Manningham News

At the October 29, 2013 meeting, Manningham Council again raised the issue of the Prevention of Violence Against Women and presented a document called "Manningham Prevention of Violence Against Women Strategy and Action Plan 2013/2017".

Confusing Data.

On page 11 there is a table which shows the incidence of 'Family Violence'

Note that this table is not about 'Violence against Women', but rather of 'Family Violence'. These two things are not the same.

Family Violence would include all types of behavior considered 'violent' perpetrated in a family setting. It would include boys coming to fist-i-cuffs, girls having fights and shouting matches, fathers and mothers smacking their children and any other behavior that academics and bureaucrats in our government would choose to categorize as 'Family Violence'. On the other hand violence against women is violence against only certain people and not necessarily in a family setting. As you can see 'Family Violence' is not the same as 'Violence against women'.

According to this table, there is one incident of 'Family Violence' per 233 people in Manningham in 2011/12. And one incident per 110 people across the state in 2011/12.

When you consider that 'Family Violence' includes boys and girls fighting, parents disciplining children, and so on, don't these numbers seem a bit low? I would have thought that there would be a higher incidence of these types of incidents.

Could it be possible that we are actually a far more civil society than is being presented to us by academics, bureaucrats and media?

Here is another concern. Why did Manningham council include a table that is clearly titled 'Family Violence', in a document that addresses 'Violence against Women'. Incidents of Family Violence will always be different to and many would say higher than incidents of Violence against Women. This is because 'Violence against women' would largely be a one aspect of Family Violence.

Could it be that Manningham council sought to alarm us by presenting us with the larger 'Family Violence' numbers? Did they think that no one would spot the subtle difference?

If this table really shows the incidence of men physically assaulting women, as Manningham Council seem to want us to think, then it would be cause for alarm. It is saying that for approximately every 233 people who live in Manningham, then one women or girl somewhere is being physically beaten or bashed. That would be a concern for the fathers and husbands in Manningham. But that is not what it is saying.

Misleading Definition of Violence.

If you look further down on this web site you will find an article titled 'Spending money on questionable programs' where I go into detail of what researchers and academics mean by the word violence in this context. I looked at three academic papers I downloaded from a government website and examine how they define violence. What follows refers, in part, to those downloaded academic papers.

First how does Manningham Council defines violence against women?

"Violence against women - intimate partner violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, controlling behaviors, stalking and financial abuse, and not feeling safe in public open spaces/walking at night time." (Draft Manningham Community Safety Plan 2013 – 2017, page 12)

So if a woman feels frightened or unsafe in a public place, then that is regarded as an act of 'violence'. If a husband feels that he needs to exercise some restraint over his wife's spending, then that also is an act of 'violence'. And if a husband wants to know where his wife is going, then that also is an act of 'violence'. Note that no one has been physically assaulted in any of these events. There has been no hitting, striking, or anything of the like.

Now consider this. If an elderly person were to feel afraid or unsafe in a public place, is that also recorded as an act of violence against the elderly? Or if a child feels frightened or unsafe in a public place, is that also recorded as an act of child abuse? Off course not. The people who publish these reports on 'Violence Against Women' have expanded the definition of 'violence' so much, so that it is becoming rather silly.

However, by expanding the definition of 'violence', you increase the number of events that are regarded as violence, and so your numbers and statistics will be correspondingly larger.

Are these researchers and academics trying to alarm ordinary people with their inflated numbers? Numbers that no sensible person would consider realistic. I think what they are doing is not so much science or proper research but rather using the mantle of 'science' to push their own agendas. It appears they are twisting the meaning of words inflate their statistics and then hope to alarm ordinary people and use these big numbers to push their programs through. This is more like political activism than real science.

And it is not just Manningham Council doing this.

I downloaded some research papers on this topic from a government website. This government website aims to provide an 'academic underpinning' to this area of study. However, these academic researchers also do the same thing.

On page 5 of "Domestic Violence in Australia – an overview of the issues" by Liesl Mitchell, the definition of the word 'violence' is broadened even further. Under the heading of "Prevalence and types of violence" she says:

"The Australian component of the IVAWS in 2002–03 employed a broader definition of violence, measuring physical violence (including threats), sexual violence (including unwanted sexual touching) and psychological violence (including controlling behaviors such, as put downs and keeping track of whereabouts)."

At least Liesel Mitchell admits that the definition of violence is being 'broadened'.

But is a 'put down' and act of violence? It it is, then politics, journalism, literary criticism, film criticism and many other occupations, must be arenas of rampant violence.

And is keeping track of whereabouts an act of violence? My wife often asks our 23 year old daughter where she is going. She does this because she is concerned about her not because she wants to inflict any harm. So is this an act of violence against women or is it only an act of violence if I were to ask her?

Note that Liesl Mitchel's report quotes a 'broader' definition of violence. However Liesl Mitchell is not critical of the definition she quotes. Instead, she goes on to use results based on that definition.

You would think that a good researcher would be careful and critical when it comes to the definition of terms, especially when these terms form the basis of their research and results. I would have expected a researcher to be critical of this stretching of the definition of the word 'violence' and use a more reasonable definition. But Liesl Mitchell does neither. She defines violence as:

"emotional abuse—blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, undermining the victim’s self-esteem and self-worth through comparisons with others, withdrawing interest and engagement and emotional blackmail" (page 2.)

Liesl Mitchell is of the view that  it is predominantly men who do these things to women. 

Let us pause for a moment here.

I wonder. Do women also do these things to men?

What do you think men?

Off course they do, probably more so than men doing these things to women. There appears to be a large amount of 'projection' going on here.

I think a good researcher would be careful to 'unpack' what is going on. For instance instead of labeling these events with the catch-all definition of 'violence', there are other things that at play here. For instance there could be a large amount of manipulative behavior and immaturity at work. Such things should probably be treated separately since they most likely would go both ways in a relationship. Also motive is a very important factor that does not seem to be considered. For example, there can be very good reasons for a husband wanting to restrain the spending of a wife who has difficulty managing money. There can be very good reasons for wanting to know where a young girl is going.

Instead of making careful distinctions as most good researchers do, all these actions are painted with the broad brush of 'Violence' and added into the statistics.

Also there are many other issues at work here that need to be considered separately. For instance. Many of these incidents of 'violence' come down to simply how the researcher sees them or chooses to interpret them, how the actions are done and how a person responds to them. One problem is that there will always be people who will not like such things regardless of how they are done and regardless of the motive.

But such things are not considered. This is not good science. In fact, I think most people would not see this as science at all.

Such sloppy work has a potential for long term harm.

It appears that these academic papers do not provide a proper academic underpinning as they hope. Instead their unreasonable and broadened definition of 'violence' has the effect of pouring oil on a fire, and making a difficult family situation a whole lot worse.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean. Instead of identifying sensible and responsible ways to manage family finances, they give reason for a immature or headstrong person to say any steps taken in this area are an act of 'violence'.

Instead of encouraging people to find sensible ways to find out where family members are in these sometimes dangerous times, they give an immature or headstrong person reason to call any action in this area an act of violence.

And to make matters worse, academics then go and teach these ideas to headstrong and immature people at our universities under the heading 'women`s studies'.

And please do not think that young university people have the maturity to deal with these distortions.

A few years back I was part of a group discussion with some young people attending Swinburne. One girl in particular was visibly ill at ease, distracted and upset by what she was being taught in these 'womens studies' lectures. No matter what topic came up in our discussions, she always brought the discussion back to the women's issues that were on he mind and that quite visibly upset her.

To me at least, it appeared that what she was being taught had disturbed and distressed her. She appeared to be at war with everything. What we were discussing had almost nothing to do with the women's issues that she desperately wanted to talk about. Other Swinburne students were embarrassed by what she was doing and saying. It was very sad to see this. I had the impression that it may be many years before time, experience and calm reflection undoes the harm her lecturers had done with their distorted and twisted views.

Pushing the Feminist Agenda.

Let me now explain what researchers see as a primary cause for this 'violence against women'.

'Gender Inequity – The unequal distribution of power between men and women. Gender inequity is the most significant contributing factor to levels of safety and well being experienced by women, common across all societies and cultures.' "Manningham Prevention of Violence Against Women Strategy and Action Plan 2013/2017" page 3.

'... also focus on the structural, cultural and societal contexts in which violence occurs. Additionally strategies that address underlying causes of violence against women (such as gender inequity and poverty) are also primary prevention strategies.' Page 3.

These researchers (and Manningham Council) believe that because a woman does not have the same power or influence as a man in the home or society, this is a major cause of violence against women. These researchers want to drive community change in this area so that in the home and elsewhere, women have the same power as men. Even the Manningham council's report it says the Violence against women program seeks to 'embed and drive cultural change'. Page 5)

Gender equality has been the aim of the feminist movement from the beginning. Feminists have never liked what they see as 'an unequal distribution of power between men and women' and have battled against it for years.

Where we find ourselves today, is that this Feminist agenda has now become incorporated into our government policy. And government itself, at the Federal, State and Local levels, push this agenda using our tax money.

It is interesting to note the stealth by which this came about. What started out as a government program to prevent 'family violence' has morphed over time into a program to prevent 'violence against women' and a program to push 'gender equality' through our society.  In short, a sensible and relevant government program against 'Family Violence' was hijacked over time by activists and feminists to push their own agenda.

Topics that were of no use to Feminists, were left by the wayside.

The study of Family violence is many-sided. It includes violence against men and against women and violence against children and the elderly. Some may say that violence perpetrated by women against men is insignificant. But all you need to do is a Google search on 'Women Charged', and similar to see that this is not the case at all.  [However, you need to bear a few things in mind. First is the very broad definition of violence used by people collating statistics of 'violence against women'. The second is the reluctance by our news media to report certain events because of political correctness. There are often more insightful and detailed sources of information other than our domestic newspapers.]

But this many sided nature of 'Family Violence' was of no use to the feminist agenda. Academics started to say that they did not like this definition of family violence. They said that because most violence in the home was perpetrated by men against women, the area of study should only focus on 'Violence against Women'. When this change in focus became established, the violence of women against men and others was no longer a topic for study and soon vanished. With the focus on 'Violence against Women' only, the feminist policy of gender equality was introduced.

Does gender inequality reduce violence against women?

Gender equality has become a major assumption and policy direction behind the 'violence against women' program. But is what they say true? Will gender equality reduce violence against women? If women achieve 'gender equality' in the community with men, will violence against women be dramatically reduced or disappear?

Could you please go to YouTube and type 'girl fights' or 'women fights' into the search box and click search.

Here you will see literally thousands of videos (especially for 'girl fights') of women and girls who have abandoned all vestiges of traditional feminine behavior and have fully embraced gender equality and now behave like men.

And it is not just one group of girls and women. There are black girls, white girls, asian girls. There are young girls and older women. Rich and poor girls. American, Canadian, Russian, Mexican, Australian, African, Indonesian, Italian girls.

And what are they doing? Flailing away at each other like maniacs. Pulling hair (sometimes pulling it out), punching, kicking, wrestling, pounding each others head into the pavement. Sometimes the videos are taken from Television shows where women are encouraged to start violent brawls. Sometimes there are two or three girl fights going on in the one video. Sometimes all you see is girls, some fighting, others encouraging them, some refereeing.

And there are videos where the girls verbally abuse each other before they come to blows. They scream words at each other like: slut, whore, bitch, cow before they come to blows and beat each other senseless. It's all there for everyone to see and hear. Original, unedited, primary evidence.

I think many would agree that this type of violence is far worse than what researchers and feminists sweep up in their broadened definition of violence. This is real violence. And there are thousands of videos like this.

It is true that there are men in many of these videos. Sometimes the boys referee, sometimes they cheer them on, often they laugh. Often they try to break up the fight. Nearly always they video the fight.

But the women and girls can be seen to start the fights and it is the issues that the girls have between them that cause the fights. What we are seeing is female rage, female revenge and female grudges. The girls have issues before they start fighting. The fights are over iPhones, boys, lies, insults, and so on.

This is the wonderful world of gender equality.

This is what happens when women achieve the 'gender equality' the feminists are so keen about. This is what happens when women start acting and thinking like men. Women debase themselves and behave like hooligans.

On the other hand, the type of violence that researchers and feminists talk about is typically not physical violence of any sort, but rather their 'violence' often simply women getting upset over something or getting their 'noses out of joint'.

What gender equality brings is real, physical violence. This is the kind of violence where women beat each others brains out. This is what most of us would call violence. This is physical contact where often blood flows.

Feminists have been encouraging women over the years to put aside traditional feminine behavior and instead act like men. And this is where this leads. Women start fighting like men, swearing like men and generally doing a lot of swaggering and threatening with plenty of real hard hitting violence to go with it.

Some may say that this has not reached Australia. But there are videos of Australian girl fights. Also we need to bear in mind when videos of girls fighting are posted on Youtube by Australian students, the schools and media howl in outrage and pressure students to take such videos down. This is probably why the videos of girls fighting in Australia are not as common as they are overseas.

It is interesting to note that Leisl Mitchell comments: "violence perpetrated by young women, usually against young women, is increasing." - Domestic violence in Australia - an overview of the issues, p10. It is also interesting to note that she does not explore the reasons for this but simply states this fact.

Just who is trivializing an important social problem?

These are the facts, documented by thousands of videos that everyone can see.

What I am doing is pointing out the false assumption behind the 'prevention of violence against women' program and the false assumptions behind gender equality.

Gender equality brings it's own violence, a real violence.

What the activists define as 'violence' is really a non-violent 'violence' where women get upset over something. Their violence is more an issue of personal maturity and dealing with the everyday issues of life.

What these researchers and feminists are bringing to our shores is far worse that the non-violent 'violence' they complain about. What they are bringing is a real violence, where women behave like hoodlums. 

It is feminists and researchers who are trivializing the problem. They have hijacked a real social problem to use as a vehicle for their own feminist agenda. They are misleading the public with false definitions and drummed up statistics. They are twisting and distorting the issues for their own advantage.

Is Poverty a cause violence?

Possibly it is. Possibly it is a stereotype. My view is that the statistics are so warped and misleading that they cannot be relied upon to draw any sensible conclusions. With such broad definitions along with the researchers opinions and preconceived ideas, it is hard to determine what actually is happening and what is the cause.

Mannningham Council's veiled fanaticism.

Please read the start of the "Manningham Prevention of Violence Against Women Strategy and Action Plan 2013/2017". There is a comment made my 'Community Member X1'

That struck me is a very odd name for a person: 'Community Member X1'. What cruel parent would have given their child a name like this?

But our council quotes this person and puts their words at the very start of the document so everyone is sure to read it. So what does 'Community Member X1' have to say? Let's read it:

"Suggested disregarding privacy legislation and accessing police cases to target responses directly to perpetrators."

How about that? Mr or Mrs X1 is suggesting that we throw out the law because it gets in the way of their ideas and then, having disregarded the law, 'target' people they think aren't doing the right thing. Mr or Mrs X1 wants to 'disregard law' and get their hands on police records (which are protected by privacy legislation) so they can name and shame and generally bring down their wrath as hell-fire upon people THEY think are doing the wrong thing.

It may be the case that we have these privacy laws in the first place to protect us from people like Mr. or Mrs. X1.

I think the name 'Community Member' X1 sounds a bit like the term 'citizen' used during the French Revolution. For example Citizen Robespierre.

So just what what particular type of maniac is Mr. or Mrs. X1?

Mannningham Council gives us a clue. In the "Manningham Prevention of Violence Against Women Strategy and Action Plan 2013/2017" our council says that they want the recommendations of the strategy and action plan to stay "close to community needs". And to achieve this, they employed a reference group that was most likely made up of members of the community.

"To ensure the council strategy meets community and service system needs, the Manningham Family Violence Reference Group was engaged to act as an advisory group throughout the development of the plan" (page 5.)

So to remain in touch with community needs, the Council employed the "Manningham Family Violence Reference Group" which could quite easily have been made up of like-minded fanatics and activists as themselves.

It is quite likely that 'Community Member X1' was a member of this reference group who got to review and comment on the draft.

I am puzzled as to why this fanatical, extreme and lawless comment was even included in the report and given such a prominent place so that everyone was sure to read it.

I note that our council responded only by saying it was just 'n/a', that is, not applicable. Why put it at the very front of the document for everyone to read? Such comments usually appear in an appendix at the back. Was it the only comment they received? Why include it at all? Why don't they call it lawless, extremist or fanatical and ignore it all together as most decent people would?

The question I have is: "Was our council using this person as a proxy to say something they wanted to say themselves but knew they could not get away with if they did?"

How does someone arrive at a point where they think it is best to throw away rules of civilized society and do whatever they can to get what they want?

I have found that these extremists think that their motives are so well-meaning, so virtuous, so good and so beneficial that they would be justified to disregard the law. I am sure that many in the community would agree with their sentiment that if the law gets in the way of such good intentions, then it should be disregarded.

However, if you are of this mind, then consider this. There are times when each of us think our motives are good and well-meaning. So how about during these times, the rest of us also disregard any law that gets in the way of what we want to do?

So do you still think these people in our Council aren't fanatics?

24 Jan 2014.