Tag Archives: domestic violence

On White Ribbon Day, help promote awareness of domestic violence as an issue that affects everyone

24 Nov

[Edit: If you are an email subscriber and this went to spam, please let me know in the comments – thx]

 

The following article by Paul Elam, publisher of A Voice For Men is reprinted with permission.

 

White Ribbon Australia fraud exposed

Imagine the image of a woman, cowering in the corner, shivering, blood running from her nose, as a man, possibly just a faceless silhouette of a man, looms over her with a clenched fist.

For most people with their humanity intact, it is an image that elicits sympathy and outrage, and quite naturally so. Indeed, there are only two kinds of people in this writer’s opinion who look upon this kind of imagery with callous indifference. The first is the small percentage of people who simply have no moral compass, no sense of concern for anyone but themselves.

The other group is the one turning the human decency that deplores the victimization of the weaker by the stronger into a cash cow. That would be most domestic violence advocates.

Yes, it is all but indisputable. Profiteers have now industrialized battered women, reducing them to storefront mannequins for the sake of lining their pockets. They are not only indifferent to the suffering of the victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), but they also count on those (female-only) victims to make a living—even if they have to manufacture them. In keeping with their agenda, they also manufacture false statistics and a wholly fabricated narrative about IPV that is designed not to offer assistance or ameliorate the factors that lead to violence in the home but, in the simplest of terms, to cash in.

One of the most deplorable examples of that in existence today is the so-called “White Ribbon Campaign.” It is largely a worldwide effort to cozen money by playing on the human decency of people concerned about violence in the home. Their modus operandi is to paint a false picture of the problem, identifying its sole source as abusive men and its sole victims as helpless women. It is a calculated deception that flies in the face ofvirtually all known credible research on the issue, but it is a financial windfall because female-only victims and male-only perpetrators have proven to provide the best incentive for inspiring well-meaning people to give money.

Perhaps the worst of the worst in this worldwide consortium of con artists is the White Ribbon Campaign in Australia. That is an easy conclusion to come to with even a cursory glance at their financials, which are a matter of public record. You can see for yourself.

WRCOZ Financials

The first thing that is noticeable is that White Ribbon Australia is undergoing some pretty remarkable growth. From 2012 to 2013, the group increased their revenue by over 25%, with an additional half million dollars. It is especially impressive since more than 50% of their gross revenue ends up in the pockets of their staff.

With $1,130,402 in salaries and benefits, you can add $203,064, $416,077, and $85,565 respectively for “advertising and marketing,” “fundraising expense,” and “travel and accommodation.” You end up with a total of $1,835,108. That amounts to nothing more than raising money, paying themselves with it, but leaving enough left over to go raise more money.

With additional expenditures under informative headings like “purchases” ($58,603) and “other expenses” ($321,483), White Ribbon Australia ended up with a net loss of $441,787.

There is one category conspicuously absent from their financial report: services rendered.

While we are admittedly still looking, thus far we have found no evidence that White Ribbon Australia has ever contributed a solid nickel to a single service for actual victims of domestic violence. That includes female victims.

Indeed, as far as we are able to ascertain, White Ribbon Australia operates at a loss largely due to the financial self-indulgence of its staff, and does so strictly by lying to the Australian public about the incidence, severity, and causes of IPV, with the slight caveat that they do provide an online pledge that men are asked to sign saying they won’t beat women.

Lying is a strong word. And it should be backed up with evidence that this is what they are doing. For the next week, we will be providing that evidence on a regular basis on the front page of AVfM, as well as through multiple social media platforms and in concert with other organizations concerned with the corruption that has spread through the domestic violence industry like a stomach virus on a cruise ship.

The first of many examples ahead is the following statement published on White Ribbon Australia’s organizational report:

WRCdeathstats

This is patently false, and has been proven as such.

Australia’s One in Three Foundation, a true domestic violence prevention advocacy group, offers the following fact check:

Oneinthreeresponse

Also, an examination of Australian government statistics on the causes of injury, death, and illness by gender distribution undermines the claim unambiguously:http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/causes-of-death/.

We also have to note that even when counting mental illnesses such as depression and chronic anxiety, there is no evidence anywhere that these conditions are caused by IPV. In other words, this is just one big, fat falsehood being sold like “gold” chains by scam artists who can be found on street corners in most major cities.

White Ribbon Australia, however, is quite aware of how the system works. Once they get the media to commit to one of their lies, there is little to nothing anyone can or will do about it. Least of all White Ribbon Australia.

Psychotherapist Tom Golden demonstrates precisely how this works with the spread of false information through the media here:

And this is no stranger to people involved in White Ribbon Australia.

Consider the case of noted Australian feminist ideologue, IPV “expert,” and White Ribbon celebrity Dr. Michael Flood of the University of Wollongong. Some years back, Flood released a, well, flood of false information and statements about domestic violence, including the following:

Women are far more likely than men to experience a range of controlling tactics and experience violence after separation…. Women’s perpetration of violence is much more often than men’s in self-defence…. Men are more likely to perpetrate … for instrumental reasons.

Dr. Flood was approached by Men’s Health Australia Magazine and asked for research to support these claims. He could not provide it and later admitted that no such research existed.

The facts refuting his statements are as follows:

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (1999) observed that, post-separation, fairly similar proportions of men (55 per cent) and women (62 per cent) reported experiencing physical violence including threats by their former spouse. Self-defense is cited by women as the reason for their use of IPV (including severe violence such as homicide) in a small minority of cases (from 5 to 20 per cent). After analyzing for verbal aggression, fear, violence and control by each gender, husbands are found to be no more controlling than wives.

Dr. Flood’s disinformation made many rounds through worldwide media and he never offered a correction. Not that it would matter. As Golden demonstrates quite clearly, once the lie is out there, the media has an unfortunate habit of sticking to it.

There is a specific and overarching reason that all of this is so important. Decades of clinical experience working with violent families has led me to the inescapable conclusion that the most harm from IPV (very little of it is fatal or seriously physically injurious) is visited on the lives of children who live in homes where one or both parents are violent.

These children are subjected to severe psychosocial stress factors that interfere with their education; lead to drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, delinquency, teen pregnancy, criminality; and perhaps even more importantly lead many of them to enter and maintain abusive relationships as adults.

The false “gendered” model of IPV sold by organizations like White Ribbon Australia not only misses the boat on the science about the problem, but it also contributes to perpetuating the cycle of violence by denying the existence of much of what is happening. By disingenuously painting this as a problem rooted in masculinity, they betray and abandon the children in families with violent mothers, condemning them to suffer ongoing abuse and repeat that cycle as adults. Much of this will lead to even more violence against women, as well as more men and children.

More simply put, the White Ribbon Campaign in Australia is enabling and promoting child abuse in the name of making a buck.

White Ribbon Campaigns in Australia and other countries will not be shaken easily from the corrupt business they are conducting. Their model of IPV, while manufactured and misleading, is the most salable version to a public largely ignorant of the real issues involved.

AVfM will do its part to try, just the same. The very moment this article was published marked a kickoff to our campaign to inform the public that they are being lied to, and that the money they donate to White Ribbon Campaigns does nothing more than make a handful of people affluent while creating still more victims of abuse who will take that dysfunction into future generations.

We will henceforth declare that November 25 of each year is White Ribbon Fraud Day and will dedicate as many resources as possible to outing the deception about IPV that currently profit groups like the one in Australia. One of the best ways to out these hucksters is to name them. The following staff list is provided by White Ribbon Australia:

BOARD MEMBERS

Board

Board2

WRCstaff

Finally, we will also take the opportunity to promote and refer people to the one White Ribbon organization that is dedicated to evidence-based solutions to this significant social malady.

WhiteRibbon.org is headed by Ms. Erin Pizzey. She is the worldwide founder of the women’s shelter movement and one of the world’s leading experts on IPV. Her website is rich with interviews, radio programming, and articles written by other scholarly authorities on the subject of family violence and whose non-ideological research demonstrates just how far the domestic violence industry has strayed from the truth in order to capitalize on fear and miscalled compassion.

We will aggressively undertake this campaign every year until the domestic violence industry is forced to change in a way that actually serves the purpose of helping victims of IPV rather than satisfying an ideological, financial agenda.

Author’s note: Blanket permission is extended to anyone who wishes to reproduce this article in full for placement on their blogs, websites or any other media platform. Indeed, such reproduction is requested and greatly appreciated. 

Correction issued: re: “Dr. Flood was approached by Men’s Health Australia Magazine…” That line should have read “Men’s Health Australia,” which is a men’s issues group, not to be confused with Men’s Health publication. 

Dr. Flood still maintains that the blatant lies he told about the experience of women’s and men’s post separation experiences are not really lies, and offers the blatant lies of other ideologues as support. 

How do people respond when the domestic violence victim is a man? They laugh.

26 May

 

 

 

This PSA by anti-DV organization Mankind just about says it all.  When a woman is mildly assaulted in public, people step in and put a stop to it.  When a man is much more violently assaulted, people laugh.

 

No really.

 

They laugh.

 

 

Good thing misandry doesn’t exist, right?

 

Pop Quiz:  What would happen if the man fought back?

 

Ha ha!  Just kidding.

 

He would be arrested of course.  For domestic violence.

 

Now there’s some equality for you.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

This is female privilege:  men are not allowed to fight back

13 May

 

 

The incredible double standards around violence are not going to come as any surprise to regular readers, but I want to put the “Solange beats the crap out of Jay Z” incident in a broader cultural context.  The following quote has apparently been misattributed to Voltaire, but whoever actually said it was on to something, I think:

 

rules

 

First, let’s flip the script and have Jay Z beat up Solange just to demonstrate how very different cultural, and in particular, feminist attitudes are towards women who are physically abusive to men.  Here is Tracie Egan Morrissey, writing at Jezebel about the assault.  Of course, her first question is “what the hell did Jay Z do to earn that beating?”, which is a totally appropriate reaction, right?  We’ll turn the assault around just to show what a piece of shit Morrissey really is.

 

Today’s leaked elevator surveillance video of Jay Z getting all Bad Boys Club on his sister-in-law  Solange Knowles provided the world with all the receipts it needs that shit is fucked up in the Knowles-Carter family. But the real tea isn’t the fight itself, but what could have possibly gone down between the two to make [emphasis mine] Jay Z kick his wife’s sister in the cunt. We explore three theories.

 

1.) Jay Z is a nasty drunk.

 

After the Met Gala it’s the after-party, and after the party it’s the hotel lobby—but first it’s a melee in the elevator. Could Jay Z have just been over-served? The fight did take place at the end of the night, which is when people are usually at their drunkest.

 

Considered a “feisty” one , Jay Z isn’t afraid to call people out, even if it burns bridges or leaves him looking like an asshole. Somebody with a quick temper could easily turn into a bad drunk.

 

With that being said, it doesn’t seem like Jay Z was that wasted. First of all, he had the presence of mind to wait and unleash on Solange until they were all in the elevator, and not in public in front of everyone. Plus, wild drunken beasts looking for a fight tend to get just as mad at the person holding them back from the fight as they do at their target. Jay Z didn’t go after Beyoncé’s bodyguard Julius for interfering. He seemed with it enough to know exactly at whom to direct his anger. He also regained his composure enough to quickly and quietly walk to his car outside of the hotel.

 

2.) Solange insulted him as a father.

 

The extended video of the elevator fight goes on for about four minutes, with Jay Z going back for seconds at one point. That’s a long time to be at peak anger to the point of physical violence.

 

If it was something that Solange said to him that set Jay Z off, it would have to be something that really cut to the bone. Something had to truly move him to risk ripping his tuxedo or losing a piece of his Lorraine Schwartz-borrowed jewelry or spitting on Beyoncé’s Givenchy.

 

One thing that’s guaranteed to set almost any father off is calling his parenting into question. Add in some alcohol and things could get really ugly. Perhaps Jay Z was a little bit tipsy or conducting himself in some manner to which Solange took exception. Maybe she said something like, “Nice way for a father to behave.”

 

Sure, that’s the kind of thing that could make a person lose their shit—but if that were really the case, wouldn’t it make more sense for Jay Z to just tell her to fuck off and stay at the after-party and continue to drink? Why leave with the person who is judging you?

 

3.) He was sticking up for his wife.

 

Beyoncé and Jay Z have both intimated in the past that Jay Z is the more outspoken of the two and he doesn’t mind going to bat for his wife. The most striking thing about the elevator video is how calm Beyoncé appears—as though this is something that has happened before.

 

Why didn’t she try to hold her husband back? Why did she step aside and let her husband high-kick her sister right in the chest? Why is she letting her husband scream at her sister without correcting him? Maybe because Beyoncé thinks Solange deserved Jay Z’s wrath.

 

Jay Z’s methods of attack are also interesting, and they indicate that Solange did something he felt was pretty reprehensible. He repeatedly tries to kick her in the crotch, he spits on her twice, he throws his bag at her and when she hands his shoe back to him, he tries to beat her with it.

 

This is the first time that there was proof of the violence that goes on behind closed doors within this family (it’s possibly hinted at in “Drunk in Love”), but there have been a number of blind items about it for years.

 

But we probably never will get the truth about what really went down in that elevator. Just moments after that traumatic family event, a pissed-off Jay Z got in one car and a confused Solange was ushered into another. Beyoncé posed and smiled for the cameras, like nothing had happened.

 

It’s pretty much impossible to imagine this version being written, much less published anywhere at all, had Jay Z been the one to kick Solange in the genitals and repeatedly assault her over a four minute period. Jay Z would be in jail and Solange would be the heroine of every front page in the nation.

 

Morrissey, who is no stranger to beating men and facing no consequences from either the man or the law, is not alone in treating the episode as unimportant and actually maybe even a little bit amusing.

 

 

What I find really interesting is how Jay Z reacts to the attack:  in a nutshell, he doesn’t.  He remains calm.  He pushes her away as she attacks him, but does not retaliate or hit her back.

 

 

Three is no shortage of conversations about supposed “male privileges”, but the world is curiously silent about female privileges, which apparently don’t exist.  But let’s stop for a moment to consider why Jay Z does not react to Solange attacking him.  One possibility is that he is man who doesn’t believe in using violence to solve any problems, period.

 

Oh dear.  Nope, that doesn’t appear to be the case.  Stabbing someone is pretty violent.

 

Well, maybe he just doesn’t believe in using violence against women?

 

 

Yikes!  He smacked that little girl pretty nicely.

 

Could it be that Jay Z knows damn well that he would lose, lose big time, if he even dared to fight back?  Solange Knowles is 27 years old and not exactly a teeming hulk of a woman.  Jay Z is 44 years old and 6’2.  He could knock Solange out with one punch.  Certainly he could slap her hard enough to knock her off her feet.

 

And what if the video footage showed him doing that? What if his wife’s nutbar little sister attacked him and he reacted by slapping or punching her back, with enough force to stop the attack?

 

chris

 

 

This guy look familiar?  He tried fighting back after getting punched and slapped and ended up with a felony assault conviction.  And it wasn’t the first time Rihanna had slapped or hit him, either.

 

How the hell does this sentence even make sense:

 

“The first incident occurred in Europe about three months before the present offense,” the report said. “The victim [Rihanna] and the defendant [Brown] were involved in a verbal dispute and the victim [Rihanna] slapped the defendant [Brown]. He responded by shoving her into a wall.”

 

Rihanna slaps Chris and somehow she is still the victim?

 

Maybe, just maybe, Jay Z knows that if he fights back, his court documents will read identically.  The victim kicked him in the crotch, hit him repeatedly and threw her purse and shoes at him and therefore the defendant is guilty of felony assault.  There are serious consequences for felony convictions, including being disenfranchised and never being able to vote again!

 

Perhaps Jay Z does not wish to lose a fundamental right of citizenship? Granted, he’s already a convicted felon thanks to stabbing that guy. And the reality is that if he had fought back, that is just what would happen. Jay Z would be the felon and Solange would be the victim.

 

So let’s go back to that quote again.  to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.  Let’s paraphrase it: to learn who rules over you, simply find out who is allowed to beat the shit out of you and still have you convicted of assault.

 

In my recent interview with domestic violence activist Erin Pizzey, she said the main opposition to acknowledging domestic violence against men stems from “jobs for girls”.  Domestic violence is a huge industry that pays women administrative salaries, and the only real interest those women have in “solving” domestic violence is to make sure there is an endless stream of “victims” that need administration.

 

But I think it’s more than that. Watching Jay Z very calmly accept being attacked by a woman is part of a larger cultural shift to force men into realizing they are impotent against women’s growing power to criminalize their very existence.  Men can be physically attacked and assaulted by women and then be stripped of their right to vote if they dare to fight back.

 

From a SAVE report on Domestic Violence Programs:

 

Ironically, not only do shelters discriminate against male victims, they also treat female batterers as victims. In one case a female abuser called wanted to get help with her anger management problem, but the local domestic violence center “tried to convince her that she was a victim and not a perpetrator.”

 

When a man as rich and powerful and talented as Jay Z has to take a beating from his sister-in-law while his wife stands by and watches, things have gotten out of control.

 

Gone-Girl

 

I just finished reading a wildly successful book called Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn.  It’s a story about a woman who [spoiler alert] exploits every cultural stereotype about men and violence to frame her husband for murder, actually kill another man in cold blood, make false accusations of rape, use paternity fraud – it’s all very clever and interesting and so utterly plausible it’s downright frightening.  But I fucking hate the way it ended. I genuinely wish I had not read the book, it makes me nauseous just to think about.

 

The psychopathic woman who does all these things gets away with it.

 

She doesn’t get punished or face any consequences.  She gets away with every single thing.

 

I hate books like that – guess I’m old-fashioned that way but if you are going to bring me into the mind of a truly twisted, evil person, I expect that evil to ultimately be condemned.  Naturally Flynn considers herself a feminist.

 

 

Is Gone Girl really the end game?  Women are free to be as psychotic as they want and get away with it? I’m beginning to agree that feminism really is Marxism in disguise, and not even a very good disguise.  Stalin. Lenin. Mao.

 

Somewhere between 85 and 100 million people died when Marxism was put into practice. Are we seriously insane enough to try that again?  But it looks like that is exactly where feminist/Marxist thinking is taking us.  Jay Z doesn’t dare fight back when a woman beats him.  How long will it be before it simply becomes legal to kill men?

 

Sound like hyperbole?  Elizabeth Sheehy is trying to make it legal in Canada. Legal for a woman to kill a person as long as he is male.

 

Who the hell wants to live in a world like that?

 

Jay Z?

 

No?

 

Me neither.  That’s why I’ll be in Detroit.  This is the beginning of the push back.  And unlike Jay Z, we’ll be pushing back hard.

 

marxist-feminist-dialectic

 

Oh the boys will be coming to the yard, alright.

 

Don’t count on being able to slap them without facing the consequences.

 

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: