State-Imposed Feminism Needs To Vilify
Fathers for Control of Family
© Shane Flait (2012)
‘Domestic Violence’ is the Orwellian
phrase for justifying women-favored
family court outcomes that ignore the
rights of fathers while enslaving them
to the mother and the state. So what
does such a phrase engender to those ‘in
the know’?
Domestic violence is the basis for a
tens of billion dollar industry often
associated with the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA). This Act supplies
billions of dollars each year for almost
two decades now to presumably protect
women from abusive men mostly through
new and aggressive laws for prosecuting
men and restraining them from further
alleged abuse of women. It’s expanded to
include a variety of programs geared to
helping women such as
·
Community violence prevention programs
·
Protections for victims who are evicted
from their homes because of events
related to domestic violence or stalking
·
Funding
for victim assistance services, like
rape crisis centers and hotlines
·
Legal
aid for survivors of violence
These new and aggressive laws, referred
to as Domestic Violence laws, for
prosecuting and restraining men is a
euphemism for violating men’s – most
often fathers’ - fundamental right to
due process when a complaint of abuse by
a woman is lodged against them.
Nevertheless, the National Organization
for Women (NOW) has described the Act as
‘the greatest breakthrough in civil
rights for women’. This demonstrates
that ‘women’s rights’ mean ‘women’s
privileges’– privileges that come at the
expense of the fundamental rights of
men.
The original passage of this act in 1994
represented the demise of constitutional
protections under the excuse of serving
a ‘greater good’ if it’s sufficiently
propagandized to be so! In this case,
feminism demands that the state should
privilege women for their complaints
against allegedly abusive men. The
continued passage of this act with its
enormous funding has help grow the
state-based Divorce and Domestic
Violence Industry- an industry composed
of the judicial and executive government
branches and a host of ancillaries and
benefactors – including mothers - who
live off the violation of fathers’
fundamental rights under family court
suits.
VAWA is fully consistent with feminist
ideology demands that the state ensures
its women-favored outcomes based on
whatever excuse – invariably depending
on some ‘abusive-to-women’ nature of men
- it can contrive to justify that
outcome. Of course, this feminist
approach to control society must
necessarily sidestep the fundamental and
equal rights of men. That’s what makes
state-imposed feminism a tyranny – a
divide and conquer tyranny against men
and freedom. ‘Feminazism’ best
characterizes such state-imposed
feminism.
Domestic Violence propaganda is more
than essential – it’s paramount to
maintaining feminazism
Since VAWA addresses violence against
women, it’s paramount that men are seen
as the cause of abuse to women with
women as the natural victims of domestic
violence. Maintaining that one-sided –
i.e. sex bias in the law – is essential
to maintaining and expanding upon the
feminazi ‘divide and conquer’
subjugation of men and the demise of our
fundamental rights including our right
to due process that protects those
rights – the ‘greater good’ that the
U.S. was formed to secure for each of
us.
Three ways to ensure that men are easily
subjugated to the state and denied their
due process rights are:
-
1.
Make a complaint of ‘domestic abuse’
an easy way
for a woman to eliminate a father
from his home and his children by
alleging his abuse of her.
-
2.
Train women that almost
anything annoying her that a man
does is a form of abuse.
-
3.
Propagandize ‘domestic
violence’ as overwhelmingly men
abusing ‘victimized women’.
The first is achieved by domestic
restraining orders that require her only
to say that she ‘fears’ him. Such
subjective – and operationally
unsubstantiated to any worthwhile
objective standard – accusations will
eliminate a father at a mother’s whim.
Also the feminist-inspired ‘women don’t
lie’ propaganda is pushed for
sufficiency in ‘she says/he says’ legal
confrontations.
The second teaches women through funding
from VAWA that simple things like using
logic, controlling money he earns,
expecting conjugal relations if married,
or interrupting when a woman is speaking
are to be seen as abusive male behavior.
The third is achieved by an almost
complete cover-up of the statistics and
true nature of what domestic violence
is. Most reliable studies – the ones not
funded by VAWA or supported by feminist
organizations – show that domestic
arguments are pretty much 50/50 as to
who starts them in husband-wife
encounters. Those that achieve any real
violence are relatively rare – perhaps
3%. Such studies are pretty much ignored
by feminist-controlled family courts
since it undermines the women-good/
men-bad feminist scenario of life.
Also, the use of the phrase ‘domestic
violence’ in news reports appears
whenever the man is the alleged
perpetrator but seems unnaturally absent
when women are the alleged perpetrator
of violence in the home.
A recent film called ‘Monsters’
supported by the Verizon Foundation
furthers the feminist propaganda of the
abusive nature of heterosexual marriage.
It’s geared to create a fear of a father
for any child watching it. It’s a
disgusting film with naturally no
balance. It’s been widely criticized and
reflects the anti-male bashing so
politically acceptable under feminist
ideology.
Bottom line
Justifying Women’s Privileges/Rights at
the expense of men’s fundamental rights
ultimately rests on promoting fraudulent
and invidious characteristics and claims
about feminism’s contrived epidemic of
male-perpetrated ‘domestic violence’
against victimized women. In fact it’s
all a fraud to control and promote
women-favored outcomes in domestic suits
of custody and divorce.
END
Shane Flait writes on issues confronting
freedom