If activist ideologues are going to paint the male citizenry as 'violent,' then I think it behooves them to be transparent when it comes to the statistics which support their claim. "Can we have the stats on female violence as well?"
Quentin Bryce, Domestic Violence, Sociopathology and Statistics
In Australia recently, a lot of publicity has been given to former Governor General Quentin Bryce's public discourse on the issue of domestic violence. Our country it seems, is failing to curb domestic violence and the responsibility to redress the situation apparently lies with men and police.
I have on several occasions read that one woman every week in Australia dies as a result of domestic violence. I certainly am not going to suggest that that figure in incorrect, however, I am going to ask if the statement that one woman per week dies as a result of domestic violence, actually indicates that one woman per week is killed by her male partner? You would assume that it does, but when you assume, you know you are making an ass of both of us.
For me, saying that one woman dies each week as a result of domestic violence is not the same as saying one woman every week is killed by her male partner. We might believe or be meant to believe that ALL domestic violence deaths are the result of male abuse, but the reality is that a women who dies from domestic violence, may not have been abused by a male.
Just this week I saw video of a brawl involving a bunch of girls at a Penrith School and read an article about a girl in the USA who twice in one week tried to poison her mother to death. I know better than to believe that being female is synonymous with 'sweet, loving, caring and non-violent.' Likewise, being male is not synonymous with 'violent, abusive and murderous.'
For eight years I published links to news reports (principally in Australia) on 'Female Violence.' You can find the links to those eight years HERE. I also know that there have been studies which indicate that female-to-male violence is pretty close to male-to-female violence. According to one report I read many years ago, males usually commit murder 'in the heat of the moment.' That is called a crime of passion or murder in hot blood. It is interesting then to note that the same report indicated that on average, women spend three months planning the murders they commit.
So my point here is this: when people like the former governor general start pointing the finger at male citizens, are they feeding us statistical truth or an ideological agenda? Are the figures deliberately skewed to demonize men?
In none of the reports was there any mention of domestic violence perpetrators being women and yet we know that domestic violence is perpetrated by women and can involve:
Female children abusing and killing siblings, parents, grandparents, aunts and cousins; Mothers abusing and killing their children, grandchildren and other female relatives; Gay women abusing and killing their female partners.
Or are we meant to pretend that this does not happen? I know it happens because I have read and recorded for posterity, the newspaper articles relating to such things so this then raises some questions for me.
"Why the implied focus on men?"
"Why are the statistics on female-to-female and female-to-male violence not used to demonstrate the gravity of the male-to-female abuse?"
"How do these three sets of figures stack up against each other?"
As I've already said, I don't doubt that one woman per week dies as a result of domestic violence. And yet even that statement does not necessarily mean that a woman was 'murdered.' If a woman is running away from her husband who has lost his temper and falls down the stairs or runs into the path of a car and is killed, is this classified as a 'domestic violence death?' You might think that a piddling question, but if a woman becomes frightened of a man who has lost his temper (without physically abusing the woman), and she dies as a result of her own actions, wherein lies the violence to be classified as 'domestic violence?'
I am well aware of the types of reponse that I am likely to get to this question. They all paint woman as saints and men as evil and yet, researchers have also shown that women are far more prone to being 'emotional abusers' than are men. And it is in that context of female emotional abuse of the male that I posited the point made above. Some women (typically victims of childhood abuse) will emotionally abuse their partner to the degree that he will lose his temper. Are women always to be excused for their abuse whilst men are denied every excuse?
If activist ideologues are going to paint the male citizenry as 'violent,' then I think it behooves them to be transparent when it comes to the statistics which support their claim.
Take the incident I read about this morning of a violent criminal bikie gang member abusing his girlfriend. This man is violent. He has hurt many many people. Does this man represent the rest of male citizenry? Should his incidence of violence toward his girlfriend be used to support the idea that 'men' are violent?
And what about Honor Killings? What about immigrants who enter this country carrying with them ancient customs and behaviors which require them to punish daughters who bring dishonor to the family? Are we meant to believe that these people who have not yet adopted our civilized concepts are representative of the general male population?
What percentage of male-to-female violence is perpetrated by criminals or immigrants holding to the concepts of honor killings?
In a normal rational society, we probably do not even need to ask such questions. But we don't live in a normal rational society. In fact far from it. Irrationality and rage is evident just about anywhere you turn, from comments in the comments sections of newspapers and blogs, to bad behavior on a Saturday night in the mall, to violence among the crowds at football games and other social events and of course outside and inside pubs. And no it is not all or mostly male related.
We live in a very politicized era in which activist agendas are basically 'fundamentalist theologies.' A study of fundamentalism reveals that the psyche of the fundamentalist drives their behavior. It is impossible to tell fundamentalists that they are wrong; impossible to combat their ideology with logic; and pointless trying to argue with them because they have a driving need not only to believe in their ideology, but to demonstrate that their ideology is perfection personified. For this reason, an Evangelical fundamentalist might in all good conscience kill an abortion doctor; an otherwise loving parent might kill a child who has dishonored the family; and an ideological political fundamentalist will lie (and even kill) in order to promote their agenda. Such people are sociopaths.
A Sociopath is a person who considers their own self-interest the most important aspect of any action and behavior. The actions of a Sociopath will include a complete disregard of the possible harm it can cause another person. The actions of a Sociopath can be legal, but still cause harm, physical or mental, to another person. A Sociopath will not follow ethical or moral thoughts used by others in their society. (One of many similar definitions.)
Any non-sycophant easily recognizes that the fundamentalist feminist agenda sees all men (who do not adhere to their ideology) as evil. What is therefore concerning to this writer is that the current political focus on domestic violence may be playing with statistics to promote a concept that cannot be derived from the raw data statistics alone.
Therefore, I believe that when the statistics for domestic violence (against females) is quoted, it should be clearly stated to be just that; male-to-female violence. I further believe that it ought also to be put into perspective by providing the female-to-male and female-to-female statistics.
Since violent criminals who also commit domestic violence are not representative of male citizenry and Immigrants who commit honor related domestic violence are not representative of male citizenry and female victims of female domestic violence are not representative of the male citizenry, such figures must transparently be separated from figures relating to female victims of domestic violence, leaving only male-to-female statistics clearly stated.
I have raised all of these issues because the implication in all of the recent reports about domestic violence is that 'society' (which is who exactly?) needs to teach men not to be violent (as if women were not also violent). I believe that this type of propaganda is a deception. A perusal of my yearly articles with links to reports of female violence will paint quite a different picture to that painted by the ideological fundamentalist.
But assuming that the statistic of one woman per week dying as a result of domestic (male) violence is totally accurate, then we still cannot equate a statistical numerical rise in the numbers of victims of domestic violence with an actual rise in violence because statistics can be played with to tell you whatever lie you want to believe.
Each year people die and in so doing they sever their heterosexual domestic relationship and each year people are entering into a heterosexual domestic relationship for the first time. What is then the nett percentage rise in heterosexual domestic relationships and what is the nett percentage rise in domestic violence toward women? In short, per capita, what was the percentage in previous years and what is it now? The press reports quote actual numbers of reported abuse cases. This is good for publicity, but the question is whether the rise reflects a true rise in the number of abusers/murderers. A percentage of violent people will always exist in a society so a rise in the number of first time heterosexual domestic relationships will automatically give rise to extra domestic violence in the same way that a rise in school leavers entering the workforce gives rise to an increase in the number of unemployed.
Assuming that all of these things have been factored into the statistics bandied about, (even if not publically stated to have been factored in), then we must ask what are the reasons for this rise in domestic violence. One reads in the press that 'we' are seeing a rise in domestic male to female violence and yet, over the last half century, the divorce rate has quadrupled with more than 90 percent of children in the care of the female primary care giver and role model.
Surely there should be a decrease in male sexism and violence.
For the same period there have been ongoing educational campaigns both publicly and in schools which should have reduced male sexist attitudes and violence toward women.
If it has truly not decreased (a question only legitimate statistics would reveal), then who is responsible for the rise?
Given the number of women in society in general and the number of female primary care givers specifically, and the omnipresent ways in which political correctness, anti-sexism and anti-violence are teaching young men to behave in a gentlemanly way, the blame for the rise of sexism and violence surely cannot be put on 'absent fathers.' But if the blame cannot be put on them, then upon whom should it be put?
Perhaps all those women and organizations out there teaching our boys to be well behaved have failed because they have been undermining their message by verbally teaching one type of behavior whilst practicing another? In other words 'are they hypocrites' and is this hypocrisy resulting in reactionary behavior? Are all of these people teaching boys to be non-sexist and non-violent, actually demonstrating to these boys the female version of sexism and violence. Perhaps we might call it 'Emotional Abuse.'
In any case, what is the answer?
The lazy blame the government for everything, but this surely cannot be the government's fault.
The fundamentalist feminist ideology cannot accept that blame belongs to women so surely it cannot.
Industry research which repeatedly tells us that watching people smoke cigarettes on TV and in the movies affects young people and gives rise to smoking, nevertheless tells us that alcohol consumption on the screen, violent video games and violent movies, nudity and sex on the big screen and pornography, do not seem to affect anyone.
I must assume that that is correct for if these things did contribute to sexism and domestic violence, the feminist movement would surely have put an end to all such things long ago. And who would oppose them? Who would want to do anything that might lead their kids astray?
If none of the above are responsible for a per capita of population rise in male perpetrated violence, then it must surely result from the absence of fathers, which must surely indicate something although I am not sure what.
Perhaps if we made divorce harder to obtain, and spent more time 'forcing' fathers to spend time with their kids and penalizing fathers who do not, then perhaps the boys would be better behaved.
I do not know what the answer is to all of these questions. I only know that I get tired of 'male' bashing by people who claim to know everything except how to solve problems. Clearly Political Correctness and anti-violence campaigns have not worked. Clearly both having fathers at home and having them absent has not worked. Clearly giving social researchers money has not worked.
Perhaps instead of generally blaming men, some money should be spent on researching the reasons why some men are not violent or sexist. Maybe if we find out what the difference is between those who grow up sexist and violent and those who do not, we might get closer to the truth and actually solve the problem.
Until then, if we are going to quote statistics, could we at least make them transparent?
When you stand to speak you are doing more than reciting words. You are in fact engaged in communicating with an audience your opinions, ideas, feelings, passions and/or knowledge on a subject. They expect you to express yourself with feeling and passion and to actually know what you are talking about. Therefore it is essential that you KNOW what you are talking about – and – show the appropriate body language, gestures, actions and emotions associated with your topic.
The kids used to turn up repeatedly throughout the day just to look at the foreigner, touch him, feel the hair on his (the monkey’s) arms and generally just gawk. China has changed a lot over the years but there have been times when a foreigner in a small town or village would attract huge crowds. Sometimes people would be known to suddenly come upon you, look up at your face and just plain scream! I’m not joking!
Many there are who delight in bringin shame to their country and heritage, and all in the name of some blessed cause or other, but when there be no difference at all between their words and behavior and those of our worst enemies, how be it that such folk can think of themselves as ‘decent, patriotic or right-minded’?
Unfortunately, the West does not know what every Muslim scholar knows; that the worst enemies of Islam are from within. The worst of these are the khawaarij who delude others by the deeply dyed religious exterior that they project. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said about them, “When you see them pray you will consider your own prayers insignificant. They recite the Quran but it does not exceed the limits of their throat.” In other words, they don’t understand the true meanings
Below is a one minute 43 second youtube video featuring Muslim Human Rights Activist Raheel Raza from the Clarion Project, in which she says of Donald Trump that though he is politically incorrect, he won the election ‘with a mandate among other things to call radical Islam what it is’ and she invites people to stop being politically correct and begin talking about radical Islam.
Since 2004 he has been writing academic articles, social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both here at KingsCalendar, and formerly as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News (Maine USA) where from 2009 to 2015 he was Stand-in Editor. He currently has a column at iPatriot.com and teaches English to Business English and Flight Attendant College Students in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province People's Republic of China.)
BenDedek originally created the site to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran.' Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
(The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam)
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]