Jane Gilmore, writing in the feminist propaganda online rag Daily Life, gives us a thorough dose of the Sacred Babble of Feminism while she lectures us on domestic violence, which she insists on calling “men’s violence against women.” The article in question is entitled “No, women aren’t as likely to commit violence as men.”
Gilmore begins:
Pick any article on the internet about the violence men commit against women and you can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the first five comments under it will be from a man furious that feminists are ignoring the unreported epidemic of women’s violence against men. Most of the time it’s quite obvious they’ve not even read the article in question; it’s almost like a reflex action. A reflexive jerk, if you will.
Now, one of the techniques that feminists use for their propaganda is to introduce a little truth with a whole pile of misinformation. The idea is that in order for any reasonable person to discuss the issue with any seriousness, they have to unpack the drivel to show what is truth and what is not. By the time they have unravelled the mess, the point of the exercise is lost in the noise.
So let’s just dismiss the “furious” men in the first five comments, and let’s not even try to decode what the “unreported epidemic of women’s violence against men” might even mean. Let’s just assume she’s having a little reflexive jerk of her own.
It’s time to stop; this is a rubbish claim. Not only is there no data that supports such a claim, but the data that we have proves the exact opposite.
This is the bit that gets interesting. Gilmore goes on to show why feminists should only quote data from feminist-approved sources with feminist facts and not do some research on their own. Data, especially real data, is never good for feminism as reality and fantasy seldom mix.
Gilmore tell us, authoritatively, that she has examined the Victorian Police’s latest data, which gives her the statistics to shoot the raging male commenters down (in a caring, consultative, and inclusive manner, of course).
According to Victoria Police crime statistics on offenders processed for the 2013/14 reporting year:
- 87% of homicides were committed by men.
- 98% of sexual assaults were committed by men.
- 83% of non-sexual assaults were committed by men.
- 90% of robberies were committed by men.
- 92% of abductions were committed by men.
There it is, in all its damning glory. Men, men, men, bloody men.
Those who understand the history of the domestic violence industry know that feminists have long refused to deal with these particular statistics. Let me explain why.
There are, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 5,821,300 people living in the state of Victoria. The total of these crimes in Victoria—that is “crimes committed against the person,” as the coppers like to call it—was 59,907, with 55,201 victims (some cases will have involved multiple charges).
That means that 99% of Victorians were unharmed by such crimes.
Do you see the damage this could cause to the moral panic that is domestic violence? How can the Australian White Ribbon phonies emotionally blackmail Victorians for donations when the vast majority of the public are perfectly safe?
Let’s look at those figures again, remembering that there are 2,075,454 adult males in Victoria:
According to Victoria Police crime statistics on offenders processed for the 2013/14 reporting year:
- 87% of 82 homicides were committed by 0.003% of all Victorian men.
- 98% of of 8,961 sexual assaults were committed by 0.4% of all Victorian men.
- 83% of 46,123 non-sexual assaults were committed by men 1.8% of all Victorian men.
- 90% of 2,587 robberies were committed by 0.11% of all Victorian men.
- 92% of 691 abductions were committed by 0.03% of all Victorian men.
In other words, almost all Victorian men (about 98%) are not the violent bullies that feminists try to paint them as.
Now, Gilmore isn’t really interested in the homicides, robberies, and sexual assaults as a whole because the majority of the victims are also men. She simply wants to flit into the world of recorded crime, grab the statistics that suit her agenda, and get out again before anyone can examine the details.
Female victims are her only interest. For some reason, a man being hit by another man somehow doesn’t count the same. It is as if a man only hits another man when he’s run out of women to hit. The Sacred Babble has two names for men hitting women: domestic violence and family violence, and Gilmore uses both terms.
The Victorian Police also give a figure for domestic violence. It’s not actually a figure for crime. Rather, it’s a figure that comes from police paperwork. Whenever they are called out to investigate an incident, they tick a box that reads “Family Incident” if they feel that the incident could be described in such a manner.
But let’s pretend, as feminists often do, that the 65,393 “Family Incidents” are real assaults. Let’s also pretend, as feminists do, that each and every one of them was a woman being assaulted. And let’s also pretend that each and every case means that a different woman was involved.
So of the 2,170,600 adult women living in Victoria, 97% or more were unharmed by patriarchy.
Gilmore then gives us a pseudo-intellectual example, copied from a pseudo-intellectual TED Talk by an “anti-sexism educator” called Jackson Katz. The example starts with “John raped Mary” and ends with “Mary is a rape victim.” The logic is too tortuous to go into here, but naturally it proves the existence of patriarchy.
So let us use this tool of enlightenment in a more honest way.
A few men have assaulted a few women
Here we begin with the truth. A very small minority of men, in Victoria, have indeed assaulted a very small minority of women. The numbers, compared to the population as a whole, are not large. This does not make the assaults any less criminal. In fact, the reason why the men were arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced is because it was wrong.
It is also possible to imagine, in the picture this phrase paints, that a few women could have assaulted a few men too.
A few men have assaulted women
Here we have the beginning of the feminist bending of the truth. There is no qualifier on the number of women, which gives the implication that “a few” is the very least that was assaulted. This further implies that these men assault women as a class rather than the individuals they meet and interact with. In other words, those few men would have assaulted other women, and perhaps even more women, if they’d had the chance.
The notion that a few women have also assaulted a few men still remains a possibility, but these particular men would be unlikely to have been assaulted.
Men have assaulted women
Not only are we now dealing with women as a class, but we are also now dealing with men as a class. This raises the level of the problem. With no qualifier on the numbers, it seems more pervasive. The term systematic becomes a distinct possibility.
Also, while the possibility still exists for a few women to have assaulted a few men, the more general case of “women have assaulted men” becomes less likely. Women, as a group, are probably too busy dealing with being assaulted to carry out attacks of their own.
Men assault women
Here we have the true feminist position, and certainly the one taken by Gilmore. By removing the past tense, we now have a statement that assaulting women is something that men—because they are men—do.
And they assault women because they are women. This is what feminists call “gendered violence.”
Gilmore does try to weasel her way out of the bind of the criminal statistics by later trying to argue the standard tip-of-the-iceberg line that feminists often use with these statistics. However, having just declared that there are no groups of male victims “hidden” behind the statistics, her argument that there actually is a hidden mass of female victims is just too silly.
The real problem here, of course, is that the domestic violence industry stays away from these figures because of the low numbers. In other studies, violence gets a much wider definition to the point of absurdity. Spiritual violence, economic violence, and other forms of violence get thrown into the pot to get the numbers up.
For example, it is entirely possible for the words I’ll get you to take on a chilling meaning in certain circumstances. If the person is brandishing a weapon, or has a violent history, this threat could be very real. This indeed could cause real fear in the individual being threatened and could properly be called violence.
But to declare each and every utterance of this usually empty threat as “violence” is simply just boosting up the numbers.
Worse than stupid, Gilmore claims that, if men were victims of domestic violence, it would show up in surveys like the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Studies. This comes from the woman who accuses the “furious men” who were making the comments (remember them) of not properly reading the articles. She then goes on to state:
It is also true that men can be the victim of family violence, not to the extent that groups like the ‘One In Three’ campaign claim, but it certainly happens.…
So where does the One in Three campaign get its name from? According to its website:
The Australian Bureau of Statistics 4906.0 – Personal Safety, Australia, 2012 (2013)1 is the largest and most recent survey of violence in Australia. It found that:
- one in three victims of current partner violence during the last 12 months (33.3%) and since the age of 15 (33.5%) were male
And if you actually read the Personal Safety Study, 2012, you’ll find that the One in Three campaign has got its facts correct.
Too many men and boys are being shamed by the feminist facts into believing that they are some kind of monsters, or at least monsters-in-training, because of the original sin of being male.
Jane Gilmore, it is indeed time for this rubbish to stop. So stop it. Now.
