The Propaganda Never Ends
Here’s some insight into what is being taught to young women in schools etc about domestic violence, and below is my reply to the newspaper and to Ms Kearns.
This article, while containing some potentially useful content, is mainly feminist propaganda that will harm relationships, wreck families and children’s lives and increase the risk of partner conflict and violence. Gender terms for abuser and victim, as if only men ever commit domestic violence, are propaganda. It was unbalanced to refer only to unexplained statistics claiming violence toward females without mentioning that violence toward male partners is just as frequent. Further, it’s ridiculous to suggest that a man is likely to be violent if he asks for any of his preferences to be met, wants her to reply to his communications and/or to pick him up on time as arranged, and such advice will only encourage unrealistic expectations that safe males should passively accept any treatment from women without complaint. Also, it was misleading to confuse relationship conflict and domestic violence generally with the unusual Weatherston case that involved serious personality disorder. Violent reactions come from both genders and usually arise from bilateral relationship conflict, and until we understand this we will continue to fail in reducing domestic violence.
The ‘research’ these findings arrive at is pure feminist ideology dressed up as respectable.
That’s why you won’t see any sign of how it was conducted publicized in the Herald article.
It is written in a style I have become all too familiar with as well.
It inevitably starts with some overblown plea supported by a horrendously sensationalist example.
Then moves on to present ‘statistics’ and comments from an ‘expert’, before returning to the whining plea.
Very amateurishly done.
The journalist here appears to be a useful idiot helping feminist academics spread more misandric bile and suck more tax dollars down the drain.
I see from the comments attached to the articles at least a couple of impressionable young fools got sucked in.
Nothing wrong with the Dunedin Study Skeptic.
It found that from a population size of about 1000 21 year olds, 14.4% women admitted hitting, biting, or kicking their partner cf only 4.4% vice versa.
When it came to throwing 8.3% of women admitted such an act cf 1.1% of men.
This matches pretty well with the US study by Morse published in Violence and victims 4 (1995)
I think the only thing wrong with the study is that Lynda Keams and Tracey Barrett have dishonestly misquoted it to serve their purpose.
It’s clear we’re not talking about the same research.
Which just goes to show the article is even more amateurish than I’d previously mentioned.
I posted a comment (written in my usual reasonable style) under this Herald article on the Herald site but it wasn’t published.
It’s on there Hans
I see there’s a response to your posting on the Herald thread too.
Apparently there’s the wacky view that the Department of Justice actually counts up female assaults male as much as it does vice versa. Duh!
We both know female assaults male isn’t even a category for those folks.
So much for justice! What a joke!
A department captured by feminists and their duped chivalrous enablers.
The irony is your ability to understand violence dynamics is then questioned and seen as naive.
It’s pathetic and very tired old 1980s feminism all over again.
Very apt thread title you put up then – The propaganda never ends.
I’ve tried writing to the Herald and whilst suing respectful language I’ve been very plainly outspoken saying exactly how corrupt and misandric things are. Result? ‘moderated’ and not posted. Surprise, surprise!
However seeing as you’ve been posted at the herald I encourage you to return and tell it how it is, and provide a link to this MENZ site to show folks there are alternative views.
Ond day it would be nice if the media was allowed to comment on the family courts!
I will look at this from the perspective of the student.
As it is labeled as a report.
I have seen some comment on this elsewhere.
So the student is made to read the report.
Does the student have a right to the truth.
An expectation as a human right.
That at least education is not false.
The report will say things that are true.
And perspective of the truth.
Obviously many things happened.
For many reasons.
Including good, bad, and misinterpreted intent.
But it is called propaganda.
So the student must read a different report.
Repeat argument as above.
So actually the truth is somewhat fluid.
As there are many perspectives.
So as the student, how does one see the truth.
A better version is the student reads the report.
But each section has some counter arguments.
Now test the students.
On this event.
Describe why this person made that decision.
What then be the students answer.
Only with the report.
Only with the other argument.
With the report, and arguments.