A pleasant enough looking lady dropped by to leave some Domestic Violence pamphlets for the bar. We got to talking: she explained the awfulness of the problem. I asked her to consider her stance carefully.
She persisted in lying to me so I called our Bouncerette to throw her out.
(Yes, we have a part-time Bouncerette who gives our usual chap some time-off for his kiddies)
(And please. No complaints that it is sexist that she is 'part-time'. She is Mrs Bouncer !)
I don't usually toss out casual passers-by. I am happy to serve the 'Good Stuff' to any who ask. But lying is bad behaviour. It is not acceptable. It is a sure sign of the Prince (and Princess) of Lies.
But it started up a long and detailed conversation amongst the patrons.
Pull up a bar-stool and join in. There are many voices reported here but I won't break things up by introducing them all.
Several brilliant expositions have been written about the complex web of lies and corruption that have been inserted insidiously into countries such as America through such Acts as VAWA and the Family Law and Child support agencies working in turn through an unholy alliance between Federal and States governments.
A network of misandric, biased, criminal ‘Shelters’ has covered their land with a new and vicious corruption at grass-roots level, purportedly to ‘assist’ women but in fact act as a conduit for corruption and criminality, much of it in the State treasuries.
I only have to mention Prof Stephen Baskerville’s ‘Taken into Custody’ work for many knowledgeable folk to understand.
Or Professor Carey Roberts’ exposes. Or Professor Murray Strauss's.
But little gets written about other Anglophile countries.
How much is known in MRM circles and outside in the MSM about the corruption in the UK, for instance?
The patrons in the Tavern set down and discussed some facts down about Oz, where the Tavern is: Australia, a huge, continental nation with a very modest population where leftist governments have dominated the various States have been in control Federally for much of the past 50 years.
This wonderful land has been infected with the virus of feminist corruption to the detriment of government, law, Institutions and families, men and women.
The rationale for much 'Law', the hysteria, the draconian legislations is Domestic Violence.
The most horrendous lies are told about DV.
And people seem to believe them.
Deliberately lying about Domestic Violence in Australia is a topic that gets very little discussion-time in the public square.
I am indebted to a Senior Australian Public Servant who must remain anonymous, for some crucial parts of this blog entry. He sat quietly in the P&B and gave the occasional nod or useful piece of information.
Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you will most likely find a by-line claiming: "Statistics show …"; "new survey finds …"; or, "new study proves …". Often accompanied by embellishments such as "shocking”, “appalling”, and so on.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than on the subject of gender relations and in particular the emotionally charged subject of domestic violence, or it’s substitute "family violence".
It is about neither of course.
It is all about women.
Hysteria is carefully stage-managed.
Only lip service is paid to the idea that males might be victims, and then, we are told, they deserve it anyway.
Let me be clear from the start. I do not like domestic violence, just as I do not like muggings, murders, rapes, armed robberies etc. But rarely is there any need for muggings to be blown out of proportion by including asking for an ice-cream even when a tantrum follows a ‘no’.
The panic and hysteria generated by falsified and invented Domestic Violence does far more damage to society and to men and women’s relations, than the very small amount of Domestic violence that exists and which is blown completely out of proportion.
Australia does not collect unified data on Domestic Violence. Not directly. Figures get lifted out of context from a variety of ‘official’ documents. But such fractured statistics have been collected for years by 'interested' parties. Parties that have slowly been manipulating public opinion.
The most widely cited statistics on the subject in Australia is the Women’s Safety Survey, published in 1996 that repeats American claims ..
"One in four women experience domestic violence, within their lifetime".
There was no Men’s Safety Survey.
The bias was there even before the survey was designed.
It was another ten years, 2006, that a further more inclusive Safety survey was conducted.
The patrons in the bar had a good look at this biased, anti-male 1996 Survey and other sources which have driven Public Policy in Australia.
I will also show the 2006 survey in some depth and reveal the government’s response.
This American claim of ‘One in Four’ ubiquitously applied to most female claims of outrage, first surfaced in the left-wing Feminist Ms Magazine in the 1970’s after a deliberately doctored survey about rape using a self-selected sample of its anti-male readers.
One in Four is a ‘super-term’.
It is akin to an hypnotic chant that robs people of control over their thoughts.
It is applied to almost anything to do with women. "Victims".
Being given a glass of wine before sex constituted rape according to that travesty of a survey, commissioned by Ms and conducted by a misandric feminazi ‘Professor’, Mary Koss.
A considerable broadening of what constitutes domestic violence and sexual assault was demanded by feminists in America to access the gravy train of the Violence Against Women Act, (VAWA) and the left-wing President Clinton, the well known sexual assaulter of young women employees, complied.
Following Presidents have continued to benefit from paying for the female vote. Society paid and continues to pay.
Clinton sought to make reparation for his own sexual incontinence by punishing every man in America.
He was assisted in this by the then Senator, now Vice President Joe Biden – who explained how he used to be beaten-up by his sister when he was young, and was making his own Kow-Tow to her continued ‘advice’.
|"It was HIM !! Git 'im !"|
Biden was an architect of VAWA. He cared not for violence against men and may well be a masochist by nature.
VAWA opened the door to a widespread and mendacious catalogue of innocuous behaviours being classified as ‘assault’ and DV in a flood of Advocacy Research.
People in other western countries will recognise the same dirty fingers in the pie-charts of their own bogus and mendacious advocacy research underpinning their own Government Policies.
The Women’s Safety Survey findings, which uses this sleight of hand, underpins Australian Government policy and legislation in every Australian state jurisdiction - with the exception of Victoria, which now evidently claims that "one in five women are victims of domestic violence".
This apparently suggests that women would be much safer if they all moved to Victoria.
Maybe it is something in the Victorian air.
No "study" is of much value until it has been subjected to peer review. This has not occurred in relation to the Women’s Safety Survey. For a number of reasons, there is an urgent need for independent and thorough research and review.
The WSS study was released under the imprimatur of the Australian Bureau of Statistics but was in fact a creature of the bureaucratically powerful Office of Status of Women which commissioned and directed the survey.
|Glass ceilings and glass jaws need an Office.|
The Office for the Status of Women's finest hour.
There was significant consternation reported at that time in relation to complaints, by ABS officers - that they were being "bullied" into undertaking unprofessional, and methodologically flawed "advocacy research"- research which is designed to prove the existence of something, whether it exists or not.
Several Executive level officers of the ABS were later ‘re-located’ to ‘re-education’ roles.
The notion that one in four women are suffering from domestic violence is alarming and conjures images, at the very least, of black eyes and bruises occurring on an appalling scale.
But it is a lie.
How many Australian’s would know that the survey included such largely irrelevant questions as “Have you ever received an obscene phone call?” ?
A phone rings and no one is there. Bogus fear is conveniently generated from a neurotic mind.
Tick the box.
Another sexual assault.
Yeh. Pig’s arse !
It beggars belief that questions like this formed the bulk of the survey.
It has barley any relevance to domestic violence at all.
But…. It’s another male-damning statistic.
But the Office for the Status of Women did not stop there. The determined harridans were intent on spin to beat all spin.
How many would know that the survey report blurred the fact that some 27 per cent of respondents were actually reporting violence caused by other women?
Heck, that’s just over One in Four !
It must have been men that made them do it.
Believe me, you can be convinced.
In fact, you have been.
There were many other seriously disturbing aspects to this survey. For example, it also involved only voluntary participation, which is a key source of survey bias – just as in the Ms magazine survey - as it attracts participants who may have a vested interest the subject matter, a factor that can dramatically skew the results.
In the desired direction, of course.
And, it was a "life incidence" survey, thus inviting the recitation of some event far off in both time and in memory. The failings of human memory with the passage of time is well recognised by our legal system, which, with very few exceptions, refuses to admit evidence that has been muddied by time and with no corroboration.
Forty years and a bitter divorce can change a memory from someone merely "pushing away" into "he threw me down the stairs".
Who is there to contradict?
The law recognises the frailty of old memories but our ever -increasing victim culture does not.
Society would not entertain the concept that someone is currently considered to be a "road accident victim" based on a minor bruise they had incurred in a vehicle accident 20 years ago.
Nor would we necessarily put much faith in a 20-year-old version of how the accident occurred.
Yet this is precisely what such surveys on domestic violence increasingly attempt to encourage for society to accept as reality, current and relevant for domestic violence and assault.
When citing the "one in four" statistic, some domestic violence literature conveniently leaves out the phrase "within their lifetime", giving a false impression of immediacy; that one in four women are victims, right now, on this very day.
Think about that.
Every shout-at, telling-off, even smack on the legs when we were five years old being counted so that everyone has been the ‘victim’ of abuse.
Every woman, that is.
Moreover, the Women’s Safety Survey did not overtly say that one in four women were victims of "physical" domestic violence, but included a range of other non-physical and both potentially and actually non-violent behaviours that were then re-classified as "domestic violence". It covertly implies it is all physical violence.
A man not handing over his pay-packet to his wife is ‘economic DV’. No mention that it demanding his wages is extortion.
Him answering that ‘Yes’ her bum does look fat in those jeans, is ‘verbal DV’. It ‘demeans” and is therefore ‘violent’.
An argument between a couple with both shouting is HIM being violent. She is simply defending herself by ‘communicating’.
Advocacy research has taken over much of what passes for academic and ‘official’ date collection.
It sets out to provide ‘proof’ for a conclusion already held. It supports a Prejudice.
Why do you think that anyone would want
to go to the time and effort to do that?
Show me the Money.
Domestic violence literature, when citing such advocacy research survey findings characterise the one in four statistic as referring to physical violence.
The leaflets handed out by the self-declared socially conscious commercial retail chain, "The Body Shop", being a case in point. It manipulates. It attracts. It drew wannabee socially conscious women customers in to buy fragrant soaps and candles, to ‘support victims of domestic violence’.
Domestic Violence lies sells women’s products.
“After you have been beaten by an unappreciative man, you poor victimized woman, you need to pamper yourself. You deserve it.”
“Oooh, let me have some of those candles, you poor thing, I am a victim, too. Honest.”
|“That's right. |
Could you take a minute to fill out this survey while I wrap these for you”.
Such ‘women’s goods’ shop chains have no shame in ripping off women by appealing to ‘support for victims’.
Even refugees from Torture and Trauma are roped in. The Refugee resettlement organisations in Australia get Government funds which are then siphoned off to run ‘joint’ appeals with such women’s goodies retail outlets for ‘raising consciousness’. And getting women to fill in surveys.
The Tavern Keeper knows. I was a Director of the National Torture and Trauma Organisations and tried hard to put a stop to it. But the Department of Immigration insisted.
They only mention women refugees of course. The maimed men do not get to take part. It makes for a fine week’s boost to turnover and the private company ‘bottom line’.
It gets women’s votes too.
Domestic violence literature across the board not only blurs the past with the present but blends quite different and sometimes relatively innocuous behaviours with the abjectly violent, in order to incite a widespread impression that physical domestic violence against women is currently running rampant and unchecked in our community.
The survey gives an Australian flavour to the increasingly Internationalised American charade of a law, the Violence Against Women Act, brought in by the American Cultural-Marxist group, the National Organisation of Women, and pushed through by the efforts of the current American Vice President, Joe Biden.
Such a gender biased law has gobbled up Billions of dollars of American taxpayers money funneled to women’s groups; with nothing at all to male ‘victims’.
Australia is behind with the Dollars but then it is a much smaller tax-base. It is just Hundreds of Millions. When the 'Global Economic Crisis' came upon us, it allowed some Stimulus Packages for the girls, be sure. Kevin Rudd’s ‘working families’ have had their day and the non-working, single-mother families are on the increase.
No prizes for guessing why.
In 2009 our Great leader, Chairman Mousey Kev announced a massive increase in Grants to women. More to the Violence against Women mantra. Our Equality Chairwoman was doing the Press round appearing on TV in 2009 to rally the media at the weekly Press Club broadcasts.
Here we were in the middle of the worst recession, supposedly, since the demise of the Mickey Mouse Club and the girls want what is left of the money.
But, no worry. Chairman Kev will sell the children’s future to pay today’s women.
It bought votes.
The Office for the Status of Women is a vast black hole into which taxpayer’s money is poured. It exists soley to benefit Government and the powerful female bureaucrats that run the show, none of whom has ever seen a glass ceiling. It resulted, of course, in Ju-LIAR Gillard.
The Office channels Policy like Shirley MacLain channels 5000 year old Egyptian Gurus.
A beneficiary has been the Health Departments both Federal and State that have had billions of dollars funneled into ‘Women’s Health’ while dregs are given to men.
But I digress.
The mendacious nature of the now ubiquitous term domestic violence, which brings under its one heading a range of non-physical behaviours is of primary concern. The nuances of context and intensity are increasingly lost in a determined re-interpretation of any kind of marital disagreement, into a paradigm of male "perpetrator" and a female "victim".
It breaks traditional families apart.
We see a lot of street behaviour that we might regard as offensive or verbally aggressive but in the absence of a physical assault (whether major or minor) we don’t classify it as violence per se.
Yet domestic violence researchers seem to almost salivate over a positive response to, "Has your partner ever yelled at you?"
Another female domestic violence victim.
Another man-damning statistic.
Although, "Did you yell back?", is conveniently never asked.
No one asks the chap of course.
Do you feel like yelling yet?
The WSS surveyed 6000 odd carefully selected women and no men at all.
Gross, dishonest, Gender-biased sampling marks this survey.
Ambiguous and irrelevant questions litter it.
Subterfuge and bribery marks its collection.
Bias runs throughout the findings.
It drives a biased, anti-male Un-Australian Industry that expropriates Public Monies and supports commercial interests.
It drives prejudiced and bigoted Government Policy.
The survey does not like to stand out like a sore thumb as the only data. Let’s look at the other common sources of dodgy data misrepresented by our feminist-driven Government, to convince the Australian public that we have an epidemic of Family Violence which is attributed solely to evil Australian men.
Lies build upon lies.
More lies convince better than just one.
Let us take a look at intervention orders issued by the lower courts as a source of bogus "statistical evidence" of the "magnitude" of domestic or ‘family’ violence.
Let us also will look at Police records of DV ‘Incidents’ and how they are not at all what they seem. Or what the general public is told.
Let us look at the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program which is also misrepresented to the detriment of men and the advantage if the DV Industry.
Wrong and often bogus statistics are deployed, with an apparent intention to deliberately mislead.
Add Wing of Bat and Eye of Lizard to the Pot.
Having looked at the uncorroborated, biased and manipulated Women’s Safety Survey let us look now at Intervention Orders and how they are manipulated too.
Most "finalised" intervention orders are finalised simply because they are uncontested. That is, the male "respondent" is persuaded (often bullied) by court officials, such as Deputy Court Registrars, into signing up for a "final" or "permanent" order rather than contest the allegations in court.
The lower courts don’t want any more congestion if it can be avoided.
Men are manipulated. The Bat’s-wing.
Convincing a bewildered "respondent" to sign up for the permanent order on the basis of a "By Consent, Without Admissions", is not particularly difficult, especially if a solicitor has already advised him that it could cost up to $10,000 if he goes to court.
And further, that he will most likely lose.
The Burden of Proof is laid on the defendant, not the accuser. Proving a negative is plain impossible.
The legal test is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but merely the "balance of probabilities". This is a very weak civil law test in the context of penalties that could ultimately imprison a respondent, and certainly dispossess him of his assets.
This happens in Tasmania where the ironically misnamed ‘Safe at Home Act’ ensures that male arrest is automatic with no bail on simple female accusation.
He loses access to his home and children and even loses his job because he cannot prove he didn’t do what he didn’t do.
Magistrates are badgered by the Safe at Home Act and are increasingly fearful of bad publicity if a violent act should possibly subsequently occur.
As it is quite possible.
The catalyst for possible subsequent violence, ironically, is often the faked restraining order allegations in the first place and the trauma of being hauled into court often for the first time in his life.
The magistrates are as aware as anyone of the adage,
“Might as well be hanged for a sheep
as a lamb’.
In this instance is ‘hang him just in case he has his eye on a lamb’.
When you are convicted of something you didn’t do, on a false allegation you cannot disprove, you may well feel that you want to earn your punishment.
So much for "justice" and the fading jurisprudential notion of the "presumption of innocence".
Whether a female complainant was ever genuinely fearful or merely a perjurer and liar is often un-explored. And if it is questioned at all, with due compassion and concern for the ‘victim’, the diluted "balance of probabilities" test still renders such findings questionable.
Domestic violence literature increasingly proclaims that domestic violence is a crime. Quite so. Therefore, in any legal action, the criminal law test of "beyond reasonable doubt" should be applied.
It never is.
Given the growing understanding that intervention orders are regularly used as a tactical weapon in achieving favourable custody and property outcomes in subsequent Family Court proceedings, a count of intervention orders as a measure of "violence against women" is virtually meaningless.
Yet such statistics are used for precisely that.
This Tavern-Keeper sat in the Hobart, Tasmania, Family Court and listened as a ‘fearful’ 27 y/o ex wife of four years marriage accused her poor sod of a ex-husband of 62 from whom she had taken three quarters of his lifetime’s assets, of murdering her previous boyfriend - who in fact had been deported as an illegal immigrant - and of being an International Terrorist. He had been in the Israeli army on National Service 30 years before.
The Judge disbelieved her claims and said she was being ‘fanciful’.
No charges of perjury were laid and no investigations ordered for such heinous crimes.
And she was awarded the children. Of course. ‘Just in case’.
When someone relates a tale like that, a usual response is, "It doesn't happen. Who told you that"?
I watched and listened.
It happened in my sight and hearing.
Over the course of the following three years that man was arrested seven times and spent four nights in jail. He was hospitalized twice. He was arrested on one occasion after she accused him of assault. He had leaned on her car.
Another domestic violence statistic.
Always added, never subtracted when disproven.
No one tries to seek truth. It was disregarded at his Court case that he had been run over by a horse and buggy and has a damaged back. He leaned on the car because he was in pain.
Which brings us onto the Eye of Lizard.
Another statistic commonly cited by an increasingly frenzied domestic violence Industry is the number of POLICE CALL-OUTS to domestic or family violence ‘Incidents’.
Whether the "incident" involved verbal disagreement between husband and wife or an act of actual violence, we would never know. It is merely noted as an "incident".
In fact, if the protagonists were two 14 year old brothers arguing in the front lawn that too, would be noted on the official records as a domestic or family violence incident.
These records of "incidents" are then inevitably fed into the ever-swelling "conduit" of statistics that ultimately produces headlines that purport, "alarming new data shows domestic violence against women running out of control".
The police in any region know who the violent families are. They attend the same people time and time again.
The vast majority of citizens are not violent and do not have ‘domestic violence’ in their homes and families.
But when one family chalks up 25 ‘Incidents’, and 200 families account for 2000 'Incidents', it is made to appear that ten times as many men are guilty than are.
The women never are guilty of course. They are made out to be 2000 victims.
The end result is then ever-increasing public funding to combat the ever burgeoning horror of violence against women.
Nobody ever delves deep enough to examine how many of these police reported "incidents" actually involved a physical violence or threat of violence or indeed whether a woman was even present at the time.
Leg of Cane-Toad too.
Few if any newspapers or TV ‘expose’ shows ever investigate the amount of public funding to any organisation that puts itself under the "domestic violence umbrella" or else you will instantly understand why this has become a publicly funded "industry" of vast size.
The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is yet another supportive source of statistics on so-called "family violence".
The SAAP gives priority to ‘battered women’. Love that phrase.
What the SAAP data does not show however, is how many women were encouraged to falsely claim they were fleeing family violence, or indeed what the nature of the "violence" was, so that they could receive the priority treatment gravy train.
A recent Canberra Times article, lamenting the lack of affordable low cost public housing for poor families, featured a couple with young children who were forced to live in a caravan. A "housing worker" was quoted as suggesting to the mother, "If there was family violence, you could get a house straight away": i.e. claim you are a female victim and the "world is your oyster".
Male victims need not apply.
Using SAAP data as a measure of violence against women is badly flawed because it can be and is misconstrued - again with an apparent deliberate intent - to reflect a statistic illustrating the number of women and children fleeing family violence.
SAAP data, in fact, often reflects the large number of homeless men who being so frequently dispossessed by individual chicanery and Family Court excoriation, are seeking emergency accommodation.
They do not get priority of course.
By both omission and commission, Australia is being sold a very gross and socially dangerous statistical lie -
one that is serving only the interests of its creators, and those legions who have so readily signed up to the fictional notion that every fourth female face we see each day is secretly living in stark terror and fear of "family violence".
So, What is the Truth.
Some women unfortunately are victims of ‘family violence’, let’s admit as evidence and acknowledge the fact.
1.2% are according to a rare example of independent University research by Bruce Headly and Dorothy Scott of Melbourne University and David De Vaus of La Trobe.
But that was a non-self-selected, random sample. ie, a proper one.
1.2%. This tiny percentage, well below the oft cited 25%, needed first aid, so bad was the violence they had experienced at the hands of a domestic partner.
And so did some men.
The same research shows 1.8% for men needing first aid, a full 50% higher.
Even smaller percentages of both needed a doctor’s attention. But again more men than women. 1.5% men vs 1.1% women.
Moreover, the Headly, Scott and De Vaus summary measure of experiencing a range of forms of assault fails to reveal any preponderance of assaults on women:
4.7% of the sample reported being assaulted ‘in some way’ during the last 12 months; 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women. Not needing any attention to damage though.
They had had a shouting match and called each other naughty names.
Again, that is over half as many men
more than women.
And so far below the mythical 25%, the 1:4, terribly, awfully suffering women, as to make a total rejection of feminist lies.
When did YOU ever read that study?
What must be untangled - so that effective measures can be put into place - is the real incidence of such violence from the bogus statistical misrepresentations that are serving an entirely different agenda.
The critical issue of DV is all too often overlooked completely; it’s low experience in the community.
• • 94.4% of people reported in Headly et al, being neither perpetrators nor victims of violence.
• • 2.5% report both assaulting and being assaulted.
• • 2.1% report being assaulted but not committing assault.
• • 1.0% report assaulting their partner but not being assaulted.
No signs at all of 25% anywhere.
This Independent research showed clearly that DV affects a
miniscule proportion of the population,
and on every measure but one men suffered greater domestic violence from women than women did from men and in greater percentage numbers.
The one measure?
She calls the police far more often.
The mantle of mass victimhood casts a long and very dark shadow that too often conceals the very location of the destruction of truth and where propaganda is given the oxygen for its blowtorch.
The Federal Government spent $73 million on television adverts showing only male perpetrators and only female victims. Sheer AgitProp.
THAT is domestic violence.
You paid for it with expropriated taxes.
Almost all political tyrannies have their origin in segregating societies into the conceptual equivalent of "good and evil", "angels and demons", "victims and perpetrators". “Four legs good, two legs bad”. There is never a middle ground
"Male equals perpetrator", "female equals victim".
When liars are afoot in society, in power, their first weapon of choice is statistical "proof" to provide convincing lies.
One has to wonder why intelligent, moral men and women in Australia put up with this. Men are demonized but say little to protect their Reputations and their legitimate interests.
Women’s legitimate interests have been hi-jacked by a clique of destructive, Marxist-Feminist women who spread blatant lies on their behalf, expropriate public monies and claim a bogus high moral ground.
It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.
It is statistical corruption; fiscal corruption; political corruption.
As a result of that bogus 1996 survey, and with the ongoing manipulation and misrepresentation of the three other ‘Official’ statistics discussed above, women fear walking in the street, especially at night. Every husband is regarded as a potential wife-beater. Funds flow to women’s groups.
Domestic Violence advocacy was the fastest growing Industry of the decade following, employing thousands in ‘jobs for the girls, paid from taxpayer expropriations.
Violence against women is blown way out of proportion while violence against men is sought for entertainment.
The Truth is out there - somewhere.
I mentioned before that an Official but Independent and reliable survey needs to be done to establish valid figures for Policy determination.
Following the row between the Women’s Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over Feminist manipulation and bullying, the ABS conducted it’s own survey.
It took ten years to get around to it, mind you.
The results were very different to the bogus ones of the Office for the Status of Women, despite their continued attempts to interfere and manipulate.
The Australian Government has ignored the more relevant ABS findings under pressure from those same feminists who continue to exercise undemocratic control.
The ABS to manage to do a more reliable examination in 2006 which tried to show the truth. At least it didn’t leave out an entire gender this time.
Once again, however, the Feminists managed to interfere and manipulate, and I will show you how. I also show how you can delve into the data collected to bring the Truth into the light of day.
The ABS Personal Safety Survey finally emerged in 2006 and sampled BOTH genders – for a change.
And along with its appearance, the statistical myths and fabrications of feminist's victimhood, and women's class oppression , and claims of an epidemic of violence against women - were able to be immediately exposed and contradicted
But the silence was deafening.
Have you heard of the Personal Safety Survey or its findings?
What a surprise. !
Have you heard of 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence?
Of course you have.
The silence didn’t last of course as it was soon replaced with a $73 million Government advertising campaign based on the old false results appearing on TV sets nation-wide.
It was like sticking fingers in women’s ears and having them chant “lalalalalala; Men, bad; Women, victims”.
The survey reveals a picture of what any rational person should have assumed about life simply by observation of the world around them and their day to day existence in it.
The survey reveals what most people should have known or should have suspected about the facts of social violence - it is men rather than women who have the most to fear regarding their personal safety.
It further reveals that the perpetrators of violence, in all their ugly forms and diversity, are not just men, and that the domain of perpetrators includes a significant percentage of women.
There are few surprises in this survey other than it seems to have been conducted with appropriate propriety and adherence to statistical principles.
A refreshing breath of almost-fresh air given the lies and spin of so many preceding studies and surveys conducted on this subject.
But before delving into some its facts and figures, there are a couple of points that should be clarified about the survey itself.
As surveys go, it seems to have been done fairly responsibly but with some clear prior interference. It encompassed a sizeable sample of the population - 16,300 adults in total, about 0.1% of the Australian adult population - so its findings could be seen to be a reasonable reflection of what's really going on in Australia today.
That's 2 and a ½ times the sample size of the feminist’s survey.
However, for some reason you will instantly recognise, nearly three times as many women were surveyed than men - 11,800 women compared to only 4,500 men.
What a surprise !
The feminists just cannot help themselves, can they?
Ask yourselves; there are 50% women and 50% men in our society. There are usually one man and one woman in a domestic couple.
OK. There are sometimes two men together, but rare, and two women together, but rare.
So why a sample that is 75% women and 25% men?
It is better than 100% women and 0% men, as in the 1996 survey, but still only a little better. Half a loaf.
Men's experiences of personal safety are not deemed as valid as those of women. Did they expect that women's experiences of violence would be more valid, diverse or significant?
Or was it simply a matter of funding as is implied in the survey's notes?
Funding controlled by feminists in the bureaucracy?
You get the Report; read it carefully and make your own mind up. Read the notes.
Whatever the reason for it, and there is no fair or justifiable stance that could possibly be taken for this glaring discrepancy, the question remains, why were men relegated to being less than second class respondents?
No one has provided an answer.
You can go figure it for yourself, but perhaps we can hope this imbalance will be addressed in any further surveys where the sex of the respondents is relevant.
For now though, when digesting the results, it must be understood that sample distribution bias still exists.
In fact, in some cases, reflected in the ABS tables, annotations have been made by the statisticians indicating that the data may be of questionable reliability.
Why would that be?
Why would the ABS warn about its own data?
I will tell you in a moment.
Given the importance and far reaching social implications of this survey, this restriction of men's experiences is a travesty of their rights as taxpayers and citizens of the nation.
Especially as it turns out from the survey results that men are the most severely affected members of society where personal safety and violence are concerned.
This treatment of men is a clear statement by the Government that they see Australian men as being second class and less important than the women of the nation.
Yet, in the Liberal's defense, - they had achieved Government by then - it must be argued that they are the first and so far only government in Australia to include men in such a survey at all.
Previous Labor governments, which had presided over the totally bogus Women’s Safety Survey, simply didn't care about the safety of men and only ever conducted safety surveys for women.
This development in itself is at least some consolation for Australian men and was a positive step forward.
Now, the reason for the annotated questioning of the reliability of the data, especially about the men.
You see, the other glaring concern about the production of this ABS survey was the sexist exclusion of men as interviewers.
100% of the interviews were conducted by women.
Only women were employed as interviewers.
By order of the Feminist bureaucracy.
It is important to realise that by using ONLY female interviewers, it is likely to have led to an underreporting of spousal and partner violence against men by females and an over-reporting of men’s violence against women.
In a national survey of this significance, one could have at least expected squeaky-clean adherence to equal-sex political correctness.
Pig’s Arse !
Despite these sexist anomalies the survey reveals for the first time, much important information about personal safety, and the victims and perpetrators of personal violence.
It is a subject, which has long been obscured by the murky fog of feminist advocacy. Prejudice and proving prior expectations have ruled such research.
But against the odds, this survey has revealed and has exposed the feminist lies.
The following statements, derived directly from the ABS survey, are just the initial findings and a fuller investigation by YOU, yourself, of the finer detail is encouraged.
Do not simply take my word.
I will compare the freshly published data to the often-quoted rhetorical statistics of feminist propaganda - and remember this, these are official Australian government research figures and not some trumped up, biased, ideologically prejudiced University Women’s Studies data or those of some politically or gender- biased NGO.
Those rhetorical stats use the 1:4 comparison device, or the ‘per second’ and per day and per week device to hide the real numbers which would look as small as they actually are.
It sounds so much better to say that two women a week are killed by husbands than to say that 102 women out of a population of 30 million are killed annually by nutters.
Two per week generates more hysteria than 0.00034%
And of course the feminists never tell you that 94 men per annum, nearly but not quite two men per week are killed by female spouses.
Facts - the ABS survey has revealed that -
In Australia, men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened, at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second
Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence anywhere near as often as the quoted 25%, 1 in 4, - nor even 1 in 10, - nor even 1 in 20, but actually 1 in 50
That is to say, 2%
Women are not being raped and sexually assaulted every 26 seconds, as claimed by the Feminists of the Office for the Status of Women, nor even every 90 seconds, as other feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing rape hardly at all.
And even when combined with the lesser sexual assaults, it is at a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed.
Look at that another way. Feminist claims are exaggerated by at least 10 times.
And this includes both reported and all unreported incidents ‘discovered’ by the survey interviewers.
The ratio of female vs male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, with men very rarely assaulted and women bashed daily, nor 95:5, nor 75:1, nor even 50:1, but is actually 2:1
Not borne out by the Independent study mentioned above, mind you.
And some of the women are being assaulted in the ‘domestic’ sphere by other women.
These statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without corruption. Look at the figures.
Of course there will be some deviation from the survey compared to real life figures, just as in all studies - always read the fine print of surveys - but, remember, nearly three women were interviewed for every one man.
The data for men may have been tainted by the use of only female interviewers, some of whom may even have been staunch feminists, - show me a woman who claims she isn’t and I will show you a lonely one - and together with the sample number bias, resulting in underreporting of men's experience of family violence as victims.
Let us look closely at some other interesting statistics -
During the previous 12 months in Australia, that is, in 2005,
6.5% of males were physically assaulted. And 3.1% of females
That is 1 in 15 men compared to 1 in 32 women.
Conclusion: Women are safer.
Attempted or threatened physical assaults were against 5.3% of males and just 2.1% of females.
Conclusion: Women are 2.5 times safer from threats and attempts than men are.
Women can expect greater safety
than men can.
There isn’’t a bogeyman down every dark street looking for a woman to assault.
The bogeyman is too busy assaulting men.
In the sexual assault area beloved of feminists and the source of fright, alarm and horror – and endless expropriated taxes for agitprop - the survey indeed finds the figures swing to women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are.
But the figures are lower still.
Not 1 in 4 women.
Not 25%, as reported in the bogus Women’s Safety Survey.
It is just 1.6%
1 - point – 6 - per cent reported being sexually assaulted.
Did you hear that? 1.6 %
That’s 1 in 62. Not 1 in 4.
And MEN are sexually assaulted too. 0.6 %.
Threats and attempts at sexual assault are even lower.
0.5% for women and 0.1% for men.
98% of women are perfectly safe and not even under threat of sexual assault.
Sexual assault on women, and even on men, is very low.
Not that such a F.A.C.T. fact makes headlines in the newspapers.
It doesn’t sell.
It doesn’t sell ‘stuff’ like scented candles and soap in the Body Shop.
Why are women being deliberately frightened by the Government?
YOU have to ask your MP.
Deliberately Frightening Women: Neglecting Men. In conclusion, what does all this mean?
It means that Australia as a nation is the first in the Western world to undertake a survey of adult personal safety and violence based on the sex of the community.
It has both massive and broad implications for social scrutiny and the politics of sex and violence. It stands as a precedent for further world development and application.
It also has immediate application to other Western societies. Australia, being a contemporary Western nation has been subjected, more or less, to the same political influences over the last half century that have been experienced by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and arguably most other European nations.
The data recorded would be directly applicable to other Western societies, more or less and may be quoted as a being from a highly reputable source.
The results of this survey should be seen as the first authoritative sample of non-advocacy research on the issues of Western social violence and in particular, inter-gender personal violence.
The results are both revealing and deeply informative.
Revealing about the incorrectness of previously published feminist advocacy research - and subsequent government information too – and informative about the dire state of violence perpetrated against men in modern civilised Western societies.
The data also provide the basis for a requirement for Western governments to become focused on the safety standards of its men as a top priority and to begin to recognise that there are serious deficiencies in its treatment of men in society.
The survey also amplifies the ludicrous state of Western government's pursuit of highly expensive anti-violence campaigns and legislation for the least affected victims of personal violence - women - whilst a much more serious problem of violence exists and is being waged against its men.
It also establishes facts that require governments and anti-male NGOs in Australia to immediately rewrite their literature and websites which state false and misleading statistics about personal violence, and in particular, men as overwhelmingly family violence perpetrators. They are not.
The data shows clearly that in the home, in the family,
98.5% of men are safe, law abiding, indeed loving, protective and caring husbands and fathers.
It should also lead to an immediate nation-wide reassessment of family relationship management and Family Law values.
But don’t hold your breath.
It's no wonder that feminists, the government and the mainstream media in Australia have been so quiet about the release of this new survey.
It exposes a huge raft of feminist baloney, lies and deceptions.
The silence also shows that the Government is deliberately frightening women.
The Government wants women to be frightened of men.
And the media is in the Government’s pocket.
Yes, the truth is out - and out there - somewhere.
But have YOU seen it? Have YOU heard it?
You have now.