|
Comments on feminist destruction of the family |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 24 February 2007 |
The real truth behind the feminist movement & the Domestic Violence figures they manipulate.From the comments section of an article in The Scotsman on women being denied
legal aid to deal with abusive partners.
Perhaps out of all of its failings this Government they more than any in history has been to undermine the traditional family, the fundamental building block of any civilised society.
Family law is in a mess in the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding claims by the courts and Government, family law is not gender neutral; statistics prove overwhelmingly that residency orders are invariably awarded in favour of the mother, indeed the behaviour of the mother has to be extreme to the extent of being obscene for the courts to take any other view. Residency orders in favour of the mother can be expected as a ‘standard’ in the English Family Courts. In addition to this we have the taxation system promoted by Mr. Brown in particular and the Labour Government in general that encourages separation and divorce because single mothers relying on state assistance are invariable better off than married persons. The status of the traditional family is further undermined by giving equal status to unmarried persons and same sex arrangements.
The feminist movement has been one of the most successful political movements in modern times and have contributed to our current circumstances in no small way. It is time to challenge the ‘all men are bastards’ attitudes of this vocal and vicious minority group. Some women closely associated with this movement are now in positions of power and have apparently influenced policy.
What are the objectives of the feminist movement? Where would they like to take us? It’s not about equality. If this movement genuinely wanted equality in (say) employment opportunity they would be applying pressures for courts to award residency to fathers in preference to mothers thus providing improved opportunities for women but no, they don’t want that. Their ‘utopia’ would seem to be that males should be the workers to earn the income that is passed to the state under circumstances where the state rather than the father becomes the provider by directing such income to women who may then use that income to place their children into the care of state financed institutions leaving them free to pursue the life styles of their choice even to the extent of treating their children as little more than adornments.
Patricia Hewitt, possibly the least competent Minister of Health in living memory has belittled mothers and home makers and encouraged them to consider themselves to be worthless beings. What rot! The role of mother and home maker is one of the most important roles that can be played in society for our wellbeing as a society depends to a considerable extent on their success in this role. Personally I have much more respect for a mother and home maker than I have for any politician male or female.
Pressure applied by the sisterhood with the assistance of Margaret Hodge, whose previous record in connection with the welfare of children is questionable, resulted in the introduction of a requirement of the family courts to record allegations of domestic violence. Not convictions, allegations will do! A judge in the secret family courts is required to determine the position on the basis of a ‘finding of fact’ i.e. one party says the coat is blue, the other party says it is red. The judge in a ‘finding of fact’ will agree that the coat is blue or red or may declare that the coat is yellow. In all cases is likely that the judge will err (as is encouraged) on the basis of ‘safety’ and will assume that the allegation indicates a reason to assume a risk to a child even where there is no supporting evidence to this effect. The accused party is not given the benefit of doubt but is required to prove (usually his) innocence. Consequently, in a sense the courts can become party to a form of child abuse by denying a child reasonable contact with a parent.
Tessa Jowell who chose to give up her family to spend more time with the government has given us increased binge drinking with associated violence and in now in the process of inflicting unlimited gambling upon that most people believe will add further problems and difficulties on our society.
Harriet Harman is a clever person who claims that the government is ‘supportive of the traditional family as providing for the best environment for raising children’ but who cannot refer to any Government legislation or action that has been supportive of the traditional family.
The sisterhood has possibly influenced CAFCASS and the ‘rule’ that identifies ‘quality time’. When considering contact arrangements CAFCASS will split child time into three elements:
1/ Sleeping time.
2/ Non quality time e.g. child at school.
3/ Quality time.
When considering contact time only the quality time is considered. By such a mechanism the contact time between a child and a non resident parent can be reduced. The concept of parental responsibility is promoted by the sisterhood who prefer not to consider parental duties and privileges. The starting position in the event of separation and divorce should perhaps be that the child continues to have an ongoing and meaningful relationship with both parents unless it can be demonstrated (not alleged) that there is a risk to the child. Both parents should share responsibility for the child and to carry out the duties of parenting and enjoy the privileges of parenting. In the interest of all concerned the duties and privileges may be surrendered by a parent but not the responsibilities. If this was to be the case then the child would as a matter of course spend 50% of their time with both parents.
When a child reaches an age of understanding then they of course must have a major influence in such matters but nobody should be able to influence the basic arrangement unless there is a demonstrable risk to the child.
The sisterhood has no problem in the selective use of statistics in the promotion of their aims and ambitions and has no hesitation in attacking individuals of any gender who bring their ideology into question. Domestic Violence is perhaps a good example.
Primarily due to natural gender differences women suffer to a greater degree than men from domestic violence. To that extent there is no dispute. However, the sisterhood make great play of the headline statistic to be found by reference to the 2005/06 British Crime Survey – HOSB 02/07 – Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/06. They will selectively use this report to promote the view that 28% or 29% of women suffer from domestic violence. Further they will dishonestly promote this headline statistic with images of badly battered women who represent a fraction of the 28%. Reference to the other statistics and tables shown in this report show a very different picture to that which the sisterhood would have us believe.
What the feminist movement does not tell us by reference to the same report:
a/ 17% of men included in the survey reported non sexual partner abuse.
b/ Last Year of those surveyed, 1.8% of women and 1.3% of men suffered from severe non sexual abuse from a partner and 1% of women and 0.6% of men suffered from family abuse of a non sexual nature.
c/ There have been large falls in numbers of both domestic and acquaintance violence. Between 1995 and 2005/06 domestic violence fell by 64% and acquaintance violence by 55%.
d/ Married men and women were at lower risk of most types of intimate violence whereas people who were single, separated or divorced were at higher risk.
e/ Young men and women reported higher levels of victimisation for intimate violence than those in older age groups. Young men in particular are at higher risk of all violent crime.
f/ Other issue that influence the risk of intimate violence include social / economic circumstances and the influence of alcohol.
Before the banshees of the sisterhood start screeching that we are in some way in favour of or otherwise support domestic violence let us make our position quite clear: We abhor violence and bullying in any form including bullying by zealot pressure groups with a twisted agenda. Violence should only be used as a last resort in the face of extreme provocation. We have no objections to harsh penalties being applied to those who bully or inflict unjustified violence on others. Drugs, excessive alcohol and violence including rape destroy the lives of innocents and should be robustly dealt with. This is nothing less than a vicious form of child abuse.
Reference to police statistics illustrates the possible influence of the sisterhood. Statistics for the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary illustrate that about 86% of those arrested for a domestic violence offence will be male. Of those, as little as 17% are actually charged. The D&CC are encouraged not to arrest both parties and there is evidence indicating that they will arrest on the basis of bear allegation and without any attempt to determine who the instigator of the incident might have been. This might be considered as being of little importance but the consequences of an arrest alone can have far reaching effects with regard to travel, employment and family life.
It seems that the cancer of their ideology may have seeped into the Social Services where we see cases where children removed from their parents under circumstances where there is no measurable risk to the children and on the basis of presumptions related to the IQ of the mother based upon some unknown and possibly invented formula. If the welfare of the children was the genuine concern of the Social Services in this case then surely they could have provided for the help and assistance that the mother had asked for in the first instance.
Erin Pizzey created the first women’s refuge. This brave and courageous woman provided for a vital service for women that is unfortunately still required in our society. Regretfully this vital facility has been hijacked by the sisterhood who have no hesitation in using it for propaganda purposes and for the promotion of their own agenda. I have never met Erin Pizzey but having read of her work and of the abuse that she has suffered from the sisterhood, my guess is that the major differences between them relates to the role of the family under circumstances where the sisterhood seek to destroy the family or are prepared to accept that consequence in the pursuance of their objectives while Erin recognises the importance of the family and the need to ensure that the family is supported in the interests of society as a whole.
The objective should be to make a refuge for women unnecessary, this might not be possible. However, more could be done to support families and to provide for assistance and guidance in support of the family. This may require the use of effective deterrents to persuade those who might otherwise resort to violence that collectively we do not approve of their behaviour and that we will not tolerate bullying or unnecessary violence in whatever form it takes.
Other statistics demonstrate that children from single parent units (by definition overwhelmingly mother headed single parent units) generally do less well at school and are more likely to become involved with drugs and criminality. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that the traditional family unit provides for the best structure for the benefit of society as a whole and children in particular.
If there was a genuine desire to reduce domestic violence then there would be encouragement and support for marriage and for the role of the mother / homemaker because all relevant statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate is that the traditional family provides for the best circumstances in the interests of the welfare of children and in reducing violence.
The Children Act was introduced by the previous Conservative Government and introduces the concept that the ‘welfare of the child is paramount’ an emotive slogan that would not attract much by way of opposition. However, the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. There is no evidence whatsoever that the welfare of children has been adequately provided for by the Children Act or by Family Law as currently practiced in this country. More children are suffering as a consequence of separation and divorce and it is time for a radical re think. Our proposal is that Family Law should be reviewed on the basis that the ‘welfare of the family is paramount’. All of the statistics associated with these issues indicate that that if the traditional family is supported and respected then the welfare of the children and society as a whole would benefit as a consequence.
Government policy has failed a generation of children and those children are becoming adults who, in the absence of knowledge other than there own experiences are likely to perpetuate and expand upon the existing problems. A desperate and urgent re think of our family law is now essential. This rethink should not be influenced by zealots who have contributed in no small part to our current circumstances.
Mike Ellis
Chairman: Charity “National Society for Children and Family Contact”.
|
Feminism 