The old three card trick

Incident 1

When I was training for the CAB, we had to attend sessions at a government office on all aspects of advice and this day’s sessions were on Soc Codes or social policy codes.

Translated into English, it meant we were to be aware of any indication, in manner, speech, the topic brought by the client, whatever, that there might have been a breach of these Soc codes, meaning discrimination against or abuse of 1. females 2. other race 3. homosexuals 4. the disabled.

There was no mention of men and no mention of the older worker being discriminated against although ageism did eventually make it onto the list due to action by women who were getting older.

We’d gone through about an hour of learning how to detect [read into?] discrimination or abuse by men on women, we had to know the legal difference between prejudice and discrimination and so on. I’d about had enough and asked when we were getting onto emotional abuse of men by women.

Dead silence. No one said a word. Then one girl half-mumbled that she agreed it should be looked at, bless her. The taker of the session said quickly that that was outside the parameters they had to work in.

Yes but that’s discriminatory, I said. They weren’t expecting this from someone already screened as a suitable person to do this work, in sympathy with its aims.

Incident 2

I’d been watching an episode of Bergerac on Christmas evening, it had ticked over into Boxing Day and I thought I’d check the blog for any comments, perhaps Cherie’s.

The Google ad in my right column had a dark brown pic and in that pic was a caption above and a faded shot of what was vaguely a girl below. At the top, it said: “Abuse is not just physical, you know.” Below the pic were the words Home Office and the url led to a direct gov page.


First of all – the childish big letters at the top – In the Know – so beloved of govt propaganda.

Then the prominent vid.   I began to watch the wooden performance by two actors – a girl who was innocent beyond measure and an utter cad [male of course] who asked her all the things on the govt checklist.

The checklist was for you to check if you’ve been abused.   In court, they’d call this leading questions.   If you want to see other people, “they” get angry about it and so on.    It covered anything a man might legitimately ask his partner and concluded that if you answered no to any of the questions, you might potentially be in an abuse situation.

Hang on.  Govt constructs a beat-up, supplies a checklist, tells you you may well have been abused and then leaves helplines for you to discuss it with someone just waiting for you to report an abusive male so they can act on it.

This, my friends, is iniquitous, it is slanted.   It entirely ignores the problem of female psychological abuse of men, a quite cogent issue.

To their credit though, the polls they had up showed interesting results:

abuse poll

And in the FAQs was this one:

abuse on male

That shows a distinct change and may have been in response to concerted lobbying by newly strengthened men’s groups such as Fathers4Justice but I’d think it would need the agreement and help from conservative women’s groups as well.

The difficulty still remains that if you did avail yourself of the helpline, you are still going to get the same PC people who previously would only deal with abuse of females.   Looks like now they’re mandated to look at abuse of males as well.   And the studies now abound.

What concerns me about all of this is what in the world has it to do with the Home Office?    Where are parents and schools to help their children?   Why must the govt provide “mentors” at taxpayer expense?    And what sort of people are the mentors?    Why is the govt so interested in turning us into a nation of victims who have to fill out checklists to discover if we’ve been abused and need the govt machine set in motion?

In days gone by, men were always aware of the hysterics of women, plates being thrown, rolling pin in wife’s hand behind the door etc. – we’ve all seen these.    Most men just put it down to women being women.    But this is different – this is an attempt to formalize the whole thing.

This is where I might differ from Fathers4Justice and others.   Whilst they do a good job calling out unacceptable female behaviour and collusion of govt depts with it, when men are treated for abuse by women consultants, this is yet another step in the direction of emasculating the male.   Make him wimpy and abused, so that he doesn’t know which way to turn and then offer your female helping hand, the nanny hand, to take him under your wing.

Sorry but I’d imagine most men would not want a bar of this sort of rubbish.    This whole thing is an expensive and enormous construct and PCist in the extreme.    Yes, recognize what Erin Pizzey says about the extent of female abuse of men but men don’t need State resources to deal with it – they can deal with it themselves.

Or can they?    If a man tries to do so, he’s stepping outside State guidelines and the State has mentors for this job – men are not to take the law into their own hands.    The perspicacious among you, male and female, will see where this is going.   No move can be made without State approval.   The idea of sorting it out between the two parties is no longer an option – the State must be made aware of any altercation whatever in order to mentor the well-formed solution.

I’m in two minds about men’s groups.   They do draw attention to unfairness in this PC state but to reduce men to the same level of victimhood, to be co-opted so that we come under State control and advice as women have is to complete the govt mission of command and control of all citizens.   At this moment, dinosaurs such as curmudgeons like us are still outside this construct and therefore to be beaten down if possible, reported on.    We’re not playing ball on this.

6a0177444b0c2e970d017eea3b075b970d-800wiThe bottom line for women [and men too if they feel that way inclined] is not to use govt in any way, shape or form, much less the Home Office.    Sort it between yourselves, involve your mother and father as always used to be the case, involve close friends who can hide you away.   Do it as society once dealt with it.    If you use govt to do your bidding, then govt will assume control of you and you’ll end up doing govt bidding, on the govt teat.   The State will then own you.

Hi, I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you!

One Response to “The old three card trick”

  1. Ian Hills December 26, 2013 at 05:52 Permalink

    Good one. Anything the state, or local state, finances turns to sh*te eventually, like CAB. Politically correct, totally ignorant, pompous, rude, and usually closed (the telephone lines as well).

    Hope Christmas went OK.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string Zejbzb to the field below: