MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Half of mothers experience some form of manipulation or bullying at the hands of their children, even if it is as simple as the silent treatment, a survey shows.

Half of mums ‘abused’ by kids - study

A whole new industry has just been born! Half of all mothers are being violently abused by their children, “particularly teenage boys”! O the scourge! O the evil!

It is already well established feminazi propaganda that most women are (physically) violated by men – a current anti-violence t.v. campaign tells us police respond to a domestic violence incident every 7½ minutes (i.e. 70,000 call-outs a year). It is clear that not every violent incident will be reported to Police. It is also clear that Police are unlikely to respond to every violent incident reported to them. But how many such incidents are not even reported?

Statistics tell us that 2,347 sexual attacks were reported to Police last year. Women’s Refuge tell us that only 9% of rapes are reported. I might be a bit off track, but I figure sexual attacks are basically rape, attempted rape, and any physical attack where sexual activity (i.e. rape or attempted rape) is the primary intent or result.
This means the true figure would be over 26,000 sexual attacks each year, given only 9% are apparently reported. Women’s Refuge also report only 15% of the 9% of rapes result in a conviction, meaning only one rapist in 74 is convicted. I can understand that it is much harder for a women to report a rape than for her to report an episode of violence. Especially given there is a 73 out of 74 chance the rapist will not be convicted.

I can also believe that with the ever expanding definition of ‘violence’, it is unlikely most violent (men) would ever be charged, must less convicted based on these expanding definitions. This new study purports, for example, that ‘silent treatment’ is violence, as is threatening self harm. The likelihood of perpetrators of this type of violence to ever be charged, let alone prosecuted (at least under current law) is pretty well zilch. I cannot imagine anyone reporting such violent acts to Police, given there would likely be a complete lack of interest by the police in pursuing the perpetrator.

But how much violence is actually reported? If we were talking purely about physical violence, then the percentage reported may well be well-higher than that for rape – maybe even 50% reported. But if violence includes all forms of non-physical violence, than the percentage surely is far-far lower than for rape. I cannot imagine for a moment that our police would respond to a call-out whereby a husband is off sulking in his (wife’s) garage, and she feels violated by his ‘silent treatment’. In the absence of any sound basis to make any sound judgement, I would like to hypothesize the same percentage of violent incidents are reported to police, as for rape. 70,000 violent incidents responded to by the police suddenly becomes 467,200 actual incidents of (physical) violence – each year.

And let’s be clear. We are not talking about non-physical violence. We are talking about the type of yelling, screaming, throwing objects, punching, etc violence committed by men on women, that leaves very young women clutching their teddy bears, cowering in tears in the corners of their bedrooms, and adult women with bruises and black-eyes saying their husbands love them, really they do, as so often portrayed in anti-male-violence campaigns.

Project 467,000 over a life-span (of 70 years), and somewhere over 32 million such episodes might occur – enough for every man born through out that period to be guilty of around 16 episodes, and every women born to be victim to a corresponding number. Of course such figures are absurd, and the feminazi are left scratching for new avenues of violence by which to convict every man and boy. This survey is simply the latest.

But wait! So your man (teenage boy) doesn’t scream and punch and hit and so forth. So there are no outward signs of physical violence, well, no problem! Lets include non-physical violence just to make sure they are indeed violent. I had this after sixteen weeks of attending a feminazi Living Without Violence programme (you might recall the one – it’s the one where I was calmly informed I thought sexual thoughts 2,000 times each and every day) where, in the absence of any substantive evidence of domesticus rumpum, I was diagnosed to be veho infestus. Let’s get this right. Swearing is violence. Name calling is violence. Making comments about your mother’s parenting skills (I guess that means making comments like ‘you’re a &*()$% useless mother’ is violence. But say nothing; Don’t argue; stay silent, and well, you’ve just confirmed your violent tendencies.

And now, there’s the new violence of ‘damaging property’! Vandalism can now be considered violence! Unless of course it is young woman damaging the property, or the property belongs to man. Then I guess it’s still just plain old fashioned ‘vandalism’.

But what is really underlying this article? Certain key themes are clearly evident:

Can one ask the obvious question about why fathers are apparently not covered by this new reality? Are teenage boys not violent towards their fathers? Or does this not matter - are we not concerned about violence towards men? Or are these abused mothers predominantly from fatherless homes? Can one ask why these teenage boys are suddenly so aggressive? Have they been failed by their mothers (who, statistically, are the ones predominantly creating fatherless homes)? Can one ask if these teenage boys have been dispossessed by the feminised education system? Are they lacking male role models (although, bear in mind the feminazi have already long-gone concluded all men are violent, and that’s not a good role-model)?

Reading further into the article, ‘Silent treatment’ is now apparently violence. It used to be called ‘sulking’. It used to be called choosing not to communicate (feelings). But now it is simply violence. This implies that people must not sulk (which is a euphemism for feeling sorry for one-self, which of course is emotional manipulation, something women are particularly skilled at). People must not withhold talking about their emotions. If you are upset with your partner, men, you must not withdraw emotionally, as this is violence. You must continue to be emotional to your partners.
What utter bollocks. If I choose not to talk with my partner (i.e. following a disagreement with her), that is my choice. (picture the ‘why won’t you talk to me!?’ line often portrayed through film and television. If she chooses to leave me as a result (because I am therefore ‘violent’), that is her choice. But don’t hold me responsible for your actions, dear wife. You make your choices.

Back to teenage boys, the implication here is that mothers must not be recipients of any aggressive behaviour by (usually) boys. Fair enough. No one deserves to be hit, derogatorised, manipulated, bullied, etc.

But is there not empirical evidence that boys are born, at least sociologically, to be aggressive defenders of family and labourious bread-winners? Is there not empirical evidence that young women, are naturally negotiators and peace-makers? And is there not empirical evidence that women have been breaking glass ceilings and taking over business and industry, and academia, at the expense of men. And finally, who can dispute the legacy of no-fault divorce, presumptive child custody litigations, and the resultant disempowerment of men in families?

Statistics seem consistent that most children these days will at some stage live in a single parent home, and most of these single parents are women, it is an easy conclusion that most teenage boys are lacking active parenting from their fathers.
Boys have become disempowered dispossessed despots. Many have no father figure in the home, nor in their schools, and indeed, for some, not even in their lives. Fathers have been pushed out of the family equation, save being taxed exorbitantly by unconscionable bureaucrats to fund the follies of the family remnant.

Perhaps having dad around to role-model acceptable behaviour would be a good start. Maybe enabling boys able to once-again achieve academically would be a good course of seconds. I can’t prove it, but I am convinced that it is dispossessed despots who resort to bullying, violence etc. And there is clear evidence that boys are now failing miserable academically and vocationally, with young women excel and surpassing boys at most levels of academia.

Maybe a return to old-fashioned values whereby you never hit women because they are women, rather than this all-out age of equality that has rendered that premise a historical patriarchal misogyny, would help restore respect and love into our homes. You know – the old fashioned values whereby men sought to protect women and children, and sought to provide for them, and openly sexually discriminated, for example holding doors open, vacating seats, and ensuring women and children their place in lifeboats. Of course, that might mean a return to the old-fashioned values of dads living in their children’s homes, and the associated old-fashioned societal roles.

When I was younger (and hadn’t been prosecuted in the Family Caught on several dubious counts of non-physical violence), I believed that if someone was succeeding at something, and you weren’t, you identified what it was that they were doing right, and then you emulated them. Logic therefore suggests that since young women aren’t violent, and since they are now excelling academically, we should train boys to think, respond and act similarly to young women in situations that otherwise might be violent.
The fallacy here, is that we’ve been trying this academically for some years already, and it simply isn’t working. Boys are getting more and more dispossessed and more and more violent. Suicides increase, Anti-social behaviour increases, and educational excellence and achievement decreases.
But somehow, the logical implication of this latest study (which coincidentally, is among the first such study, meaning there are more to come), is that we are going to have to socially engineer our boys to be more like their non-violent young women counterparts.

There is an implicit call for Society to react to resolve this unacceptable situation, which could involve any or all:

Of course, additional measures could be taken:

In closing, I think we need a (publicly funded) survey into the implications and domestic ramifications of males leaving toilet seats up, and whether or not the enforced seating of boys to pee, and the enforced dressing of boys in pink frilly knickers and flowery dresses can now finally complete their transformation into the weaker sex.