I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The National Post ~ Colby Cosh: The lessons of Rihanna

The following column is fairly typical of the "White Night" patriarchal approach to discussing DV. Cosh comments " I don’t want to sound like a squishy liberal here..." but he actually sounds more like a socialist by the name of Jack Layton, the CEO of the Canadian Socialist Movement and the NDP (No Dad's Party), Canada's foremost "Girly Man." The patriarchy lives inside these ill informed do-gooders who believe they know all and will step into the breech to claim the throne as chief defenders of the underclass of victims known as females. We teach our daughters they are victimized and so it will be. It is a circular argument that through its adherent’s promotion actually causes the outcome that ought not to occur. More on this later. That is the message of Cosh and others of his ilk aided and abetted by naive politicians, greedy lawyers and lazy judges. I had a trial mgmt. conference on February 27, 2008 in which Judge McMillan of the Ontario Superior Court presided. In his discussion with me the strong, suck it up, thick skinned, masculine applicant he was at times, bellicose, belligerent, threatening, condescending and dismissive. He even stated that any evidence I might have with respect to criminal behaviour by my ex for which she might profit in the "no fault" equalization of assets would likely be thrown out. Who says a criminal can't profit from their actions. McMillan clearly indicated to me they can. Only in family Law (FLAW) could this occur with the full knowledge of participants. I suggested to him in no uncertain terms if I do not challenge the law it will never be changed. He looked fairly disgusted with my comment because here was an "uppity" political activist challenging the "space" occupied by the justice/divorce industry acolytes whose comfortable pew of awarding custody to females in a 9-1 ratio and challenging the notion of the Marxist induced equalization regime/no fault divorce is being called into question. When it came to questioning the respondent female who has committed several criminal acts, the only parent to beat the children, parentally alienated them (see the prologue to my book , Chapter 111, for all of my grievances) he shows deference by lowering his tone and speaking in obvious respective mannerisms. I immediately saw the patronizing, patriarchal stance and hypocrisy of his actions. He does not believe women have the capability to "take it like a man", are lesser beings than men, and need "White Knights" like him to protect them. The feminist mantra of women as a victim underclass is looking for a new "Parent" in the Nanny State. Given they believe they are a permanent underclass of victims that were, in many cases it would seem, dependent first on parents (or quite possibly a single mother parent), then on a partner - mostly men so far, and after either graduating from being dependent on one parent, failing with the male partner, now require a new hand to guide them. The Nanny State in its benevolence becomes this new surrogate to watch over them. In this manner further dependencies are developed which then in a mutually symbiotic manner ensures hundreds of thousands of support jobs via the taxpayer, and permanency to the state of feminist dependency. The feminist cry of equality and independence cannot ever be met by its followers. Those who are Real Women and don't subscribe to the feminist chattering classes of whiners and complainers are the females who actually achieved equality by being themselves and hopefully my daughters can succeed in this way. I believe in the "Strong Fathers - Strong Mothers = Strong Children" philosophy. Both parents play an integral role in the outcome. That is the natural order of things. I would posit given what we know of the social engineering of the socialist labour government in the U.K., the lack of success on all fronts within their society, and the nature of building dependencies, the problems of DV will never be solved because it is a single gender solution using the bogus Duluth wheel as its guide which states all women are victims of abusive men. The efforts by the Nanny state are in fact Patriarchal (A man who rules a family, clan, or tribe) because it believes the fallacy that these women are victims as defined by Marxist/Feminist propaganda. In this case the new form of patriarchy is at the behest of those who thought they were escaping it. That is called circular logic. They were perceived victims dependent on someone else and have moved sideways for greater dependence on the new Patriarch - The Nanny State. It is in essence as though they never grew up. Despite the role models of tough resilient truth seeker females in movies and TV some females cannot grasp they are moving in circles rather than ahead. It cannot be anything else until a new paradigm involving all "actors" on this stage of mutual interpersonal relationships are involved in a solution.MJM

Colby Cosh: The lessons of Rihanna
Posted: March 10, 2009, 12:37 PM by NP Editor

The Los Angeles Police Department reacted with anger and threats when someone apparently leaked evidentiary photos of pop star Rihanna to a gossip Web site after she was allegedly beaten by her boyfriend Chris Brown last month. The police are right to take a dim view of employees abusing their insider status for personal gain, but I cannot help feeling a little grateful all the same. The effect of the leak has been to help keep the increasingly grotesque spectacle of Rihanna and Chris Brown — who have reunited even as felony charges against Brown are prepared — on the front burner of the news. I don’t want to sound like a squishy liberal here, but I think this will lead to a lot of important conversations.

We have all known women who were slow to leave abusive relationships. But one of the great unremarked social advances of the recent decades has been to establish strong norms concerning violence against women: We are all now dedicated not only to the proposition that such violence is unacceptable, but to the tacit premise that household violence is inherently a public matter and hence an appropriate sphere for legal intervention. Objectively, the argument for Rihanna’s right to personal privacy is an argument for her right to pursue and preserve a relationship with her abuser.

Whether or not they mean to, those who fetishize her privacy (which would inherently be compromised by a public trial of the incident) are preaching the old patriarchal message: Keep it in the family. Don’t pry into your neighbours’ business. Chris Brown may have had his reasons.

In retrospect, it seems like a miracle that we have come to reject such premises despite the lack of prior examples of known abuse amongst celebrity couples. Celebrities are such legendarily useful vectors for spreading awareness that we are comfortable making jokes about, for example, how lucky it was for sufferers of spinal injuries when Christopher Reeve fell off a balky horse. And the jokes are founded in truth: Spinal injury research did, in fact, enjoy a significant boomlet when Superman got grounded. But partner violence against women has never, as far as I can remember, enjoyed such a teachable moment until now.

The frightening question is: Why hasn’t it? Are performing artists notable for their stable relationships, their rationality, their lack of volatility? Are they just too darn smart to risk their careers to a moment of explosive rage? Ask Christian Bale that question and get back to me. The horrible truth is that the lack of a precedent for the Rihanna-Chris Brown scandal probably has more to do with celebrities’ ability to manipulate the police and extinguish rumour with the help of trained publicists, lawyers and other people who have made professional pledges to suppress their consciences. If we accept that violence against women is no respecter of class or renown, we can accept no other explanation for its apparent near-total absence from this particular class.

So now we’ve penetrated the veil: One of those women who literally has everything is going back to a boyfriend who beat the hell out of her, and their friends and colleagues are disgracing themselves with all the old familiar excuses. And it is clarifying. We all think of the battered woman as a phenomenon associated with the lowest social orders: Women accept and excuse violence against themselves, the story goes, only when they face a lack of options. But the beautiful, talented, wealthy Rihanna enjoys a practical freedom of action you or I cannot possibly imagine.

Standing by Chris Brown may even positively destroy her economic prospects, as I’m sure her publicists have been explaining to her in the bluntest language. As things stand right now, she is literally the worst role model imaginable for young girls. No half-sane parent could stand to hear a daughter say she wanted to be just like Rihanna. And, honestly, taking her back doesn’t seem like the smartest career move for Chris Brown, either. After he takes his due punishment, he is entitled to a fresh start, but he’s not going to find it with this particular woman; as long as they are together, he has no hope whatsoever of expecting fair treatment and accurate scrutiny from the information predators who, by their existence and activity, make celebrities celebrities.

It is in their clear mutual interest to end the appalling pas-de-deux and do some growing up apart. Collectively, as a matter of psychic self-defence, the audience will choose to end their careers rather than suffer the torture of wondering, every time one of their songs comes on the radio, what’s going on behind the scenes. National Post colbycosh@gmail.com

AddThis Social Bookmark Button Comments (23) Send to a friend Permalink
Click here to post a comment
by edd333ed
Mar 10 2009 2:47 PM

This one will probably break along cultural lines -- which is to say that those subcultures in which beating women is acceptable are going to accept this disgusting behaviour as normal; those in which it isn't will boycott Brown and Rihanna as long as she stays with Brown.

I query whether the major public attitude change that Cosh refers to exists anywhere outside the 'old-line' North American culture, most of which has little time for these celebrities.

Groups which accept honour killings or dig gangsta rap and 'ho' music can certainly stomach a little wife/consort beating. If we were serious about preventing this kind of violence, TV and popular music would be far different from what they are.

Oprah deserves praise for telling it like it is -- this is potentially murderous behaviour on Brown's part, for which he deserves hard time as a matter of general deterence. He will probably plead he is just a nice boy with a short temper, and Rihanna was messing with his private business, so he slammed her a couple of times. Just normal behaviour in his set.

Whether his high-priced lawyer can save him from hard time will be an interesting commentary on the relevance of the American justice system to the real world. My guess is he will beat the rap one way or another, as O.J. Simpson did.

As for role models, neither Obama or Bill Cosby are driving Lamborghinis. If the justice system and the moguls of the entertainment world don't hit this guy hard, take a good, clear look at the message that is being sent to young America.

by MarnieTunay
Mar 10 2009 4:07 PM

I agree with by edd333ed Mar 10 2009 2:47 PM.

I also agree, however, that the Rhianna's tragic personal situation has educational potential.

And Colby Cosh's attitude is an important reminder for those women who have been abused, that not all men are like that.

Marnie Tunay

Fakirs Canada


by 33hats
Mar 10 2009 4:26 PM

@edd333ed - You really think this is a community issue - a community that accepts honour killings and gangster rap are the only ones who will accept this (which is just your code words for non-white people)? The fact is violence against women is world wide, even for those who profess to be of higher class or more civilized, as the article states. So for Lacey Peterson, and all the other women who she represents, I think you do them a great disservice overlooking how many times western women, regardless of racial affiliation, are killed by their male partners, and how the #1 cause of pregnant women's death is murder by their spouse. Violence against women affects 1 in 4, not 1 in 4 rap or honour killing supporters, but just plain old 1 in 4.

by MikeMurphy
Mar 10 2009 4:32 PM

Your commentary about DV is very one sided. Inasmuch as any stronger person beating up on a weaker person is wrong, no matter what the gender, you have fallen into the feminist laid trap of believing the problem is a single gender issue. You also do not mention the female in this case may well have started the violence while the man was driving a $150,000.00 vehicle which, when control is lost, can be a lethal and dangerous weapon. Intimate Partner Violence in Canada and the USA is precipitated in almost equal proportions by both genders. Women tend to use weapons more so than men. I can attest to the fact that a 4.5 foot garden rake handle can be lethal and a ten lb. jug of water bounced off your head hurts like the devil. Add to that the emotional and financial abuse and you will find, albeit with great difficulty, many battered men. Why is it difficult? Men do not report their abuse because of fear and embarrassment. (Perhaps as few as 1 in 10 report) With mandatory arrest policies if a man reports abuse and the female is more convincing he will be arrested.

This problem in Canada is in slight decline but another paradigm is needed to resolve it. We spend $208,000,000.00 a year on women's issues in this province. What if some of that money was spent on early intervention programs for couples and families that was a socially acceptable way to try and keep families together and treat the issue in a format that leads to better behaviour. I do not believe for one minute that either of these two young people are doomed to a life of mutual abuse if they get counselling to deal with their issues. Anybody who says otherwise is darkly pessimistic and doesn't understand human behaviour or they subscribe to the Duluth Wheel as the holy grail of DV which teaches that all women are victims and all men perpetrators. The world of reality is quite different. This model doesn't mention females as perpetrators at all.

Females in the USA and Australia are the greatest predators and perpetrators of child killing and abuse by a large margin. Lets have some dialogue instead of perpetuation of a mythology that women are gentle kind figures and men are inherently evil.

by Fred_001
Mar 10 2009 4:42 PM

OK, contrary argument.

Mr. Cosh's line of argument is in fact just more patriarchy.

This paradigm that any woman who has been hit by a man is by definition "abused", a "victim", is in fact a patriarchical reduction of women to powerless beings.

Two guys get in a cab, they argue, one slugs the other. There's no public outcry about this poor helpless victim of abuse and his evil abuser. Two guys, two equals, had a minor punch-up, and one got the better of the other, that's all. But let one of the guys be a woman, and she is immediately stripped of any and all personal qualities that might make her an equal in the story. She's immediately the poor helpless fragile little girl, powerless under an evil, superior, man.

Since we're talking about entertainers, it seems not unreasonable to mention the strange dichotomy, then, of this real life story versus the female characters modern TV and movies want us to swallow. Cop shows live on tough, assertive, equal, women cops these days, who can take a licking and dish it right back out. Relic Hunter drops the 200lb guy with a good roundhouse. Women eat this stuff up because it appeals to their desire to be equal to the images of men they've known.

But you can't be Relic Hunter one day, and a poor little victim the next. There appears to be conflicting forces driving women's public image.

On the one hand, popular culture has them now fully equal to men. Tough, self-reliant, dishing it out and in control of their own lives.

Then the very next minute the domestic violence lobby has them helpless frail creatures suffering at the evil hands of superior men.

As the Dire Straits song says, "One of them must be wrong."

by MikeMurphy
Mar 10 2009 4:42 PM

33hats is a feminist or feminist brainwashed purveyor of bogus statistics and has no further credibility. The pregnant death myth is an urban legend and would she please provide her reference for this number so it can be shot down in full blazing colour. If 1 in 4 women were the correct number then there would not be enough hospital rooms world wide to handle the USA situation alone. Lets do the math. There are approximately 160,000,000 women in the USA so if 1 in 4 are victims that means we have a population of 40,000,000 females in need of care.

In Canada An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence. Please note it says 5 years. Please note it is almost equal.


Whatever 33hats says henceforth just believe the numbers are taken from a feminist book of fairy tales and Colby Cash is giving them further stature with the BS he has written.

by MarnieTunay
Mar 10 2009 5:33 PM

to 33hats re your: "@edd333ed - You really think this is a community issue - a community that accepts honour killings and gangster rap are the only ones who will accept this"

- I don't think that's what edd333ed was saying. You're too quick to take offence, as are the others that follow you, at you.

Marnie Tunay

by Swannie52
Mar 10 2009 7:32 PM

Further to Mike Murphy's astute-and highly accurate observations (at the very least he uses properly researched data and statistics by credible professionals as opposed to the radical feminist view garnered from the STFTA report-"Simply Taken From The Air")

I note some of the shelter industry sisters from the USA also claim that 1 in 6 US women are "killed by domestic violence". Now mathematics was not my strongest subject in my formative educational years but even I know that this 1: 6 means that according to the radical feminist truth benders and "fact" inventors close to 25 million women were murdered in the USA last year. Did anyone else notice this modern-day super holocaust? I sure didn't.

In Canada domestic violence accounts for less than 11% of all violence and is one of the lowest rates in the world.

The real research and the real data properly distributed and read by the public would astound many. Just because something is in print does not make it true and just because someone states something on an issue does not make it any more accurate or truthful either. More often than not is is completely false and the domestic violence statistics are the most abused in this context.

Readers should remember that domestic violence data translates into funding and money for many in something that has become a virtual industry and the worse they can be made to appear the more money it generates.

Despite the freely distributed stereotypes of domestic violence. StatsCan records that 8% of women and 7% of men report being victimized by Domestic Violence in the last 5 years. When the research is checked if this domestic violence was "instrumental", the numbers are 4.2% of women and 2.6% of men and men are only 1/10 as likely to report.

From 1989 to the present, victim surveys show that the most common type of domestic violence is bilateral (50%), followed by females being the aggressor (35%) followed by males being the aggressor. The feminist lobby will never give anyone a straight answer on these matters as the shelter industry does not allow questions to be asked about female violence and their sample is already self selected for effect and thus entirely fraudulent.

by Swannie52
Mar 10 2009 8:09 PM

Further to this debate. There are women’s DV related shelters throughout Canada and it is estimated that there are more than 570 of them across the land, employing thousands of women but very few men. These shelters are represented in every single province and territory.

The Canadian (federal) budget to keep these shelters operational is $377 million annually (Statscan 2005-2006) In Ontario alone the Provincial Budget doles out $87 million for domestic violence related programmes for women but $0 for men

In 2008 the Canadian percentage of abused women reporting domestic violence by male partner was 8%

In 2008 percentage of abused men reporting domestic violence by their female partner was 7 %

Only 1 in 10 men typically report domestic violence perpetrated on them by their female partners.

The number of shelters for abused Men in Canada currently is 2 (in Alberta)

The Canadian budget for men’s domestic violence shelters was $ 0

Oh and we are talking about funds to "stimulate" the economy and cutting down on unneccesary funding? I wonder where the federal and provincial government should be looking to for those cuts?

by Swannie52
Mar 10 2009 8:12 PM

A well-known Canadian Journalist pointed out in December 2008 the following: “In Canada, in 2006, out of 605 murders, 78 were spousal homicides, a trifling figure in a country of 35 million people. The total for the women, 56, is six fewer than in 2005 and represents the fifth consecutive annual decline in numbers of women killed. But spousal homicides were up altogether in 2006, because more men were killed by women. Killings of male partners by women increased from 12 in 2005 to 21 in 2006”

And still the money flows to the lie and the deceit.

Food for thought? Is anyone listening

by DavidRUsher
Mar 10 2009 9:31 PM

Hold the presses!

But we now know that Rihanna went into a fit of insane jealousy and beat Chris over the head with her stilettos (a very dangerous thing to do in a moving vehicle). Stilettos are weapons capable of puncturing the skull. Rihanna was clearly the initiator of very serious DV, and Brown had good reason to use whatever reasonable physical force was necessary to end the altecation.

Why she grabbed his cell phone and went through his text messages is an open question. Stars get chased around by old girlfriends/boyfriends all the time. In any event, jealousy is no cause for a major physical attack that she did.

Brown's first response to the attack was to pull over and tell her to get out. She refused, and lied in the police report saying that the seat belt kept her from getting out. She continued her physical attack, and Brown ended it by slamming her up against the window, etc.

Rihanna started a very serious altercation with Brown and lost. We must now ask why Brown is charged with two felonies while Rihanna is declared the victim of a nasty patriarchal male.

see: poponthepop.com/.../tmz-confirms-what-we-already-told-you-rihanna-hit-chris-brown-first

by DavidRUsher
Mar 10 2009 9:36 PM

All: before assuming anything is true in these kinds of cases, you have to read the police report carefully. If the actions of one party are described in great detail but the actions of the other are not, it is very likely the facts run opposite the allegations.

In this case, there is nothing about what Rihanna did (except to say that she could not get out of the car "because of her seat belt". That is of course pure baloney, and a tip-off that she is hiding a lot of information.

Police are supposed to get statements from both parties so that prosecutors have some basis for deciding who to prosecute and for what.

The prosecutors in the case are way out on a dangerous limb for not insisting on a full police report. If Rihanna had not been injured, Chris Brown would have a pretty good lawsuit for malicious prosecution.

by DavidRUsher
Mar 10 2009 9:41 PM

I'm predicting that Rihanna's violent behavior is related to drug or alcohol abuse. 86% of serious DV involves one or more substance-abusing cohorts. Given the line of work, and the crowd they run with, this is highly likely. It is also likely that Brown's behavior is also a reflection of chronic-phase chemical dependency.

by Luvindad
Mar 10 2009 11:02 PM

I would like to comment on 33hats "statistics". You say 1 in 4 women are affected by violence. I encourage all who read this comment to really think about the numbers. For example: If half of the population of the world is women, there are roughly 3 billion women in the world. You are saying that in essence there are about 750 million suffering from violence world wide. If this was truly the case, then violence against women would be so prevelent in our society that it simply could never be ignored. It would amount to the greatest single human tragedy in all recorded history.

I have a suggestion for you, get your head out of.......

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 4:32 AM

Mark Twain was once heard to say "The difference between a cat and a lie is a cat only has nine lives" (or words to that effect).

I mention this because it just astounds me that the DV lies persist even in the face of such overwhelming data from US Federal Agencies funded by tax dollars, funding which relies on their compliance with political norms. Agencies such as:

* United States Centers for Disease Control,

* United States National Institute for Justice,

* United States Bureau of Justice,

* United States Department of Health and Human Services,

* United States National Institutes of Health,

* and etc. (not exactly ‘Tabloid Journalism’ there, wouldn’t you say?)

The data is in... and has been in... for decades: this 'alleged [OMG IT'S A CRISIS!!!] DV hysteria that we've all been trained by the PC Conformists to wrench our hearts over and "oh woe is me" every time Mr Colgate Smile comes on the 5 O’clock news bemoaning another sordid tale (to the delight of their accounts receivable bean counters as the ratings go up)... IT'S A LIE!

For example: "more women are killed by domestic violence than any other cause in America" (we've all seen it in the magazines and in the literature at every federally funded DV intervention agency)...


I refer you to the US CDC NVSR Vol 56 No 5 November 2007 which delineates and indexes the causes of women’s deaths demographically, geographically and by age. From BIRTH to age 44 ‘homicide’ (domestic violence or otherwise) trails ‘accidental deaths’ by margins exceeding 3 to 1 (ie 3 accidental deaths for every homicide).

In fact death by homicide drops off the index at age 45.

And this one: "Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the US, more than accidents, muggings and rapes combined" (you'll find this in the literature at every federally funded DV intervention agency)...


I refer you to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Report published by the US National Center for Health Statistics, which in 1996 indexed ‘DV’ (cited as 'Injuries purposefully inflicted by spouse or other intimate) at #8 accounting for 2.2% as opposed to ‘the leading cause’ or ‘most’ or ‘more’ or even ‘many’ (a paltry zero decimal one percent ahead of 'Venomous Plants and Animals', 'Accident Caused By Hot Substance' and 'Foreign Body Entering Eye'... COMBINED!).

That infamous (and grossly inflated) quote in fact came from a 1994 'Parents Magazine' article citing "in 1992 the Surgeon General wrote a letter in which she said 'one study found violence to be... the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 through 44 years' ".

First of all note the word 'violence' vice 'domestic violence', secondly the study SG Novella referred was of an extremely poverty stricken inner Philadelphia community of African American women and thirdly the author of that study, Dr Jeane Ann Grisso, stated a year later when asked about the citation that "even if the study concluded that 'domestic violence was the leading cause of injury, I would never apply that conclusion to the total population of American women".

Yes English speaking world, you've been spoon fed a lie, and brainwashed to not only "do not question anything different!" but indeed to attack anyone and anything that even infers the hysteria is anything but of crisis proportions. Now please, give up on the knee jerk sensationalistic hysterics that are destroying families on a scale never before seen in human history, much less for a more insidious reason (ie federal funding of agenda driven programs and personal zealotry).

I love this one, so I saved it for last: "Wife beating goes up on Super Bowl Sunday!!!" (re the Super Bull Sunday Myth) ... good criminy people this one is so completely bogus EVEN SNOPES HAS A PAGE ON IT!

Now may we PLEASE dispense with the rhetoric that men are the perpetrators of all evil? There is no data which supports the mythos... there has never been any data which supports the mythos.


In 2003 Dr Linda Kelly wrote in 'Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse': "Male blaming can no longer be relied upon as the single explanation to the ills of society".

Would you have me discuss the US DoH&HS ACF CMRS which have consistently for the past 15 years indexed mothers as (far and away) the more frequent perpetrators of neglect, abuse and homicide of children? Would you have me cite ‘61% of children murdered by family members are murdered by their mother’?

Why the persistent and incessant assignment of culpability for these tragedies on men in general and fathers in particular?


Scapegoating males, while it may ease your conscious and give you cause to pat yourself on the back for being such a good lil socially correct puppet … IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THE PROBLEM *GO AWAY*!

Ask Me who is My hero? I'll tell you Erich Hartmann. If you know who he is, and the principles that drove him, you understand Me. If you don't know of him, there probably is nothing I could say to you to give you an understanding of what drives Me to be who I am.

He did not seek greatness, he was just good at what he did. He did not lust for fame or notoriety, and often declined opportunity in order to protect those he was responsible for.

For his passion, his skill, and his dedication to his principles ... in the end ... he was betrayed.

To understand the connotations of language, you must first be ->capable<- of understanding the denotations of language. Appropriate interpretation of an author's statement depends upon understanding the actual intent of the words. It is one's inability to grasp the intricacies of language which lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

Learn to read what is actually said (before trying to impose your opinion on what you think was said).

by adadincanada
Mar 11 2009 5:33 AM

So yes, this is an educational case, as Chris Brown returns to live with a jealous, controlling woman who went at him with a weapon while he was driving a car with scant regard for anything except her rage. Its good to learn to read.

Violence will only stop when all violence is dealt with.

Do understand, that includes his AND her violence, neither is forgettable.

by Swannie52
Mar 11 2009 6:21 AM

With regards to the Chris Brown-Rhianna scandalfest, Dr Don Dutton, one of the worlds leading experts in Domestic Violence (who should have been on CNN series of scandal reports-at least as the other side perspective representative ) reports the following: " I saw Oprah on CNN yesterday making the following pronouncement: (taped from her own show) :" if a man hits you once, he will hit you again"( on the Chris Brown story).

Actually Murray Straus and Scott Feld found on re-interviews of the 1985 US national sample, that 43% of men who had used severe violence 3+ times in year 1, had "desisted" at Year 2. These men, desisted spontaneously- that is, without treatment. If someone seeks and completes treatment (and I mean treatment not "psychoeducational" intervention), then the recidivism rate is about 1 in 5. The Cult of Oprah had complete confendence in its own infallability , and Oprah did receive a strong ovation from her fans in the audience when she made her pronouncement. I find her completely out of date and misinformed about DV- right into all the stereotypes and worse. Passing them along to gullible followers.

Also Denise Brown on Larry King Live tonight: said "if he threatens to kill you, he will" Actually-the kill/threat ratio is 22/11,000 .2% for males 16/26,000 .06% for females

Based on the credible threat with a weapon rate from the National Youth Survey (18-33 year olds) Study by Barbara Morse (1995) and the spousal homicide rate reported by Wilson & Daly (1993)

In other words of 500 males who threaten to kill, 1 does.

The "experts" on CNN mistake their own limited experience for reality".

So I think that says it all doesn't it? But where was Dr Duttons perspective on CNN or any other show? Nowhere to be found. it was all the pro violence on women crew. And not a whisper about the fact that Rhianna had actually attacked Chris Brown first-while he was driving. What a gift this story is for the "Domestic Violence Industry" and of course we should not forget the ever-present Female Discount

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 7:46 AM


It's called 'The Lace Glove Treatment', wherein does only the 'female victim-male abuser' (ie socially correct) perspective be granted a voice.

As Battered Men continue to suffer in silence, absent the support of society and taxpayer funded intervention and assistance resources.

Never mind women who batter men are rarely charged with DV statutes (ergo there is no tracking abusive women - battered men statistics if the women are only charged with mere 'assault' rather than with DV statutes).

Lest ye forget, an Australian Shelter refused to even discuss helping battered men, even if it meant returning a multi-million dollar grant.

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 10:00 AM

A HA!!! I knew I had it somewhere. Here's a VERY enlightening article about the agenda driven politics behind the American Domestic Violence Industry:

Betrayal of women VAWA 2005

by Trudy W. Schuett June 12, 2005

In Congress today, legislators of both sexes from many states are congratulating themselves and each other, feeling good about themselves and their concern for battered women.

Soon, if not already, the mainstream media will begin its litany of stats and facts, and human interest stories of women victimized by domestic violence, in stunning and graphic detail. They will talk about how VAWA 2005, the latest version of the law originally enacted in 1994, and recently introduced in Congress, will save lives and "break the cycle" of domestic violence.

They are wrong. They are badly misinformed and misguided.

VAWA 2005 cannot help women much, if at all. Worse, it belittles their anguish, ignores their needs and insults their intelligence. In many cases, it makes a bad situation so much worse, it's a wonder this kind of approach has lasted a full decade with federal sustenance in partisan politics. At the heart of VAWA is the mistaken presumption that by removing women from their homes, jailing their husbands and indoctrinating their children, this will have a positive impact on intimate partner abuse.

Unfortunately, since this is a complex human issue, it cannot be addressed by any political ideology or simplistic government program. Ten years out, there is no evidence that VAWA and its myriad programs has been of benefit to anyone beyond those municipalities, organizations and individuals who are recipients of VAWA funding, or employed by VAWA-funded agencies.

The newest incarnation represents expansion of the scope and penetration of the Federal government into state, local, tribal, and family affairs. It also introduces federally-approved bias against ethnic groups and Native Americans.

It is a bad law of dubious intent. It should not be allowed to continue as the law of the land.

The Reality

When a woman phones her local hotline or the national one, she is expected to immediately leave her home and report to a local shelter. Providing she has no male children over the age of 12 (more on that later) she will be presented with a residential program of anywhere from 3 to 120 days' duration. Some few locales have other kinds of programs, but the residential program is the norm.

If she is ambivalent about leaving her home and entering this program, knowing she may never be allowed to return home, programs have procedures in place to convince the woman she is in dire, immediate danger, and has no other recourse but to leave. Sometimes they resort to threatening the woman with removing her children from her care.

Once in the program, she is bombarded with feminist ideology about being "empowered" by her victimhood, signed up for whatever government programs are available, and helped to apply for an Order of Protection against her presumed offending spouse or significant other. Divorce is presented as the ultimate solution to her problems. If shelter personnel determine her situation is particularly desperate, they will also assist her in changing her identity and relocation to another state. They will assist her in finding a job, if she doesn't have one, but inexplicably will not assist her in finding child care so she may seek employment.

If she has the misfortune to have older boys, she is relegated to the same program offered for male victims, in a desultory attempt to comply with federal guidelines on equality. Some programs train volunteers to hang up when a man phones; others simply tell men they have no program for them. The National Domestic Violence Hotline website has a section devoted to explaining why men have no need for help, and should not ask.

Women with boys are given a hotel voucher for one to three days. Oddly, shelters claim this program is equal to the residential one, when in fact it cannot be possible. (When you begin to investigate and study these DV programs, you find mind-boggling amounts of inconsistency and misrepresentation, and I have been trying to make sense of these programs since 1999.)

I've come to the conclusion that maybe, those refused by these "helping" programs may be better off.

One Solution to a Complicated Human Problem?

While feminists would like to believe that what they call "gender violence" is aptly solved by female victims separating from their male abusers, the actual problem is far more intricate. There may be a case of mutual abuse, or an addiction to violence, or a dogged belief that the abuser will magically change someday. Not all cases of intimate partner abuse escalate to murder, or even serious physical harm. There simply isn't any evidence that this happens.

It's much easier for anyone to embrace a proffered solution to a human problem when a clear and apparently obvious solution is provided. It all seems very simple: men = abusers; women = victims. A number of people with initials behind their names support the idea that men are somehow devious, frightening creatures to be avoided, and jailed whenever possible. That's the feminist belief. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is made up of men and women who want to live together and raise children, because that's the way our society works.

Feminists have a terrible concept of men and families, as anyone can see by reading the works of such icons as Gloria Steinem and Betty Freidan. Were their books and other things to be published today, they would have been relegated to the aluminum-foil-hat crowd. It's fairly clear they are working for nothing but gender division, with women coming out on the receiving end, in their view.

However, if a woman who loves her husband is not offered any choice but to leave him, and regard him as a criminal, and her boys if she has them are targeted as suspects in future crimes, that is an insult beyond measure. She does not come out ahead.

Yet this happens every single day in women's shelter programs.

Public Knowledge

Fueled by disinformation and misunderstanding of statistical data, the mainstream media has done its part to pander to the needs of bureaucrats and feminist ideologues. In my aggregation of stories on domestic violence last October, which is Domestic Violence Awareness month, I saw hundreds of newspaper, TV, and radio reports.

They were nearly all identical, except for local details. It was like everyone from Maine to Malaysia had used the same press release, but claimed it as their own local work. Only in a handful of cases had any reporter from any news outlet challenged the word of their local shelter advocates.

What wasn't reported much was the number of shelter programs in the US where somebody was facing litigation or criminal charges, the number of shelters losing funding due to the fact they were ineffectual or badly managed, or the shelters expanding for women only without question, despite the need otherwise..

I can forgive the mainstream media believing what they were told back in October, but I cannot forgive the MSM ignoring repeated pleas by numerous individuals to check their information and investigate further. They have not bothered.

The Sacred Cow

It's true that the social institution of the Domestic Violence shelter has become a sacred cow, never to be challenged or disputed.

It's really not OK to allow these programs to delineate the ways we may or may not define our families. It is not OK to give women and girls priority over men and boys, when there is a need for help across the board.

Yet we do it anyway. This sacred cow needs to be slain, and autopsied. There are far too many women and families running afoul of the shelter culture, and being destroyed as a result. The feminist ideal on which VAWA rests has long ago moved into the area of the dusty, best-forgotten archives. It is to me inexcusable that any local government or organization would continue to propagate the outdated ideal, to be funded to the detriment of the needs of the community.

Domestic violence services in this country do not need to be residential. They should not focus on divorce as any kind of solution, since divorce carries with it a separate set of problems. Why can there not be any realistic approach, that takes into account the intents and desires of quite real women, who are not seduced by the drama of court appearances and money in the form of child support payments that does not exist? And who would prefer to stay in their homes and preserve their marriages?

The answer to that question is easy - so many programs (and the people who run them) are simply dependent on VAWA and the self-perpetuating illogic entailed in the law. They do not do any outreach for male victims, already labeled as the enemy, so women are the only people they see. Hence they can easily claim 95% of all victims are female. Only the most desperate or manipulative women will enter a residential program and stay within the untenable options presented. So the women they see are in dire straits, and it's easily presumed all women are in need of this kind of program.

There is nothing in VAWA or shelter bylaws or rules that require any program to keep track of their successes or impact on the community. They don't know if they actually help any women maintain lives free of violence, and they don't seem to actually care if they do. What appears to be important to shelter advocates is the number of women who divorce or leave their communities. Some agencies count these women as "successes."

Smart Women Don't Go

In five years of high-profile advocacy for unserved victims of domestic violence, I have not once had e-mail or a phone call from a woman who was glad she turned to a shelter for help. I do get the occasional e-mail from women who regret ever having dealings with shelter programs.

The only people who advocate these programs are feminist writers, those who work at shelters, and government officials who don't know any better. Women are being given a raw deal if and when they turn to their local battered women's shelter for help. All these programs do is create another set of problems, and few emerge from them undamaged.

Anyone concerned about the fate of women in abusive relationships will be best served by contacting their legislator and asking them to vote against VAWA 2005. Only then will women be given practical help that does not destroy them or their families.

Trudy W. Schuett is an Arizona-based writer and advocate for unserved victims of domestic violence.

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 10:02 AM

And this, in light of the above described motivation to drive women out of their marriages and fathers away from their children:

The tragic truth is that research shows us that children brought up in single mother homes are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 9 times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 20 times more likely to end up in prison … and 32 times more likely to run away from home.

Further: 63% of all youth suicides, 70% of all teen pregnancies, 71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers, 80% of all prison inmates, and 90% of all homeless and runaway children… came from single mother homes!

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

What else is there to be said for single mother homes?

* “The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison, is that they were raised by a single parent”. C.C. Harper and S.S. McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration”, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Assoc., San Francisco, CA, 1998

* In 1996, 70% of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long sentences, were raised by single mothers. Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents”, IMPRIMIS 26, NO.6, June, 1997

* 72% of juvenile murderers, and 60% of rapists came from single mother homes. Chuck Colson, “How Shall We Live?” Tyndale House , 2004, p.323

* 70% of teen births occur to girls in single mother homes. David T. Lykken, “Reconstructing Fathers”, American Psychologist 55, 681,681, 2000

* 70% of drop-outs, and 70% of teen suicides come from single mother homes. Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents,” IMPRIMIS 26, N0. 6, June 1997

* 70% of runaways, 70% of juvenile delinquents, and 70% of Child murderers, come from single mother homes. Richard E. Redding, “It’s Really About Sex”, Duke Univ. Journal of Gender Law and Policy, Jan.1, 2008

* “Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous, and more likely to end up divorced.” Wade Horn, “Why There Is No Substitute For Parents”, IMPRIMIS 26, No.6, June, 1997

* “After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.” Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31

* “America has more than twice as many teenage births as other developed nations.” Isabel V.Sawhill, to House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, June 29, 1999

* 86% of American teen births are out of wedlock. Dr. David Popenoe, “The Future of Marriage In America”, Rutgers Univ., The National Marriage Project, 2007

* Only 4% of college graduates have illegitimate children, and only 16% of college graduates get divorced, compared to 46% of high school dropouts, who marry in smaller numbers to begin with. Dr. David Popenoe, “The Future Of Marriage In America; “The Frayed Knot – Marriage in America”, The Economist, May 26, 2007

* 50% of single mothers are below the poverty line, their children are 6 times more likely to be in poverty than children with married parents. Chuck Colson, “How Shall We Live”, Tyndale House.

* 85% of homeless families are single mother families. Barry H. Waldman and Stephen P. Perlman, “Homeless Children With Disabilities, “ The Exceptional Parent, June 1, 2008 (American Academy of Developmental Medicine and Dentistry

* 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers. Jason DeParle, “Raising Kevion”, New York Times, Aug. 22, 2004

”Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with Concentration Camps and Gulags”… Erin Pizzey

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 10:05 AM

And about MVDV (ie Male Victim Domestic Violence):



Martin S. Fiebert

Department of Psychology

California State University, Long Beach

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 122 scholarly investigations, 99 empirical

studies and 23 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically

aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or

male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 77,000.

Don't believe me?

Google it!

by OldePharte
Mar 11 2009 10:05 AM

Speaking of MVDV: www.nydailynews.com/.../2009-03-09_real_housewives_of_new_york_city_star_ke.html

by regjoeschmo
Mar 11 2009 2:14 PM

No need for google Olde, heres the link: www.csulb.edu/.../assault.htm

What really gets my goat about this whole story is that noone even talks about how she assaulted him as well. Im not going to defend him by saying she started it, but whos fault is it if I decide to start a fight with a man twice my size and get beat up?? This obviously is not a one time situation, and as most DV cases was not this serious in the beginning.

Why not promote this as an example of why people should not stick with an abusive partner?? Instead we promote flawed statistics of homeless people and welfare recipiants without even citing the sources or scientific methods of obtaining such information.

Was there evidence of DV or was it just a claim to get admitted to a shelter? 90% of welfare recipiants are single mothers....hmmm ever think that CS goes to pay that back?? Governemnt census information proves that men who owe CS are not likely to default, only 23% of men who pay CS are behind, and 60% of them are behind because they lack the financial resources to pay.....Meanwhile 60% of NCMs default, and to be fair I would say that many of them lack the resources to pay as well.....

Bottom line is that this is not a gender issue!! DV happens to everyone, but it depends on the victims own strength as to when they leave. I was assaulted once by my daughters mother, and she refused counseling. We are no longer together, but the courts and police refuse to do anything about her assault on me. In the same respect my Aunt was a victim of DV as well, and it was her family (my parents and other aunts and uncles) that stepped in and intervened on her behalf.

We need to teach our children not to be scared, not to feel like they are victims in situations that they choose to stay in (unless they are literally chained to the wall when the other person is at work or out of the house).

No comments: