Thursday, 18 August 2011

Reforming the laws on domestic violence

Reforming the laws on domestic violence

As well as reforming the “rape” laws, another area of law that needs to be completely changed is “domestic violence.” Under the present pro-feminist laws, “domestic violence” is defined so widely that almost anything a man says or does could be called “domestic violence” or “spousal abuse.”

The present laws are totally unfair to men and more or less a license for girls to do whatever they like. In the first place, they start from the false assumption that the majority of victims of domestic violence are female and the majority of abusers are men. Actually the figures from police reports and other sources show that it’s really the other way round. Mostly it’s the girls who are the aggressors and men who are the victims of domestic violence.

Even when females make complaints about spousal abuse, in most cases it’s actually them who are the aggressors and the men who were the victims of female violence. 

Let’s look at some specific ways in which the present pro-feminist laws are unfair. If you raise your voice to a girl, she can have you arrested for “domestic violence.” The US Justice Department defines domestic violence as including “extreme jealousy and possessiveness,” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” Men are routinely put into American prisons for such “crimes” even without having had a trial. Females are allowed to admit in court that they are lying and yet receive no sort of punishment for doing so. Lawyers routinely advise them on how to make up totally false accusations of “domestic violence” and the girl’s word is always taken regardless of the evidence. A judge in New Jersey even had the nerve to tell his fellow judges “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you’re violating.” The New Jersey laws openly admit they ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove his innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove his guilt.

There are also so-called “integrated domestic violence courts,” where not only is the man’s guilt presumed but his property can be seized even if he is not found guilty or even formally charged. He can have this type of “decision” against him even if he’s not there to defend himself or refute the accusations.

In Pennsylvania, things are even worse. There, men can be imprisoned without trial until they sign confession forms stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if he insists that he did NOT commit any kind of abuse, he is still made to “describe” the “violence” he used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, a completely innocent man can be held in prison indefinitely until he confesses to a crime that he didn’t commit, just to satisfy the vengeance of a partner and in the interests of feminist lies.

So how can we reform this crazy and unfair system? There are basically three options we can choose. One is to go down the “gender equality” road and treat men and women as equally capable of violence, subject to the same penalties if they’re found guilty, the burden of proof being on the prosecution rather than the defence, and false accusations being punished by giving the accuser the same sentence the perpetrator would have got if they’d been found guilty.

Another is to redefine domestic violence so that ONLY physical abuse can be looked on as a crime. All the complaints about nagging, jealousy and so on would be totally outside the scope of the law.

Then there’s the masculist approach. This comes in two forms, one just to abolish the offence altogether and redefine it as a victimless crime. On this approach, masculism argues that a man possesses the “absolute and unfettered right to use “all reasonable methods of control, education, and punishment to maintain discipline over all the female members of his household.” The crime of “domestic violence” will be struck from the statute book and reclassified as “the necessary maintenance of discipline over the lazy, recalcitrant, rude, dishonest, feckless or any otherwise unsatisfactory attitudes or behaviour displayed by female members of a household.”

That approach would mean that no man could ever be arrested, brought to trial or imprisoned for domestic violence. On the other hand, it doesn’t deal with the question of how we should deal with female violence.

What sort of behaviour by a female would be looked on as being “domestic violence” under masculist philosophy? Radical masculists believe that the answer is to turn the existing feminist legislation on its head, partly as a deserved punishment for feminists and partly just because they want to show girls how inferior they are to men and how much a gentleman can make them suffer if he wants to.

It does agree with moderate masculists that “domestic violence” by men should no longer be a crime and instead should be officially reclassified as only “domestic discipline.” On the other hand, it wants to make it possible to punish females who step out of line.

The radical masculists suggest a number of legal reforms but as some of them overlap with a wider field of reforms to “family law” I’ll deal with them when I post on that subject. Specifically in terms of the question of domestic violence, they argue that what’s needed is not just to change the definitions to make “domestic violence” the legal and legitimate act of “domestic discipline” by a man but also to turn the existing laws on their head.

They want it laid down in law that a man can NEVER be guilty of “domestic violence” and that whatever he does is only “domestic discipline” to keep the woman in check and under control. So far, all masculist thinkers agree on decriminalising the existing law on male “domestic violence” and just making it the legal act of justified and praiseworthy “domestic discipline” by a man against an uppity girl.

No crime at all there, then; only just, fair and thoroughly well-deserved punishment or education for females!

On the other hand, radical masculists want the domestic violence laws to be kept on the statue books. From now on, though, only females could ever be found guilty of that crime and, of course, punished severely for it.
They suggest adopting a combination of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania models in terms of the way the crime should be handled but this time, instead of men having to be on the receiving end, only females would be subject to what radical masculists call “the tough justice programme for female abusers.” They’ve also adapted some of the existing child abuse laws in the United States to strengthen the legal framework when it’s dealing with a girl accused of domestic violence.

Here is how their proposals for changes in the law would work.

To begin with, the law will now say that if a girl raises her voice to a man, he can have her arrested for domestic violence. The Supreme Court will define domestic violence as including not only physical abuse but “jealousy” “possessiveness,” “name calling” “criticizing her partner,” “nagging and scolding,” “raising her voice,” “making faces or other insulting gestures,” “inappropriate laughter or smiling,” “threatening facial expressions,” “unreasonable attitudes,” and “a general demeanour of aggression and violence.”

Domestic violence would be divided into two parts, “active aggression” and “passively aggressive behaviour.” Physical violence by a girl and the other things mentioned above would all be classed as “active aggression” on her part and would attract a more severe level of punishment than “passive aggressive behaviour.”

Passive aggression would be defined as “lack of consideration,” “lack of sensitivity,” “lack of enthusiasm,” “laziness,” “lack of respect,” “not praising her partner,” “ingratitude towards him” and “a failure to remind him continually of his own superiority to her.”

New Female Abuse Courts would be set up in which the girl’s guilt would automatically be presumed unless she could conclusively demonstrate her innocence; her money, property or other assets could be seized even if she is not guilty or even not formally charged; and these judgements can be made against her even if she is not there to defend herself or dispute the charges against her.

Judges in these courts will be guided by the masculist principles that “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the girl you’re violating.” They will also ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The ENTIRE burden of proof will rest on the defendant to prove her innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove her guilt.

Even if the girl gets to the Female Abuse Court, she won’t be allowed to have a lawyer to defend herself; she won’t be allowed to know what the evidence against her is; she won’t be allowed to know the “specifics” of the charges against her, only that she’s accused of domestic violence; she won’t be allowed to cross-examine witnesses or dispute the testimony they give; she isn’t allowed to call any witnesses on her behalf; hearsay evidence is admissible against her; syndrome evidence will be admissible against her (see more on that in a minute); she has no right to confront her accuser; she has no right to dispute any of the testimony or evidence against her; and she has no right to produce any evidence of her own to dispute the prosecution’s case.

She’ll be compelled to take the stand; compelled to testify even if what she says incriminates herself or might do so; forced to answer leading questions by counsel; constantly interrupted, contradicted and generally browbeaten while she gives her testimony; reminded constantly that she is under oath and that perjury carries an automatic two-year prison term with hard labour; reminded that a full confession by her of her abuse of her partner will lead to a lesser sentence and that therefore it’s in her own best interests to be “honest” and “confess” rather than “lie to the court” in a “futile attempt to deny her aggressive and violent behaviour” against her “abused partner.”

In a domestic violence case, the man doesn’t have to appear in court to face the defendant. He can give his testimony through a videotape made by the prosecution which is valid as evidence and can’t be challenged by the female defendant. Even a simple written statement by him will be accepted in court as “sufficient evidence” of abuse. In domestic violence cases an “outcry” witness can also give hearsay evidence against the girl which is always admissible and regarded as clear “evidence of guilt.” Again, their testimony can’t be disputed by the girl.

“Syndrome Evidence” is where an expert witness testifies that the man is suffering from “female domestic abuse syndrome” (FDAS). This is a theory put forward by masculist psychologists which states that if a man behaves in a certain way it’s because he’s a victim of domestic abuse. By using syndrome evidence, that state doesn’t have to provide any proof of abuse. If the man shows certain “patterns of behaviour” then he was obviously a victim of domestic abuse. If he cries or shouts then he must have been abused; if he has nightmares, he must have been abused. If he is silent or withdrawn, he must have been abused. If he’s loud or extraverted, he must have been abused; if the man is happy in the presence of his female partner, it’s either because he’s afraid of her or the girl has managed to “condition” him to “enjoy” the abuse. 

The new laws would lay down that there was no need to produce any sort of physical evidence of abuse. The testimony of expert witnesses, not just in FDAS but other areas of “gender medicine” in which doctors, nurses and other health workers specialise are enough to convict a female defendant of domestic violence. They will give their expert opinion that a man HAS been abused by his female partner. In particular their opinion that the man’s “behaviour” or “symptoms” are “consistent with domestic violence” will be regarded as “overwhelming proof of guilt.” Just on the basis of testimony from these “gender medicine” specialists, girls can be found guilty without any other evidence against them.

The average time of the hearings in the Female Abuse Courts is between five to fifteen minutes. During the course of that brief trial, girls can be sentenced to months or years in prison. And there’s no right of appeal by the girl against her sentence.

And, of course, that’s once it GETS to a Female Abuse Court. Girls can simply be arrested and held in prison without trial until they sign a confession form stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if she insists that she did NOT commit any kind of abuse, she is still made to describe the violence she used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, the girl can now be held in prison indefinitely until she confesses to her crimes.
Only if the girl makes a full confession of her guilt or her male partner petitions the Female Abuse Court to bring her before them for judgement will she finally be brought to trial. Until then she’ll be held in prison indefinitely. Radical masculists expect a nearly 100% confession rate as a result of these reforms!

If she’s confessed then the court will just rubber-stamp her guilt and decide on a sentence; if she’s still refusing to confess and her male partner has brought her before the court she’ll get a much MORE severe sentence when (as she almost inevitably will be) she gets found guilty than if she’d just confessed in prison.

Sound like a fair way to reform the laws so the feminists get what they dished out to men?


  1. Your approach goes a long way to ending the current, biased domestic violence laws that are tilted way in favor of the female. I like your view that females have virtually no right in court. There are so many phony claims by females today of "domestic abuse". Your proposal would pretty much end any phony claims. And females, knowing that they could be accused of abuse for virtually any form or insuordination, would be much better behaved and subservient to their owners.

    While you may be worthless, you are very astute and you understand the true nature of males and females.

  2. Helping sluts see the light:

  3. i don't think you need to put the word 'female' into the law or court name. If it will not be a crime for men to do these things, then it goes that only females can be perpetrators, so no need to specify that. Having a 'female abuse court' gives the impress their is a male abuse court.

    i also don't think you need to turn the tables and do to females what we have been doing to men. females are stupid and irrational creatures anyway. It would seem to be beneath men to lower themselves to the same behaviour.

    In all honesty, i don't see the need for a passive aggressive law. Men would take care of these sorts of behaviours themselves with domestic discipline. And i doubt you would have domestic violence on the books for very long, as soon as a female raised her fist to a man, he would take all reasonable steps to stop her and that would pretty much be an end to that.

  4. I say we just go for the equalist approach and don't perpetuate the cycle of retaliation

  5. I don't see it as a 'cycle of retaliation;' I see it that the head of the household has a legitimate right to discipline his wife/partner/girlfriend if she steps out of line or displeases him.