Saturday, July 9, 2016

White Ribbon: Red Flag

Bad news came to the Tavern today. A lady, a good woman and welcome in our bars has received threats against her family for 'speaking out'. Like many these days speaking Truth leads to danger. In this instance it was not for most of the dozens of new subjects that incence the wicked but one that has arms that have for a long time been reaching deep into the taxpayer's pockets. 

Yes, it is Feminism. Specifically the domestic violence con they perpetrate that ensures a fine living for hundreds of main, paid players and for thousands of unpaid drones who 'feel good' by telling lie after lie.  And the beneficiary of the threats and on whose behalf they are made is none other than the White Ribbon hustlers. 
Against men and children is fine.
Jasmin Newman is the target du jour. They have no shame and will not stop with simply villifying half the population; they actually threaten and do harm to people. 

Her announcement provoked other customers to speak up, including Bettina Arndt, Julia M and Dr Augusto Zimmermann. We shall get to them soon

The White Ribbon organisation, funded by Federal Government and public donation gained from a long and deep con, has a 'main player' in the person of Dr Michael Flood. He is a Feminist, a public menace and no friend of Truth.  To White Ribbin the only perpertrators of violence are men and all men are implicated.  Except 'Dr' Flood of course., He is a good guy according to himself. You, on the other hand, are not.
Flood the GRUB.
Jasmin told us today: 
Due to the ongoing personal attacks on myself and my family I will now only be posting publicly on my pages, Relating To Men, Jasmin Newman and Destroy The Narrative.
These are blogs and facebook pages. 
I have never wanted to succumb to this harassment, and despite strong advice have resisted until now. As of today, however, they have stooped to all new lows targeting my children with their psychopathic tendencies.
I will not be accepting any new friend requests unless I know the individual personally or am introduced via PM from someone I know and trust.
Please like and follow my public pages for my thoughts, views and articles.
Thank you 
She does not mention Flood, as Bettina did, nor implicate him directly in the threats, but he is just one of many devastatingly vicious cronies who will stop at nothing to villify, threaten and lie about people who want only to bring Truth and facts to the table.  Such grubs, who are not welcome in the Tavern, directly and indirectly harm others and steal from the taxpayers. We will bring an illustration of the reason for the attacks in a moment. Not that it was unusual. But before she spoke in the Oz room, we heard  from a UK bar customer, Julia M. She spoke of a young fellow caught up in a vicious game of accusation and 'let's you and him fight'; a favourite Feminist game.
We Daren’t Mention The Pachyderm In The Parlour…
According to Smith, the incident that triggered Daniel’s arrest took place when he was visiting his father in Rushden, Northants, for the weekend. On the Saturday afternoon, while sitting in a local park Daniel, who according to his father is naturally friendly and talkative, allegedly approached two teenage girls and asked a couple of innocuous questions. 
One girl phoned her father claiming – wrongly, says Smith – that Daniel had been taking photos of the girls. The girl’s father told the police that he arrived “to sort him out for being weird,” says Smith.
Reeling and frightened from injuries after being punched to the ground, Daniel says in his written complaint: “I ran to the police station because I felt safe to do so. It was a major shock when I was handcuffed tightly so I could not move. I felt very scared and upset. I told the police I had autism. I wanted to speak to my Dad but I was not allowed to and my phone was taken. [No photos were found on his phone]. I felt no one was listening. When I was locked up, I held my head and cried. I felt like dying.”
To the usual suspects and single-issue campaigners, this is evidence of ‘disability hate crime’:
But it was not, of course. It was simply a 'male-hate' crime. 
The family’s complaint against Northants police is now being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). It outlines an alleged litany of egregious errors on the part of officers. These include a failure to recognise and act upon the fact that Daniel was mentally vulnerable, even after he explained twice that he had autism, or to investigate that he was the victim of a hate crime, not a perpetrator.
But…is it also not true that the police here have merely reacted as society has taught them to do? That ‘#IBelieveHer’ and ‘women never lie’ campaigns fought by the feminists have demanded that 
police never ever entertain the thought that a report of sexual assault is false.
Daniel wasn’t treated this way because he had a disability. He was treated this way because he had a penis.
It is so easy. A female simply has to 'feel' something, some male is 'wrong' and the full force of the Law in the form of burly chaps in uniform and weapons decends upon him. Rarely does anything happen to the thugs or the false accuser.  It is only a man after all.

So, back to Jasmin who had introduced Bettina.
Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon ~ final
The word is getting out and the ruse further exposed of the White Ribbon campaign in Australia. This  Guest Article by Bettina Arndt  published today.
For years now, all the key players in our well-orchestrated domestic violence sector have been singing from the same page, happily accepting government money to promote the idea that domestic violence is all about dangerous men terrorizing their partners. 
Malcolm Turnbull is on record boasting that the government is spending “hundreds of millions” of dollars on domestic violence – a tribute to the grip this powerful lobby group has on this country.
But now a few cracks are appearing. Recently an extraordinary article was published in The Daily Telegraph, written by Nina Funnell who has built her career on being a domestic violence “survivor.”
In her article entitled: “Why you should never give a cent to White Ribbon,” Funnell took issue with the suggestion that Eddie McGuire should be required to donate $50,000 to White Ribbon as penance for his remarks about Caroline Wilson. 
Funnell said that she and many other survivors won’t give a cent to White Ribbon which is just a “fundraising club that made some blokes and a whole lot of politicians feel good.”
It’s just a redemption industry, suggests Funnell. 
“The reality is that much of White Ribbon’s $3.7 million revenue is spent on self-congratulatory feel-good talk-fests and various other empty virtue signalling initiatives.”
Very little of the White Ribbon’s “sorry money” is spent on services like domestic violence shelters says Funnell who has served on the boards of organizations supporting the shelters.
Given that such shelters continue to cry poor, it’s about time someone asked where all Turnbull’s hundreds of millions are going. 
The answer is not just White Ribbon but the multitude of government-funded domestic violence organizations like OurWatch, DV Connect, ANROWS, Domestic Violence Victoria. The list is endless. 
What started out as a sensible campaign to raise money for an important cause – providing support for battered women – has morphed into a huge propaganda industry determined to promote a simplistic male-blaming perspective on this complex social issue.
Support for the shelters gets remarkably little attention from the powerful female bureaucrats running these thriving organizations which downplay statistics demonstrating women’s role in family violence and promote the myth that the only way to tackle domestic violence is through teaching misogynist men (and boys) to behave themselves. 
Never mind that this flies in the face of the huge body of research showing most family violence involves aggression from both partners and that sexist attitudes are not a major risk factor for DV in Western countries like Australia.
The femocrats face a herculean task denying the reality we see all about us about the real issues which underpin domestic violence in this country – including alcohol, mental illness and poverty. “Violence against women does not discriminate, regardless of ethnicity, social status and geography,” pronounced Natasha Stott Despoja, Chair of OurWatch, a lobby group receiving up to $ two million annually in government grants.
Oh yes it does, Natasha. 
'Politician' and grub
Just look at the neat little map produced by the NSW Bureau of Crimes Statistics showing prevalence of DV offences across the state. T 
he rate of domestic violence offences in Dubbo and Bourke is 60 times higher than Sydney’s North Shore or Eastern suburbs. 
The lobby groups keep themselves busy preparing fudged statistics and cherry-picked research findings to counter evidence produced by the few brave experts who still dare speak out about the damage being caused by this narrow perspective. 
Like Professor Jim Ogloff, a world-renowned researcher on violence who’s now in charge of research at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. Ogloff warned the Victorian Royal Commission that the message being conveyed to the public is too simplistic, that it is misleading to suggest DV is caused by patriarchal attitudes, that at least a third of family violence cases involve violent women, that the literature on family violence shows high levels of violence in both male and female partners and that the message should be that all violence in relationships is unacceptable, irrespective of gender.
Ogloff explained that the Victorian family violence sector feared that recognising other potential causes of violence could “cause a shift in funding away from programmes directed at gender inequity,” but he stressed it was wrong to focus exclusively on one aspect of abuse “when family violence involves a complex array of behaviours.” 
Ogloff’s sensible words were drowned out by the flood of propaganda from the industry and naturally sank without a trace in the final report.
There’s been an amusing post-script to the Nina Funnell article with CEO of White Ribbon Libby Davies leaping into print to say White Ribbon is more than a feel-good boys’ club. On the contrary White Ribbon is in the business of prevention, of “stopping violence before it occurs,” said Davies. And she spelt that out very clearly: 
“Our remit is to stop the violence at the source and the source is men.” 
That led to a fiery exchange with Tom Elliot on 3AW where he called her out on her “shameless, offensive lie” that the problem is all men.
That’s not the only lie, of course. White Ribbon is notorious for fudging statistics. 
I wrote last year about the blatant misrepresentation of research by the group’s head of researcher and policy Michael Flood, in particular the claim that [] per cent of boys thought it was ok to hit a girl. In fact that is the proportion who believe it is a big deal when a girl hits a guy – almost all young men say males hitting females is unacceptable, as Flood later acknowledged.
Nina Funnell’s objection to White Ribbon is that it does nothing to help survivors and allows dangerous men to make amends and excuse their own behavior. 
The real concern should be that so many good men have been hoodwinked into supporting a male-bashing organization which shows no interest in addressing the real causes of this worrying social issue.
And social issue it is. It deleteriously affects men directly and women less so - they are encouraged and are tempted and submit to the temptation to lie like Dicky Mint Trim Sheets. Most woman are implicated in that they do not speak up in defense of the truth, unlike the few who speak here and there.  And Dr Augusto Zimmermann spelled it out for us. He was quite full in his explanations so I pulled pints all around and sat to listen. May I suggest that you, too, be patient and see what he has to say. It goes over quite well known ground for those who have actually studied the issue, but is well worth repeating here for those who are less acquainted with it.
The Denial of Female Domestic Violence: 
Social and Legal Implications
You may have seen the campaign against domestic violence running on Australian television. These ads are part of a $30 million federal campaign designed ‘to help break the cycle of violence against women and their children’. 
Curiously, it seems to suggest that all of the perpetrators are strictly Caucasian males.
We must speak out loudly and clearly about domestic violence against women, but men and children are also victims of such violence. 
And yet, from the media reports, public inquiries and official campaigns one would be forgiven to believe that men are the sole perpetrators of domestic violence – and that all men are equally likely to carry out such acts of violence.
There is indeed the constant pressure of the feminist lobby to present domestic violence solely as a ‘male problem’, to place all the blame for domestic violence on men as a collective group. As a result of these misconceptions, and based on a radical feminist theory that addresses domestic violence primarily as a male issue that is predicated on so-called ‘patriarchy’, male victims are frequently met with disbelief, even suspicion, when they seek protection from a violent female partner.
We are all very much aware of this, as several voices at the back interjected. I placated them with drinks. 

‘the conceptualisation of domestic violence from a strict feminist viewpoint has hampered the ability of women who abuse of their male partners to seek and get help from social service and criminal justice systems.’
This might explain why crime surveys are so reluctant to estimate the number of male partners who sustain domestic violence. 
In general, instances of domestic violence against male partners are grossly underreported since men who sustain such violence are unlikely to seek help for these issues because of a reasonable fear that ‘they will be ridiculed and experience shame and embarrassment’. If they do overcome these internal psychological barriers, they still face numerous unfair external institutional barriers in seeking help from social services and the criminal justice system.
Compared to abused women, there are few social programs or non-profit organisations providing useful assistance to men who are the victims of domestic violence. Instead, male victims often experience external barriers when contacting these social services. When they locate the few resources that are specifically designed to accommodate the needs of male victims, hotline workers often infer that they must be the actual abuser and refer them to batterers’ programs.

Male victims of domestic violence also encounter greater animosity when contacting the police. For instance, male help seekers often report that when they call the police during an incident in which their female partners are violent, the police sometimes ‘fail to respond or take a report’. What is more, some men report ‘being ridiculed by the police or being incorrectly arrested and convicted as the violent perpetrator, even when there is no evidence of injury to the female partner’.
Further, male partners are far more likely to be arrested compared to their female counterparts, even when other factors including previous arrests are taken into account. Finally, a study in the United States revealed that men face harsher legal ramifications post-arrest: 85 per cent of violent men were arrested and prosecuted by the police compared to only 53.5 per cent of violent women.
Within the judicial system, men who are victims of domestic violence are often treated unfairly solely because of their gender. 
Indeed, male partners who make claims of domestic violence face a hostile system, which is far less sympathetic in its treatment of abused men. This is an area in which the so-called ‘general paradigm’ has caused serious problems of undeniable injustice. 
In the United States, even with apparent corroborating evidence that their female partners were violent, male help-seekers frequently report that they have lost custody of their children and have been falsely accused by their female partners of violence and of sexually abusing their children. As professors Denise A. Hines (Psychology) and Emily M. Douglas (Social Policy) point out,
.....Male help-seekers have reported that their complaints concerning their female partners’ violence have not always being taken seriously, yet their partner’s false accusations have reportedly been given serious weight during the judicial process (Cook 1997). Other men have reported similar experiences in which their female partners misused the legal or social service systems to inappropriately block access between them and their children or to file false allegations with child welfare services. (Hines et al 2007). According to some experts, the burden of proof for IPV [i.e.; intimate partner violence] victimization is high for men because it falls outside of our common understanding of gender roles (Cook, 1997); this can make leaving a violent female partner that much more difficult.
For example, many men who sustained IPV report that they stayed with their violent female partners in order to protect the children from their partner’s violence. The men worried that if they left their violent wives, the legal system could still grant custody of the children to their wives and that perhaps even their custody rights would be blocked by their wives as a continuation of the controlling behaviors of their wives used during the marriage (McNeely et al, 2001)......
Since the 1980s more than 200 academic studies have demonstrated that, despite the common assertion, most of partner violence is mutual. Professor Linda Mills of NYU Law School is currently the Principal Investigator of National Science Foundation and National Institute of Justice, which focus on treatment programs for domestic violence offenders. The studies involve a randomized controlled trial examining and comparing batterer intervention and alternative treatment approaches for domestic violence offenders. According to Professor Mills, ‘when it comes to intimate abuse, women are far from powerless and seldom, if ever, just victims”. Like men, she explains, ‘women are frequently aggressive in intimate settings and … [t]he studies show not only that women stay in abusive relationships but also that they are intimately engaged in and part of the dynamic of abuse’.
By contrast, those [that is, the academics on the feminist gravy-train] who deny the empirical evidence showing gender symmetry in the context of domestic violence often resort to unacceptable tactics. This includes ‘concealing those results, selective citation of research, stating conclusions that are the opposite of the data in the results section and intimidating researchers who produced results showing gender symmetry’.
In this sense, the Australian government is objectively wrong to regard domestic violence as a solely male problem. 
The Prime Minister seems quite eager to believe in the radical feminist ideological postulate that women do not and would never resort to violent behaviour against their male partners. This assumption is derived from a view that domestic violence is an issue of power and control of which only men in a so-called ‘patriarchal system’ are capable.
What then of all the reports of numerous women (both mothers and wives) involved in the most appalling acts of domestic violence? There are numerous facts that simply do not support the argument of violence as primarily a male problem. 
The reality is that anyone, regardless of gender, can become a victim or perpetrator of domestic violence. According to criminologist Paul B. Kidd, ‘of the thirty-two recognised cases of serious murder in modern times in Australia, nine of the killers were women – or around 33 per cent – with only two of those case in tandem with a male. This means that seven female serial killers acted entirely on their own, without the excuse of alleged influence of a male encouraging them to commit unspeakable acts’.
As can be seen, the ‘gender paradigm’ stereotype that portrays domestic violence solely in terms of violence against women and children cannot be confirmed by the most reliable data available, which presents a very different picture. 
In the United States, an emergency clinic study in Ohio found that burns obtained in domestic relations were as frequent for male victims as for female victims, and that 72 per cent of men admitted with injuries from spousal violence had been stabbed. Likewise, at an emergency clinic in Philadelphia male patients reported having been kicked, bitten, punched or chocked by female intimate partners in 47 per cent of cases.
"He tries to understand my side of the argument. He talks to me rather than hits me. I still hit him, however. I would like to enrol in a class in anger management, but the shelter for battered women does not help women with this problem".
Unfortunately, however, an important study has found that emergency clinics tend to ask only women, but never men, about potential domestic violence origins for injuries. This may be a natural consequence of the cornerstone of mainstream feminist theory that domestic violence is primarily motivated by ‘patriarchal control’. 

According to Adam Blanch, a psychologist and family counsellor working in Melbourne, Australia, ‘only a very small percentage of domestic violence is found to be motivated by control’. As he points out, reliable studies have discovered that ‘control’ is a motive for both men and women in equal proportions, and Dr Blanch also reiterates that ‘an extraordinarily large body of evidence consistently shows that most domestic violence is committed by both women and men and is motivated by feelings of revenge, frustration and anger’. Thus, he concludes that women are no less violent than men, although women’s violence against their partners is notoriously unreported because men rarely report violence against them.
Perhaps it is not surprising, given the ideological construct of the problem, that domestic abuse against men is so significantly under-reported. As Hines and Douglas comment in their seminal study on women’s use of domestic violence against men, ‘the conceptualisation of domestic violence from a strict feminist viewpoint has hampered the ability of women who abuse of their male partners to seek and get help from social service and criminal justice systems.’ Women who resort to domestic violence, these two female scholars inform, face considerable barriers when seeking help within the current social service system. The following quote exemplifies the experience of one of these abusive women:
Frequently men do not conceptualise the physical violence they sustain from their female partners as a ‘crime’. Indeed, studies in the field indicate that men are considerably reluctant to report assaults by women, ‘even when severe injuries result’. This reluctance is prevalent among male domestic partners, perhaps because they are expected to be physically dominant. It follows, therefore, that admitting to sustaining violence from a female partner may be viewed as ‘emasculating’. Further, when domestic violence is conceptualised as a ‘crime’ in these surveys, women are significantly less likely to report their own use of violence. Some research reveals that women fail to report as much as 75 per cent of their own use of violence. According to Professor Donald G. Dutton and Dr Katherine R. White,
One reason that intimate partner violence toward men is underestimated is that men are less likely to view [domestic violence] as a crime or to report it to police. Men have been asked in survey if they had been assaulted and if so, had they reported it to police. In a 1985 survey, less than 1% of men who had been assaulted by their wife had called police (Stets & Straus, 1992). In that same survey men assaulted by their wife were less likely to hit back then were wives assaulted by their husband. Men were also far less likely to call a friend or relative for help (only 2%) … 
Historically, men who were victims of assault by their wives were made into objects of social derision. … 
Men are socialized to bury problems under a private veil, including being the object of abuse from female partners … Either the women are bragging or the men are in denial, or both.
Surely, men can also be victims of violence and those who sustain such violence from their domestic partners face numerous obstacles when encountering the social service and criminal justice systems. Unfortunately, however, male victims struggle to locate anti-domestic violence services to assist them since help lines or shelters are generally targeted towards female victims. Moreover, male victims often report not only that their complaints concerning their female partners’ violence have not being taken seriously, but that they have even lost custody of their children as a result of malicious accusations of violence and/or sexually abusing their children by what are commonly the female abusers themselves. And research also indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that fatherless children are particularly vulnerable to becoming the victims of domestic violence by their mothers and the mothers’ boyfriends.
To conclude, female domestic violence is a phenomenon that has received little attention within the media, academia and the political elite. Despite this lack of attention, for nearly four decades research has shown that men are frequently the targets of domestic violence by their female partners. It is therefore time to abandon the sexist (and racially biased) paradigm that has dangerously hijacked the domestic violence debate, and to correct all the injustices caused by the politicisation of a tragic reality that affects countless adults and children, male and female alike.
 Dr Augusto Zimmermann, I should add, comes well acknowledged. He is 
LLB, LLM (cum laude), PhD (Mon.), Law Reform Commissioner, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia; Director of Postgraduate Research, Murdoch University School of Law; Professor of Law (adjunct), The University of Notre Dame Australia – Sydney; President, Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA); Fellow, International Academy for the Study of the Jurisprudence of the Family (IASJF); Recipient of the Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research 2012, Murdoch University.

With a list after his name as long as that it did not surprise me that he consumed a large amount of my fine ale.

Drink up yourselves and take note of just how high the stink rises. And the insult.


1 comment:

  1. I assure you I shall never give a penny to white ribbon.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..