The post Not One Penny More, which featured Cherie prominently, was really a follow-up to Wimmin as a Field of Study, which followed on from The Perversion of the Law, which followed on from Losing it over Beauty, which followed on from Tell Me this is not Overkill , which followed on from Tell Me this is not Overkill , which followed on from posts passim.
There are two more posts in the “Series which never began as a Series” – this one by me and a cautionary tale on Cavemen by Amfortas. Now the question is when to run them – in other words, not to have overkill but at the same time, not to let the trail go cold – the blogger’s dilemma. So, this is now and the Amfortas piece will be tomorrow, Friday.
OK, having got all that housekeeping sorted, so to the topic.
In a vaguely Henry Higginsish way, I think I’ve got it, by Jove, I think I’ve got it and it took the ladies to help me get it. First there was Cherie’s hot-collared comment that I was sensationalizing and that was followed, apart from the retorts by the lads, by three or four vids which finally put the thing in perspective about 2 a.m.
Now, to Cherie – what a brave lady – in a den of men last night, she fought her corner and I’d prefer to incorporate her comment rather than disagree with it. The notion that I was sensationalizing stemmed from the stats which showed other than the case I was presenting and I don’t dismiss that out of hand.
In other words, if 24%, say, of relationships turn violent, that would mean 76% don’t, so these posts would mean little to those people who don’t recognize that there is domestic violence. [That stat is plucked from the air for illustrative purposes.]
On the other hand, the real stats, though notoriously difficult to pin down as they’re biased one way or the other – govt stats are always biased towards the narrative called Social Policy Considerations – there is nevertheless a trend towards women becoming far more violent, particularly in America where the Equality scam is much deeper. There is a definite trend to more overt violence from women, which does not even begin to touch on the type which goes under the radar.
I saw over 300 reports last night on the matter and somewhere in there was an American law firm which had zero interest in “genderizing” domestic violence and other factors in divorce but had much interest in making money from it. They stated that with no-fault divorce, the cited reasons can’t be incorporated in the judgment as the law says that incompatible breakdown or similar wording is the sole legal cause.
That is stupid because in every case, both sides presented reasons for that incompatibility but PCishness prevented those reasons being cited in the judgment.
Hence feminists can cite the incidence of domestic violence against women in general, without exploring it, putting it down to the inherent violence in all men but they ignore the opposite case, established in the studies quoted in comments here, in particular this one, which show that women are actually the first to incite violence in half the cases and that the man is usually reactive, his response disproportionate to the woman’s level of violence.
Not in all cases, that’s acknowledged. At one end of the spectrum is the rapid increase in very violent response by women and at the other end – the traditional concept of the violent man for no reason – in other words, the ornery type.
Now, rather than conduct a battle royal between the sexes over those steps, why not incorporate all of the material – the feminist stats plus the increasingly visible real alternative stats – in one whole picture of what is going on? Truth is that women do push in a relationship. and the best husbands, according to PG Wodehouse, are chumps, i.e. big and strong but largely complacent at home.
This vid shows the contrast between the two types. Which would you feel safer with?
Now, as a reenactment of a genuine case, the acting is wooden and frankly, contrived and yet it happened. Not only that but it struck a chord with me because that was precisely how it was in a few relationships of mine, where she was on edge [you've all heard the PMT jokes] but I’d suggest two things are at play here.
A woman’s good side tends to make the man happy and complacent – he’s not on his guard and is not expecting the other side of her, the feisty, on edge, hormonal side.
Also, women tend to go for one of two kinds of mates – the bad boy [younger women mainly or those who have not matured] and the “keeper” or good marriage material [more mature women].
So we have two different stories going on. The domestic violence where the man really is the perpetrator stems from the bad boy fixation thing many less mature women have and violence follows as night follows day. My own mother went for one of those first up, it ended before I was born and I was the result of a far more stable marriage.
Somewhere in the vaults on this computer is a study of women, asking what women really want and the overwhelming answer was that what they want more than anything is:
Power over men.
Now this can be seen in the Harmans and the whole feminazi dystopia where women have essentially gone insane with anger over not getting their own way but a better interpretation for mine, a saner picture of most marriages, is that women want just enough control to have their voices heard, to be accorded respect and to be free from violence, as the man is usually the physically stronger.
That much seems to stand to reason. Women traditionally either went “bad boy” or else they went for a good earner who was quiet and manly. They could handle the latter. Under the laws of physics, where nature abhors a vacuum, if there is an absence of “oomph” in the man, i.e. he wants the quiet life, the woman tends to be the more active and quick, at the cutting edge of what’s going on.
In that vid above, the woman has come home from work and faces the domestic things she must do. Frankly, she can’t cope and nor could anyone run a family and work fulltime without something giving somewhere. Woman, man, doesn’t matter – there is only so much a human being can take. Add to that the stresses of what’s going down in society right now and there is the recipe for external stresses added to hormonal stress and emotionalism added to a man who appears obtuse and getting in the way, i.e. infuriating, at the worst possible time.
Why was she working and he not anyway? That gets back to the whole PCish turning on its head of society, thanks to Them and that’s another topic.
Coming back to her, here is a person who can’t cope anyway, now provoked in her eyes … and the result is violence.
Why does he put up with it? Because on the occasions she is more relaxed, she is good fun and delectable up against his body and lips to lips. That’s why he stays. So he puts up with the emotional and even physical side because it is still within tolerable limits, until his reaction becomes disproportionate – the average man takes so much and then snaps – and then he’s for the chop because the law comes down swiftly, like a Monty Python foot, on the slightest hint of anything from a man.
That was my story.
I was never violent towards women [though bad in other ways] but they sore tested me on more than one occasion and they would never bloody let up and that was the thing – I love the ladies but they are like T1000 in Terminator 3, they keep going and going and going – they’d go for the jugular and go for it again and go for it again and I was actually told I needed to be man enough to take it because she needed someone strong to take her frustrations out on and yet still accept her.
Erin Pizzey’s contention, very well know by feminists but not by many others, is that domestic violence is not a gender issue by-and-large. It is a human issue of people who cannot cope in today’s society. In that vid above, if that man had been working and coming home at that time instead of her, if she was already at home from her part-time work and relaxed, that incident would never have happened.
But society has gone the way it has and thanks for that is laid at the door of both the feminazis and the govt they’ve brainwashed into creating Social Policy Issues.
Leaving that aside, this vid below, by a young lady, spoke to me more than anything else I’ve seen in a long while. For a start, she is pro-men and that’s a good start. She then goes into the nature of power. Remember the point above about women wanting power over men.
There were criticisms of her, e.g.
Your heart is in the right place, but the fact is that you aren’t acknowledging the fact that women have been doing some foul things to men – retaining all of the advantages of the traditional woman and demanding that men treat you like a lady, but only when you want. Meanwhile, you also demand the respect that one man might give to another man, all without being accountable, which is how men gain respect.
OK, let’s leave that aside for now because she is at least trying to be fair, which is more than many women I know even attempt to do. I hope you’ll give her a listen. She rambles at the beginning and at times through it but she does make some quite telling points:
The fact that she is female and speaking from that point of view means a lot to me. She knows. Plus, what comes through is that when a woman is calm and speaks calmly, her voice is far more sultry and listenable. You know then [as a man] why you simply must have a woman close by. Compare that to the shrill and strident, coupled with the foul-mouthed:
Seriously, though she’s pro-men, if you’re a man reading this, could you live with that? And if you’re a woman reading this, can you see the point here?
It is a power thing. It always has been. But the beauty of man-woman is that they are quite capable of finding their own level of power-sharing if left alone to get on with it. If the effing feminazis and govt would stay out of it, all would be at least tolerable for the most part and society would function. As it used to do.
But it’s been so badly twisted by the feminists. That girl in the vid [two above] got it exactly right – women have always had this issue that the very thing they so need from a man – the physically strong, quiet presence, holding her close, generally on hand for her, conflicts with the way a strong male operates, i.e. he tends to do things his way and she needs to be able to influence that.
One again, the binding glue, the lubricant, the thing which makes it possible – is love. Caring, Kindliness. And that, as I have written over and over and which Cherie, among others, simply won’t accept, is that the feminazi has killed off that love. Even in relationships where there is no overt violence, where the two get along tolerably well, those corrosive tenets of feminism eat away, eat away and kill love.
A woman’s traditional influence has always been her allure, from the physical allure to the allure of her voice and smile to the allure of her intelligence but under the feminazi yoke – just look at Harman and similar gorgons – that allure is completely missing and the whole chemical bond between man and woman has also therefore gone missing. In it’s place can only be conflict.
One can write posts like this and argue stats till we’re blue in the face but the truth is that when that old eye-contact occurs, when those lips come close, when she entraps him with her voice and perfume, a man is like putty in her hands. She has that power – she used to use it in the English-speaking west. It transcends all argument and is the most powerful force in the world because it stems from the Source.
Yet the feminists insist that that is patriarchy, that is oppression. Can you begin to see how mentally ill those poor, shrill women are? To deny womanhood its very source of power over men and insist on some govt backed artificial parody of Equality – that is the feminist crime against humanity which will be written of in the history books which are read in the 22nd century and children will ask their teachers, “Please Miss, why did people go so insane in those days?”
Thank you for your time. I’m done. Amfortas’s post comes tomorrow.
This one’s very long but if you can spare the time, it’s worth a listen to as well. It’s a Barbara Kay lecture, calm, measured, slightly boring in places but generally good: