Family Killing Feminazis or Consumer Demand Collateral Damage?
The following takes place between 8:23 and 8:24pm.
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Kurt (B 166-ER)
Date: Jan 29, 2007 7:49 PM
Source: Daily Mail (UK)
How Feminists Tried to Destroy the Family
Erin Pizzey, founder of the battered wives' refuge, on how militant feminists - with the collusion of Labour's leading women - hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men.
During 1970, I was a young housewife with a husband, two children, two dogs and a cat. We lived in Hammersmith, West London, and I didn't see much of my husband because he worked for TV's Nationwide. I was lonely and isolated, and longed for something other than the usual cooking, cleaning and housework to enter my life.
By the early Seventies, a new movement for women - demanding equality and rights - began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. Among the jargon, I read the words "solidarity" and "support". I passionately believed that women would no longer find themselves isolated from each other, and in the future could unite to change our society for the better.
Within a few days I had the address of a local group in Chiswick, and I was on my way to join the Women's Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay .. the same beating behind a closed door was called "a domestic"' and the police had no rights or power to interfere.
The shocking fact for me was that there had been a deafening silence on the subject of domestic violence.
All the social agencies knew about domestic violence, but nobody talked about it. I searched for literature to help me understand this epidemic, but there was nothing to read except a few articles on child abuse in medical journals.
So in 1974 I decided to write Scream Quietly Or The Neighbours Will Hear, the first book in the world on domestic violence. I revealed that women and children were being abused in their own homes and they couldn't escape because the law wouldn't protect them.
If a husband claimed he would have his wife back, she couldn't claim any money from the Department of Health and Social Security, and social services could only offer to take the children into care.
Meanwhile, our little house was packed with women fleeing their violent partners - sometimes as many as 56 mothers and children in four rooms. All had terrible stories, but I recognised almost immediately that not all the women were innocent. Some were as violent as the men, and violent towards their children.
The social workers involved with these women told me I was wasting my time because the women would only return to their partners.
I was determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different threat.
I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.
In 1974, the women living in my refuge organised a meeting in our local church hall to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.
We were astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country.
After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers - and what I had most feared happened.
In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.
Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.
They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees.
Women with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over 12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation.
Our group in Chiswick worked with as many refuges as we could. Good, caring women still work in refuges across the country, but many women working in the feminist refuges, about 350, admit they are failing women who most need them.
With the first donation we received in 1972, we employed a male playgroup leader because we felt our children needed the experience of good, gentle men. We devised a treatment programme for women who recognised that they, too, were violent and dysfunctional. And we concentrated on children hurt by violence and sexual abuse.
Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.
Despite attacks in the Press from feminist journalists and threatening anonymous telephone calls, I continued to argue that violence was a learned pattern of behaviour from early childhood.
When, in the mid-Eighties, I published Prone To Violence, about my work with violence-prone women and their children, I was picketed by hundreds of women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: "All men are bastards" and "All men are rapists".
Because of violent threats, I had to have a police escort around the country.
It was bad enough that this relatively small group of women was influencing social workers and police. But I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men.
In 1990, Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became an adviser to Labour's Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she's in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy paper called The Family Way.
It said: "It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."
It was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.
Hewitt, in a book by Geoff Dench called Transforming Men published in 1995, said: "But if we want fathers to play a full role in their children's lives, then we need to bring men into the playgroups and nurseries and the schools. And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can trust men with children."
In 1998, however, the Home Office published a historic study which stipulated that men as well as women could be victims of domestic violence.
With that report in my hand, I tried to reason with Joan Ruddock, who was then Minister for Women. The figures for battered men were "minuscule" she insisted and she continued to refer to men only as "perpetrators".
For nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children.
Men can be accused of violence towards their partners and sexual abuse without evidence. Courts discriminate against fathers and refuse to allow them access to their children on the whims of vicious partners.
Of course, there are dangerous men who manipulate the court systems and social services to persecute their partners and children. But by blaming all men, we have diluted the focus on this minority of men and pushed aside the many men who would be willing to work with women towards solutions.
I believe that the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And all that was yoked - unforgivably - to the debate about domestic violence.
To my mind, it has never been a gender issue - those exposed to violence in early childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of whether they are girls or boys.
I look back with sadness to my young self and my vision that there could be places where people - men, women and children who have suffered physical and sexual abuse - could find help, and if they were violent could be given a second chance to learn to live peacefully.
I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. Surely the time has come to challenge this evil ideology and insist that men take their rightful place in the refuge movement.
We need an inclusive movement that offers support to everyone that needs it. As for me - I will always continue to work with anyone who needs my help or can help others - and yes, that includes men.
/EndHappening
Feminazis ate the future in the past, a past that we cannot at present return to not forgetting. We must press on, forward, into the bloodsoaked present. There may be babies crying, and shelters may or may not be availiable, and those are two subjects that Liberal Media™ has left unmilked in the face of TerrorShow™.
Because there never really was a famine, you know.
"Well, if that's what your definition of 'is' is, then I'll go wrastle us a sitter."
"Find an Indian Chief on the way back."
Obscure referrance lost on 21st century Americans N0. 12 - The Irish Potato Famine.
See, the Family™ was once an actual unit of organization in our society. It is not now, and barely had any time in the United States where it was the common node of community. We like to think it is, or was, but this is because we enjoy fabricated history as a mode of our culture to such an extent that we actually believe the many
gross and stupid brutalizations we model reality into shape with.
Like Thanksgiving. A good American Family axis. In the Old World, our preadecestor cultures generally have a community harvest feast, perhaps multiple such open-market festivals that are a tad more organic even today than any thing an American city offers.
No i don't count mardis Gras, or Carnival, as anything much more than expressions of raw commercialized religion interpolating it's host cultures' consumption function. A bunch of humans gathering under the guise of Catholic Tradition and going acceptably Gypsy in the well-suppervised market till bar-close is just a State Fair in the offseason. It's a celebration of alignment, a political mass that arches over and between communitees is at play in both cases. Mardis Gras might be closer to becoming the type of block party i'm driving at here. It's not that family isn't the unit of interplay, it's that the larger communitee is the host for it's families' leisure for a bit. One can see why OktoberFestiviis linger vigorously, and the Fourth of July™ was a workable start if our Feddie and State parents hadn't taken our Black Cats away.
Juiced.
Village People Taking Talk: How many Afghan Villages are delivered a version of this speech/book/spin-op by returning Taliban District Directors? If it's any number more than 1 (one) i will have to Abdicate my future reign (as guaranteed as it is) to crown Ms Rodham NeoLibiCon Ex Celsiae and switch over to have Carter be cannonized next to Nixon in the National Vault.
Dubya breaks out a freestyle Bee-Bop Blietzkriege with th' Uncle Who-Now Band
2006 Dinner in Honor of the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz
code:
It's really hard not to think, i think, that working with people near you, around you, in your immediate space might be best be they family or mere neighbor. They™ fractured an already artificed arterial for the most vital blood a social animal has to share - the peerage. We are all each and one peers in Liberty's gaze, right? Equal under law, thus obviating a handicapping performed and enforced by community will, which is to say our immediate neighbors. No-one else is there when correction needs applique.
What, not enough different Holy Orders floating by our bedsides, telling us to open our homes to each other? Or do we all suck so bad at either hosting or guesting that we have finally gone past the point of being social in any real sense; we never go to a party we can't walk home from, family is best tailored down to an eventual bi-annual lub-dub of spasming "reconnection" with the Hallmark Extended American Nuclear Family Unit (Rockwell +) when our life coaches suggest it.
Feminist extremists did nothing to any cause they rallied for more than give it's previous advocates an excuse to disconnect from the reality of the situation a little more. We cling to our different windows, each leaning elbows upon custom labeled sills to peer outside of the box we're all stuck in. When your society is producing internascine predation at the immediate family level y'all had best be a village brighter than to ignore it and let the fishwags deal with the dislocated collatoral. This is a syndrome aenthetic to propitious progeneration, d'la Vulgatum: Get real on this shit or reap the Null harvest. Alienation theory isn't just a plank in a welfare pitch, particularly not if one wants to make sense of US social service policy or is wondering why the nanny didn't tell one of the operres about Suzy's bulimia earlier.
When we can cleverly say things like "Bechtel is the leading food-stamp recipient, but Lockhead Martin is a straight-up Welfare Mother of the Year, haha L0lz about corporate socialism/HMOs" and be making the boldest swipe at the issue in memory, it could be said that we're avoiding the obvious social duty of helping the people around you with the basics. Thus the basic simple nature of social relation is enshrouded by the Veil, layering the abstractions across each other like a cognative splint-wrap bandage.
We pray that the last wrap of gause and tar muffles the wound, so the magic of healing can start in the invisible silence, separate somehow from our solitary windowsills and independent of our meager individual power and involvement. A shattered pelvis which we expect to be wrapped for us and healed while we wait elsewhere; the universe pitches like a whirlycam accident as it works this imposibility into a billable talking point for our Betters™ to debate. If we deserve that much showmanship.
They're not your Betters™ all-ya-all. I know you're at least as bright as They™ are, point for point. You outnumber Them™, too. You know this. You can take Them™, which is why it won't come to blows unless You start it. Which isn't required, really.
Not yet. Maybe never, but it's imaterial if you don't commit to your own self determination. If YOU, whoever the fuck you are, wherever, aren't willing to run through the drills of basic cooperative living with the folks around you, YOU aren't going to do anything more than be pushed in safe circles within the artificial clique you identify with by the flux of discohesion and directed currents that drive the culture. It is, no for real is an inter-imperium culture; a Merilingian Rome. Kublai Khan, not Ghengis, was our dad, dig? Like the Latest Nelson Kids, we're a comma between more pivotal diacritics in the ontology. Ms K says an apostrophy is a more fitting analogy. w/e. Jai Jai Aum.
The Constitutional Party™. We SuperBad; Know This. code: |
The Constitutionalist's Warroom
Because y'all look sexy in Direct Democracy, America!™
Labels: Bush, Children, Clinton, democracy, feminism, hell is other people, Hilary, Jenna Welch, ontogeny, politics, self-determination, shelter, socialism, spousal abuse, welfare
posted by Citizen j at 7:38 AM
|
0 comments
