscribes to feminism is making a serf of herself to a particular political agenda.

Apparently a woman cannot choose whether to appear in pornography or to prostitute herself as there is a strong feminist opposition to such things. Why is this so? This is a clear cut case of where feminism acts to restrict the choices of women and as the Simone de Beauvoir quote alludes to, there is an agenda about what the feminists want women to be doing. The objection to pornography comes from being anti-male. Their problem with it is that women are being sexually submissive to males but there is also strong evidence that an increase in pornographic proliferation leads to less instances of rape.

The leftist activism of feminism is inherently anti-conservative. Old models of femininity are seen as being created by and for the benefit of men therefore the aim is to break the bonds between the genders. The example of the wage gap is an example of the disdain for women’s choices; another good example is how things such as Rape and domestic violence have their meanings skewed to include more and more women in their folds.

Does this attempt to broaden the meaning of rape help young women or hinder them? Feminism continues to exist as long as it has a bill of victim grievances to sell. By keeping young women angry and scared they ensure the next generation of young feminists through their paranoid conspiracy theories. I met young women like this at university not too long ago and they had chips on their shoulder that were at complete odds with their status in the 21^st century. Never before have has women had so much choice and freedom and never before have they been so angry.

The truth is that feminism is an identity which people with an activist mindset can slip into like a warm slipper. Their modes of acting and though are not too dissimilar to what one can see in black activism and gay activism and if a feminist was born a black man then she would be following Jesse Jackson instead of Gloria Steinem. Same walls, different wallpaper. These movements start with noble causes but as they succeed the membership is whittled away to the radical members who are left with the task of manufacturing grievances to legitimise their own existence.

The majority of people who call themselves “feminist” have bought the notion of feminism meaning equality and thus call themselves feminist without too much thought as to what feminism is, but these people do not sit on the payroll of feminist organisations or on women’s study faculty or try to pass feminist inspired laws. They are simply a rather convenient human shield for the radical feminists who are doing the damage. Feminists like this:

“The National Organization for Women-NYS stands in solidarity with NYS Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington in support[sic] legislation that will once and for all state clearly that violence against women must be regarded as a "hate crime."”[4]

Believe me, I have a long list of laws and proposals like this. Another good example is gender quotas. There is another name for a philosophy whereby you look at the world through the lens of sex, where every situation must be examined in how many women are in it and how it affects women. The name for this is sexism and that is ultimately what feminists are, sexists. Any man who says comparable things about women would be branded as a sexist and bigot and sent packing in short order.

So in short: Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] When Feminist Dogma Met Dr. Mengela - Carey Roberts

http://mesarchives.blogspot.com/2004/05/when-feminist-dogma-met-dr-mengela.html

[2] Bill set to expose gender pay gap

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8019605.stm

[3] Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens

http://blog.enlightenedwomen.org/2009/04/06/chapter-12-the-gender-wardens.aspx

[4] NYS Lawmakers Must Rethink Violence Against Women as a Hate Crime
February 26, 2009

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2009/pr_022609.html

[5] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

[not referenced] Intelligence in men and women is a gray and white matter

http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1261

[not referenced] Women's brains are different from men's – and here's scientific proof

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html

British men - You also need to wake up!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:08:00 GMT

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

Tom Leykis on domestic violence

ArgusEyes — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:09:44 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 08:39:00 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 11:33:44 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 12:57:23 GMT

This is why we do what we do.

The lowdown on domestic violence against men

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:09:31 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 11:54:10 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 11:51:15 GMT

Nuff said.