Wednesday, 8 June 2011

If you want Equality then drop the Princess Principle

It's taken me 24 hours to mull over this subject, but the report on domestic violence this week is too significant on too many levels to be simply ignored. The statistics relate to the period 2005 through 2010 and reveal a number of disturbing trends. Firstly, convictions across the board more than doubled in the timeframe, a statistic which may owe a large part to the increasing tendency of the police to involve themselves in such matters, but in all likelihood also reflects a general sense that society as a whole has become more inclined towards viewing violence as a solution to everyday pressures and issues.

However, it is when these figures are broken down by gender that the most attention-grabbing pattern emerges. While convictions for males almost doubled over the course of five years (this in itself is an unsettling fact), instances of proven domestic violence carried out by women rose by a staggering 169%. Though the area remains one where men are far more likely to find themselves in the dock, females now represent 7% of this particular cake of shame, having held only a 5% stake in the issue in 2005. This of begs the question as to why more women are being convicted of domestic violence?

A fairly simple explanation is that a man may feel less stigmatised now than he once did by the notion that a woman is beating him up and is therefore more prepared to come forward and report it to the police. This probably has some basis in fact and could be one of the few positives to have emerged from the metrosexual age. Is female violence against men something that has only broken out in the last decade or so? Methinks not - the subtle difference being that any man who 'allowed' a woman to get the better of him in a physical altercation 50 or even 20 years ago would have received a less than sympathetic response.

Any male friends he had left afterwards would still have ridiculed him for all eternity on the subject, while most women would simply have leapt to the conclusion that the other party was acting in self-defence, essentially justifying her behaviour. Of course, we now live in an era where men are strongly encouraged to confront and get in touch with their own feminine side, regardless of whether or not they actually have one and/or feel comfortable with a bit of psychological gender-bending. It is highly probable that an unintended consequence of this particular act of PC nonsense is a rapid rise in the number of men willing to admit to someone in uniform that a woman has committed an unprovoked assault on him.

Many are horrific tales, like that of the man who explained how his girlfriend had repeatedly stabbed him on Monday's BBC bulletin, and deserve nothing but our utmost sympathy. In fact, referring to these cases as 'domestic violence' does not nearly do them justice as the offence involved could legally sit somewhere between malicious wounding with intent and attempted murder. Either way, a lengthy spell behind bars is the only fair and reasonable outcome for what this gent had to endure, so perhaps the relatively light end result of a four and a half year sentence reflected the female privilege that men's rights groups believe exists in the legal and penal system?

Alternatively, she may just have had a 'good lawyer, believable contrition and an iffy judge' but what is clear is that butchering someone to the point where their chances of survival stand at 50-50 deserves a greater punishment than the prospect of being a free woman just over two years later. Had it been a male in the dock for committing the same offence on a female, what price would one offer on the judge's tariff being considerably higher?

The BBC took an unusual step when it came to gauging the public response to the story. Instead of following their predictable and often boring path of drafting in a professor or some statist drone with a sociology degree, their hacks took to the streets of Bicester to interview 'real people', well breathing ones anyway. What's most revealing is that theirs were the responses deemed the most insightful and therefore worthy of publication. It's a bit like seeing "dreadful wall of sound backed by mundane lyrics" on the front of an album since that was the best review the record actually received.

Before anyone pans me too hard for analysing and indeed criticising their comments, it is worth noting that nobody forced these 'real people' to speak to a BBC journalist. Besides which, more astute and less forgiving commentators (yes Bernard I'm thinking of you) will punch much bigger and more well-placed (strictly metaphorical) holes in their argument than I ever could.

Adele Smith, a 50-year-old house wife from Steeple Claydon said: “There are a lot of families under financial pressures and women in particular feel the pressure trying to manage a home.
“But also I think it’s frustration and women have certainly got more aggressive, you can see when you go out on a Friday night. I saw a man being slapped around the head by his girlfriend but he wasn’t making any effort to retaliate.”

I'll return to the question of 'financial pressure' later on, but all that needs to be put forward in response to Adele's comments is that of course the poor bloke did not 'retaliate'. If had snapped and struck out, or even attempted to restrain this girlfriend who was 'slapping him about the head' then four cops would have appeared as if by magic, pinned and cuffed him, and slung the 'violent thug' in a urine-soaked cell faster than you could say self-defence. Do you really think the law on this issue applies equally to men and women?

51-year-old Donnie Smith, an unemployed IT compliance manager from Buckingham Road said: “You could say for years it has always been the guys and I can understand whey women are fighting back. I was bought up in the 70s in an area where women would get a smack if they didn’t do what they were told. But now if a guy makes a threatening gesture to a woman it could be his last, women are more willing to stand up for themselves.”

Julie Bownes, a 49-year-old nursery nurse from the Southwold Estate said: “Women are more outspoken and feel more equal to men and can stand up for themselves. It’s good to be less passive but not aggressive and women have to learn to control their emotions, as do men. I think our generation of men would hide it, but there has been a slight change in attitude and I think the younger generation would come forward.”

Both of these comments present a highly misleading and false argument - namely that any woman who acts violently towards a man must have done so while 'standing up for themselves' in self-defence. I've no doubt whatsoever that some of those who find themselves as defendants in court, regardless of gender, only do so because they struck out at the person who turned it physical in the first instance. However, the underlying assumption behind both Donnie and Julie's comments is that 1) it is only women who do strike out in self-defence - all men who raise their hands to a woman are just evil and 2) that any female who strikes a male must have been physically provoked themselves.

In fairness, Julie does offer the marginal factor that more men are prepared to report this violence to the police than they once were, and there is probably considerable merit in citing this as a partial explanation. However, surely the concept that every English kitchen is akin to that of 10 Brookside Close, that every man must be a vicious Trevor Jordache and therefore all women are poor Mandy plays on a sense of female 'victimhood' that any move towards gender equality should seek to dismiss?

And I know it's off topic, but how on earth can someone be "an unemployed IT compliance manager" - surely you're either an IT compliance manager or you're not one? The mind boggles. Meanwhile, some manginas were getting in on the action too:-

Retired Kevin Hickey, 57, from Bicester said: “Women are becoming more short tempered, but I think a lot of that’s down to financial pressures. Men are not the sole bread winners any more. But also the figures could reflect that it’s not dealt with inside the family and is more likely to involve police.”

Blaming a rapid rise in domestic violence amongst women on 'financial pressures' is one of the most absurd arguments I am ever likely to come across. Imagine a man who hospitalised his wife or girlfriend and ended up on a GBH charge for it. He pleads guilty, but offers 'financial pressures' to the gavel-clunker as a form of mitigation. How well do you think that would play with the feminist nutjobs who constantly poison all discourse on gender issues, not to mention the judge himself? No doubt he'd be jailed (rightly), howled down, soaked in cocktail of scorn and ridicule and would quite possibly end up the recipient of hate mail and death threats. 'Financial pressures' are never, ever an excuse to resort to violence for either a male or a female, yet this mangina feels that being strapped for cash constitutes a reasonable enough excuse - but only for a woman, mind you.

There were other comments that I could go into, but then they touch upon many of the same questions and repeat tired, predictable arguments that we could spend all night countering. Instead it is worth exploring why there appear to be different rules applied to men and women in terms of rights, responsibility, opportunities and outcomes.

The first point worth clarifying is that the feminist movement, who have a pretty long piece of paper to answer for, have never been and never will be interested in equality. Like all vested interest groups such as the LGBT lobby or the 'Black Police Officers Association' their remit is to get as good a deal for their own 'clients' as possible.

Of course, historical and real inequalities against them are valuable weapons in fighting the cause, but were simple equality the 'sacred goal' of the project, most of those clad in sensible shoes would have said, "job done" and disappeared some time ago. In reality, securing a better position for their own interest group is the aim, and explains why the feminist agenda remains as strong as it ever was today as a 'constant struggle' despite the 'progress' of the last 30 years or so. If that means telling direct lies about the state of society, refusing to take the responsibilities that come with rights, and actually ending up in a state of female supremacy over men, then so be it.

Clear evidence that this is the case rests in attitudes towards these statistics on domestic violence. The notion that a woman would launch an unprovoked physical attack on a man is immediately dismissed as unthinkable by feminists and manginas alike, and a conventional wisdom reached that the male must have provoked her in some way. Why is it that despite the rigid enforcement of 'gender equality' in terms of economic opportunity (and in many cases the outcomes too), the responsibility for one's own actions that must exist to make liberty work has not travelled in the same direction? Power without responsibility is the nirvana of the statist, and as Bernard Chapin explains on his YouTube films (link at the bottom of the page), feminist ideology owes a great deal of its origins to Marxism.

What we have now is a game of selective role-playing that centres around something I will refer to in future as 'the princess principle'. This is equality, but only when it suits:- career and earnings opportunities are ruthlessly policed to ensure that all is 'equal', while women then resort to the role of 'princess', who is unable to fend for herself, when this is the most convenient and/or rewarding path to follow. I know a great many women who are nothing like this then again have come across equally many who are, and the princess principle is the basic mechanism by which the current state of female supremacy is sustained. Demand liberation when the opportunities and the money are being handed out, then appeal to chivalry when faced with the responsibility that comes with it.

Having grown up in a house blighted by the cancer, I hate domestic violence by anyone towards anyone at any time. It remains a problem in which the majority of offenders are male and this should be remembered despite the disturbing trend of the last five years. However, if as the statistics would suggest, more women are striking out against men than ever before, the citing of 'self-defence' as autopilot mitigation by feminists and manginas does not enhance the debate one iota. Nor does the selective application of gender equality to suit the situation facing a female at that moment in time. As someone who believes in genuine equality and has no interest in re-creating Victorian Britain, the solution is a brave but simple one. Face down the hypocrisy of the princess principle, and stop making excuses for violent women. Like violent men, they deserve everything that is coming to them.

1 comment:

  1. There are so many issues involved in this. Being the odd person that I am I read a lot of stuff about nineteenth century England. It is really surprising how many cases there are of women killing their husbands. Their favoured method tended to be poison, but stabbing was certainly used as well.

    I think most people consider the near impossibility of divorce to be a factor and another issue was that widows were sometimes thought to do better than the wholly dependent wives of an unloved husband.

    Whatever the real cause I am sceptical about whether women display any different degree of violence now or then.

    When I was a Marxist, the feminist movement was an integral part of our political strategy. Even then it struck me as blindingly obvious that men and women were utterly different in so many ways that the approach of radical feminists was absurd.

    Apart from the hormonally induced differences in size and strength, men and women have fairly apparent differences in thinking processes, emotional responses and priorities in relationship forming.

    Removing legal disadvantages which applied to women in the past is a very good thing as far as I am concerned, but trying to pretend that men and women are the same, rather than that they are equally human, creates ridiculous situations.

    All of the equalities legislation that has been enacted since 1974 has set out to achieve the impossible or is actually counter productive. The impositions on employers have resulted in fewer people being employed than there would be without them and those who are employed earn less than they could do because of the unproductive overhead of the red tape and cost impositions such as maternity and paternity leave.

    Going back to violence between partners or family members I think we need to put it in some context. My recollections from 40 or so years ago was that when an assault was reported to the police and they found it had happened in the home they tended to go away. They described it as a domestic and did not want to regard it as the crime that that it would be in any other circumstance. Well that was crap and we have made some progress towards treating these crimes properly. Actually, pretty much the same attitudes allowed physical and sexual abuse of children to go un-investigated and unpunished in private homes and institutions as well.

    Men have a greater tendency than women to use physical violence. That is just the reality of testosterone. That doesn't provide any excuse for individuals failing to control themselves.

    Women who play the coquette and then complain that they are being patronised or demeaned by men when it suits them are hypocrites or self deluding.

    There is nothing wrong with masculinity or femininity. What we need to remember is that all of us are equally responsible for our actions and sheltering behind gender politics for our own failings shows us to be less than adequate.