Would You Sign This Contract? Note: This piece is another 15-minute read, I'm afraid. But, by the end of it, you should begin to understand just how devious and dishonest is the domestic violence industry when it proclaims that women are the main victims of domestic violence. The evidence is absolutely clear that men make up the vast majority of domestic violence victims and, further, that the women who nowadays report domestic violence to the police are mostly the aggressors, not the victims. Furthermore, as a husband or a partner, you might well believe that you are in an 'equitable' relationship with your wife or your partner. but you would be very mistaken in this belief. If she wants you out - out of the house, out of the children's lives and out of the way - then out you will go. Would You Sign This Contract? "Your employer can, at any time, dismiss you, without justification, and he can have you imprisoned if you object too strongly to your dismissal. For example, if you raise your voice in anger at the way in which you are being treated, your employer may have you arrested for 'violence'. In any event, your employer can dismiss you regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. "Your employer can fire you from your job whenever he wishes, no matter how long you have served his company, and even if you have done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, your employer can insist that you are evicted from your own home, and never allowed to re-enter it. " Your employer may further demand that you must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to your employer for some considerable time into the future." How many incidents of violence against employers would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all employees? An enormous number, one would imagine. Now read this. It's the Lovers Contract. "A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. " She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. " Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and, in some instances, this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his." How many incidents of DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners? An enormous number, one would imagine. But, here in the West, they are the terms and conditions for their male partners! Is it really surprising to find, therefore, that the incidence of 'domestic violence' against women has hardly decreased in 20 years? I say 'hardly decreased', but no-one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The official figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly from incidents that would paint us all as 'domestically violent'. domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time The legal reality, however, is that domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she claims to be experiencing at the time. And the problem with this - apart from the sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the man - is that her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither is it 'fixed' - in the sense that a woman's attitudes can change and fluctuate almost as much as the wind. Indeed, in the USA, some 20 million women experience clinically severe emotional disturbances every single month through PMS, and about 5 million have significant personality disorders. And sometimes, of course, a woman's real attitude isn't even 'observable' - such as when she's exaggerating, lying, or 'confused', perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines. Nevertheless, the number of body bags arising from domestic violence incidents, while not directly indicating the exact number of domestic violence incidents themselves, must surely reflect quite reasonably whether domestic violence is on the rise, or whether it is on the wane. As such, the number of intimate partner homicides can give us a good insight into the patterns and incidence of domestic violence. This number can certainly be calculated objectively, and a woman's attitude - about whether or not an act of domestic violence has actually taken place - becomes something of a trivial irrelevance when the victim is actually dead. Now, as a result mostly of feminist propaganda, prejudice and, quite frankly, perjury, about domestic violence for the past three decades, many countries have created increasingly draconian laws which have disempowered the male gender when it comes to their relationships - in fact, just as described in the Lovers Contract outlined above. But have these draconian laws worked? After all, billions upon billions of dollars have been spent annually on implementing them. If they have worked, then the number of female body bags filled by acts of male domestic violence should have decreased over this period. In fact, however, they have not. Well, not by much. What has decreased significantly is the number of male homicide victims of domestic violence. According to the figures from the US Justice Department (e.g. see here) female homicide victims killed by intimate partners in 1976 numbered around 1600. By 1998 this had fallen to about 1300. In contrast, the number of corresponding male victims during the same period fell from 1400 to around 500. 1976 1998 Men killed 1400 500 Women killed 1600 1300 It would seem, therefore, that 'feminist' policies have protected far more men from domestic violence than women! desperate women reacting impulsively do not now need to murder their partners to remove them from their homes But, of course, this is not surprising, because desperate women reacting impulsively do not now need to murder their partners to remove them from their homes. A call to the police will probably do the trick. Desperate men reacting impulsively, however, still have murder as one of the only real options if they 'absolutely must get rid of her - right now.' And so if feminists were truly concerned about domestic violence against women they would, of course, argue for policies that reduced the pressures on men to act violently. For example, they would argue for the creation of social and legal mechanisms through which men could refer their domestic complaints. Instead, they have done the very opposite. They have imposed the Lovers Contract. And so the notion that feminists actually want to reduce domestic violence against women is laughable. Indeed, the opposite is true. The more domestic violence that there is - or, more accurately, the more domestic violence that there appears to be - against women, the more can feminists justify their jobs, their empires, their funding and their ideology. The last thing that they would want is to see domestic violence reduced. As a result of all this, men who are facing desperate 'relationship' situations, perhaps often believing that they might be about to lose their homes and their children (and having nowhere to turn for effective help) might well explode into violence - with much justification in my view - whereas women who are feeling just as hostile (though, usually, with lesser real justification, since, for example, they are hardly likely to lose their homes or their children) can happily avail themselves of free and aggressive professional support. Further, of course, women are calmed (and armed) with the comforting knowledge they will almost invariably win their cases. Indeed, the words, "I'm leaving you," emanating from the mouth of a woman has a significantly different meaning in comparison to when such words are spoken by a man; particularly when there is a home and children involved. women nowadays do not need to act violently. They can win hands down just by using the 'system'. In short; women nowadays do not need to act violently. They can win hands down just by using the 'system'. And they know it. And this is why the number of male homicide victims has fallen dramatically, whereas that of female homicide victims has not. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that it is mostly aggressing women who are using the system, not those women who are in genuine need of help. Indeed, if those women who called the domestic violence services for help were mostly the ones truly in fear of their lives and who were trying to save themselves from domestically-violent deaths, then the number of their deaths should have decreased over the years . But this has just not happened. And the reason for this is that, by and large, it is not the women who are fearing for their lives who are picking up their phones. It is, by and large, the aggressive women who, three decades ago, would have killed their partners, who are now picking up the phones. the systems currently in place mostly aid and abet violent women The conclusion must be, therefore, that, statistically speaking, the systems currently in place mostly aid and abet violent women who want to rid themselves of their partners and do very little for those women who are in genuine need of protection. And the evidence from women like Erin Pizzey - the very FOUNDER of the Women's Refuge organisation here in the UK - would also support this notion. Here is a quote from her ... "Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from." Feminists, of course, would hotly deny all this, and would aid themselves in this deception by using the following 'trick' to fool their gullible followers. They would look at the recent 500 male deaths and compare it to the recent 1300 female deaths and conclude that this is evidence for the fact that men, in general , are more domestically violent than women. But the historical data from 1976 scuppers this argument completely! If the current low 500 count for male victims reflects a lower propensity for women to engage in domestic violence, then the 1400 count of three decades ago must have reflected a much higher propensity for women to engage in domestic violence. This would imply that women have become far less aggressive over the past three decades. But this flies completely in the face of reality. There is no question at all that women have become far more assertive and more aggressive over the recent years. And so, all in all, the only realistic way to account for the homicide data is to acknowledge that aggressive women nowadays kill less often. And this is because they can nowadays use the state to aggress on their behalf by claiming to be victims of domestic violence. most calls relating to domestic violence come from women who are attempting to use the police services as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Furthermore, if one talks to police officers 'off the record' it is quite clear from their sentiments that most calls relating to domestic violence come from women who are attempting to use the police services as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. As such, we can actually conclude from all this that it is men who make up the majority of victims of 'domestic violence'. To clarify this further, consider the following. 1. We know that women are just as violent as men within their relationships - if not more so; e.g. see Martin Fiebert's collation of some 200 research findings. (now updated) 2. The evidence - as I have discussed - shows that it is aggressing women (not fearful women) who are calling the domestic violence services. In other words, men not only have to endure the same levels of direct physical aggression from their partners as do women (as per 1. above) they also have to endure the extra indirect aggression that arises from women using the state (as per 2. above) to aggress on their behalf - something which does not get counted as 'domestic violence'. women, by the thousand every day, use the state to aggress against their partners on their behalf And given that women, by the thousand every day, use the state to aggress against their partners on their behalf, it seems very clear that men suffer far more from 'domestic violence' than do women. Indeed, when feminists refer to the high number of annual calls made to domestic violence services in order to imply that huge numbers of women are being abused, the truth is that these huge numbers reflect mostly the number of women who are aggressing against men. Furthermore, making matters worse for men, western societies have now clearly developed an overriding willingness to forgive women for their acts of violence - and even homicide - whereas the very opposite is true for men. Indeed, it is men who are mostly blamed when it is they, themselves, who are the victims of direct physical domestic violence. In other words, women can get away with it. Women can nowadays provoke, irritate, shout and aggress against their men partners with relative impunity. They do not need to kill them. They can maintain their high levels of violence knowing that, whatever those levels might be, more or less, the price will remain relatively low. And women who do murder their partners rarely spend more than a few months in jail; if that. And, furthermore, they are often treated as heroines; e.g. see Loose Women. women are very actively encouraged to be violent towards their men In other words, women are very actively encouraged to be violent towards their men - not only through direct action, but also through the state and its various agencies. Indeed, additional encouragement also emanates daily from the media, which continuously urge women to telephone various hotlines. And the outcome has been that, for many years now, there has been a torrent of domestic violence and abuse being hurled against men throughout western countries - not only directly, but also through the state. And the homicide data unmasks part of the feminist agenda, because the policies that feminists would claim are designed to reduce domestic violence against helpless women clearly do nothing of the sort. These women get killed just as often as before. For feminists to succeed in reducing violence against women would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. But feminist policies have never really been concerned with the reduction of violence against women. For feminists to succeed in reducing violence against women would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Their sole aim has always been - simply and blindly - to disempower men and to stir up hatred towards them. Thus, when the feminist lobby keeps arguing the case that men are more domestically violent than women, and, further, that the injuries against women are often more serious than is the case for men (and this is, indeed, true - just as the respective homicide rates would predict) it would be well to remind them that such injuries would occur far less often if the male perpetrators were able to pick up their phones instead. Regretfully, however, the feminists just will not allow men to receive support in their times of domestic crises. They continually argue that men do not need such support despite the evidence showing that domestic violence against many truly vulnerable women would be reduced by this. And, as usual, the feminists have been given their way, and so there is hardly any support for men who need help in times of crisis. And this is yet further evidence that exposes the true agenda of feminism. It is not about protecting 'weak and vulnerable' women, it is about empowering the aggressive ones. There is one final point to be added to all this with regard to non-homicide domestic violence, and this is the way in which it is so prejudicially defined. As mentioned earlier, it tends to be defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she happens to be experiencing at the time. And so, for example, shouting, name-calling, pushing and shoving - extremely common and trivial events in themselves alone - can be sufficient to bring about the most draconian actions against men for 'domestic violence'. And this is true even when there is no evidence to support the woman's claims or when she's lying. But when, for example, women make false or exaggerated accusations of 'abuse', whether allegedly against themselves or their children, or when they purposefully engage in activities denying the fathers access to their children, or when they have their men ejected from their homes under false pretences, well, the authorities simply do not categorise any of these acts as 'domestic violence', even though they are crimes that are far, far worse than most of the acts which they do categorise as domestic violence. As one man described his situation recently, "Yes, I must have slapped her about five times over the last three months that we were together, but I was hit by her far more often. And that was nothing compared to what she's doing to me now. Every hour without my children is another slap in my face, and I haven't been allowed to see them for nearly six months." Well, that is a lot of 'slap-equivalents' over a six month period - about 2000 would be my guess. But they do not count at all in the 'domestic violence figures'. Indeed, even threatening to withhold money from a woman in the UK can be considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'. But when a woman threatens a man with the notion that he will never see his children again, this is not considered to be an act of 'domestic violence'. And neither is it 'domestic violence' to deny a man access to his own home and children. apart from serious physical injury, what could be more 'domestically' violent than being thrown out of your own home And yet, apart from serious physical injury, what could be more 'domestically' violent than being thrown out of your own home and cut off from your children? The reality is, therefore, that while the objective academic research shows that males and females are victims of non-homicide domestic violence in roughly equal rates, this is only the case because most of the worst actions that women direct against men are simply not counted as acts of domestic violence by the researchers. it is men who make up the vast majority of the victims of non-homicide domestic violence - not women! And so it is that the truth about non-homicide domestic violence is that, when one includes all those actions that can be legitimately counted as 'abusive'- and these should include those abuses by the state at the behest of women - it is men who make up the vast majority of the victims of non-homicide domestic violence - not women! Furthermore, it governments were genuinely keen to reduce the number of women's injuries and deaths from domestic violence, the evidence is quite clear. They need to provide help to men. And the fact that they do not do this demonstrates just how bogus are their concerns for women victims of domestic violence.