Men, those vile beasts and animals
In this spirit, we could look at the website "Get the Facts" about domestic violence and see if we can learn anything useful there. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. Among the couple of useful tidbits, it quickly becomes clear that this site freely mixes carefully selected factoids from Western countries with those from the third world, with the implicit goal of making the Western men pay for the sins of their third world brothers. However, the first ultimate whopper with cheese that I found was in the fact sheet "Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence", which said
Like all women, immigrant women are at high risk for domestic violence [...]
OK, now let me get this straight. All women are at high risk for domestic violence? Seriously? Every single one? Not just at risk, but at high risk?
Not one woman ever can make any kind of informed choice in pairing up
with a man who is statistically significantly less likely to beat and
abuse her?
This totally imbecilic claim is of course designed to
make all women be afraid of all men, but it is strongly contradicted by
the facts given in other link I posted, "Abuse of Spouse or Partner".
This article lists ten extremely simple and easily observable
attributes that predict domestic violence so enormously well that if
any seven of these attributes are present, the risk of domestic
violence grows 40 times higher. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but
since any risk can be at most 100%, the baseline risk for domestic
violence cannot possibly be more than 2.5%, for it to be possible to
grow 40 times higher. So if any woman can decrease her personal risk of
becoming a victim of domestic violence to be only 2.5% by taking
certain trivial commonsense precautions in her mate selection process,
it seems to me that it would be rather dishonest to say that all women are at high risk for domestic abuse.
How
about the leftist-feminist claim that domestic violence is equally
common in all social classes and ethnic groups? Fortunately, the fact
sheet "Welfare and Domestic Violence" forgets the official party line here and informs us that
Studies consistently show that at least 50 to 60 percent of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner at some point during their adult lives, compared to 22 percent of the general population; some studies indicate rates as high as 82 percent. A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history physical and sexual abuse in childhood.
while the other fact sheet "Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence" tells us that
Immigrant women often suffer higher rates of battering than U.S. citizens because they may come from cultures that accept domestic violence [...]
I
actually appreciate this sudden burst of honesty here. I bet you don't
hear these numbers very often from the feminists and leftists, who tend
to proclaim that all cultures are morally equal and the poor people are
gentle and virtuous so that all their problems result from their
oppression and repression. (Once again, chasing the rabbit the hunter
is blind to mountains...)
But it is not really that surprising
that both men and women who are at the bottom of their respective
social hierarchies have to settle for the worst that the opposite sex
has to offer. If we make a ballpark estimate that something like 70% of
men are good and decent, then it is mathematically certain that 30% of
women have no choice but either pair up with a bad man or remain alone.
In the female competition for these good men, the non-underclass women
have the definite advantage over their uglier sisters who live in the
underclass poverty. The end result is that the attractive women in the
upper and middle classes hog all the good men to themselves, leaving
only the dregs for the ugly poor women that the men find least
desirable. But I guess that it would be too much to expect for the
women to show some actual solidarity here. At least there is certain
symmetric beauty when the most undesirable members of both sexes pair
up with each other.
There is, of course, the standard leftist
solution of making the state a virtual boyfriend for the poor women who
can't find a good man to support them, or just feel that a relationship
with any man that they would be able to monopolize over their
competitors is beneath them. For these women, the state would be a
pretty excellent boyfriend, since He always gives them lots of money
and protection but never has any expectations or makes any pesky
demands in return. And by "state", we of course mean the taxpayer
money, that is, money taxed from the productive men and women who did
make the right choices in life. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a
more devious way of turning an insult to injury than making the decent
men pay taxes to support the life of women who earlier spurned them to
go for the bad boys.
One complication is the fact that some relatively decent women are drawn toward "rebellious" men. This is a phenomenon best seen in secondary schools; in almost any school, you'll find some sort-of-nice girl professing her eternal love for a total delinquent. Granted, the girls so involved aren't usually the brightest or prettiest, but they're not skanks by any means. Some will grow out of this phase as they mature, but invariably some will end up partnering with these troubled males, and usually will end up regretting it.
Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights
Posted by Anonymous | 11:44 AM
What is forgotten by most people in talking or thinking about domestic violence is that violence is the endpoint of the aggression continuum and that both males and females are capable of aggression to achieve their goals and that both males and females have goals in life (well most of them).
Posted by beenaround | 12:26 PM