Baiting
To understand the success of the DV movement in vilifying men as the sole perpetrators of Domestic Violence (DV) one must first understand the nature of bigotry. The DV movement’s justification of it’s single minded premise that men are the perpetrators of DV is the public’s willingness to accept a generalization about the nature of males. That generalization is men are by nature aggressive and unable to make choices which would cause them to rise above that nature. Every negative generalization has it’s positive generalization by implication. The flip side of that generalization is by implication that women are nurturers and therefore incapable of aggressive behavior.
The proof offered by DV advocates are the beatings of women by men, we have seen the pictures and the movies portraying men abusing women. What the DV advocates fail to say is that women commit DV not only against men and children but against other women as well. Herein lies the proof of the disingenuous intent by DV advocates, their silence and denial. They knowingly promote a policy of singling out people to vilify based on their genetic make up, i.e. gender. This is the core of bigotry embraced by the DV movement.
DV advocates teach women to become abusers by promoting "in your face" social relations with men as a means to "help them stand of their own". Aggressive behavior is covered up under the euphemism of assertiveness. Normal people know there is a difference between aggressive behavior and assertive behavior, dysfunctional people do not. When we look at the "DV wheel" illustration promoted to show examples of abusive behavior, the first and foremost thing conveyed is that men are the perpetrators and women are the victims. The DV wheel over simplifies and over dramatizes the defensive response against irresponsible and selfish behavior. When we begin to look deeper at the individual situations portrayed, one comes to realize that women are being told that abusive behaviors such as irresponsibility and selfishness are normal behaviors they are entitled to do as a demonstration of their independence as a person. If you empty your own checking account only you are affected, it is a different matter when someone else is involved. Emptying a joint checking account by spending the funds on yourself instead of considering the needs of the other person is irresponsible, selfish and abusive behavior.
By promoting the DV wheel, women are taught that irresponsibility and selfishness at the expense of others is normal behavior, yet when men do it, it is characterized as abusive behavior. The definition of abuse according to DV advocates is determined by the gender of the one doing the activity. When a woman acts, it assertive behavior, when a man acts, it is abusive behavior. Which brings us to the DV advocates use of baiting men to justify their bigoted belief system. By encouraging women to behave in the manner described, men are put in a defensive posture opposing the activity where it affects them. The act of defending oneself is characterized by DV advocates as abuse. Instead of counseling men to help them end the relationship with the woman, DV advocates encourage women to bait men by their behavior.
To illustrate baiting one needs only to look at the classical example of a chained dog repeatedly tormented by their captor with prodding of sticks and casting of stones. The response of the dog is understandable, the dog when given the opportunity it will lash out at the tormentor, especially when cornered. The tormentors then proclaim to justify their actions, see the dog is vicious and must be chained to protect every one! Women are taught that tormenting (irresponsible behavior) is their right as a "victim" . Thus begins a cycle of baiting and response, who is the abuser? Normal people know that it is the one who instigates a response by knowingly acting in such a manner as to get a response. DV advocates justify their bigoted policies based on the response of men reacting to baiting. Judges typically point to the anger response of the one being tormented (male) as their justification of Ex Parte’. DV advocates encouragement using the legal system in Ex Parte’ is just another form of baiting on an extreme scale.
The forcible removal of a person from their home, called Dispossession, is universally condemned as a human rights violation acknowledged the world over and has been recognized as such from ancient times as described in the Jewish Old Testament. The reason for this condemnation is irrefutable, the psychological damage from the stress inflicted on the person is enormous. It is tantamount to psychological rape. DV advocates deny the psychological effects upon men to cover up what they know to be a horrific violation of their ethical responsibility not to discriminate on the basis of genetic determination. A person placed under such stress is given to anger, rage and retaliation just as a chained dog would respond and DV advocates are not ignorant of this. Judges acknowledge that Ex Parte’ increases not decreases the incidence of DV. Now who is the abuser? Those that advocate baiting or those who respond to the baiting?
(Readers may reach Dan Scott at [email protected] )