|
|
Introduction
First of all, I would like to congratulate the organisers of this Conference
on their initiative and hard work.
The Men's Movement owes a huge debt to the Fathers' Movement, because
the Fathers' Movement provides the numbers of members that the Men's
Movement by itself could not hope to do. Unfortunately, the reason that
the Fathers' Movement has so many members is that so many fathers have
suffered from biased family courts in many countries.
Having suffered at the hands of the family court is, unfortunately,
not enough to make one an expert on the underlying issues. We need a
theoretical perspective on the issues, in order to know how to improve
the situation of men and fathers in the family court, as well as in
other areas of society where Feminism is dominant. What the Men's Movement
can contribute to the Fathers' Movement, I believe, is theory. This
paper is an attempt to provide a theoretical perspective on some of
the relevant issues.
Sometimes I hear members of the Men's/Fathers' Movement say that Feminism
has gone too far. However, the roots of this problem of extremism were
arguably inherent in Feminism from the very beginning. Feminism has
always been rooted in subjectivity. That subjectivity has produced various
effects on societies around the World, and has led to the feeling that
Feminism has "gone too far." That is the topic I want to address
in this paper: Has Feminism actually gone too far, or was Feminism already
a step too far when it first emerged?
Definitions
Objectivity: By this, I mean a reliance on transparent criteria
which the general population can use to assess the claims that are made.
Subjectivity: By this, I mean a focus on personal factors, such
as who is making a claim and what their self-interest would induce them
to want to believe. In the context of this paper, I am referring to
the ingrained tendency of Western societies to decide issues using the
sole criterion of what it is that Feminists (or women in general) want
to happen.
Objectivity allows a society to use the legal system relatively fairly
to determine people's rights and obligations, on the basis of alleged
facts and transparent legal criteria. Subjectivity leads to a more political
process, whereby decisions are made on the basis of who makes the decisions
and who controls the information (e.g. the media and the education sector)
on the basis of which the decisions are made.
Socrates
Since we are in Greece, which is generally regarded as the birthplace
of European civilisation, it is appropriate for me to imagine what Socrates
might have said about Feminism. Here is an imaginary
Socratic dialogue which I wrote in 2005.
Student: Socrates, is Feminism about equality ?
Socrates: Who says that ?
Student: Feminists do.
Socrates: Do they give any reasons or provide any evidence of
that ?
Student: Socrates, surely you know that women don't think logically
!
Socrates: Well, what is the closest they come to giving a reason
or evidence ?
Student: They say that men have been running the World.
Socrates: OK, so do they criticise men for not conscripting women
soldiers ?
Student: No.
Socrates: Well, do they criticise men for letting women live
longer than men ?
Student: No.
Socrates: Do they even criticise men for doing the dirty and
dangerous work ?
Student: No.
Socrates: Well, what have Feminists done to improve equality
?
Student: Women enter the police without meeting the same physical
standards as men.
Socrates: That is inequality. What else ?
Student: Women can kill unborn children without asking the father
(or the children).
Socrates: That is inequality. What else ?
Student: There is a higher penalty when a man hits a woman than
when a woman hits a man.
Socrates: That is inequality. Men must be as stupid as women,
to put up with this.
I should point out that it is true that in New Zealand, there is a
section of
the Crimes Act 1961 (section 194) which imposes a higher maximum
penalty on a man who hits a woman than any Act does on a man who hits
another man, or on a woman who hits a man or another woman.
History
In my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism, I
define Feminism as:
the application of the victims of oppression model to the situation
of women in society.
Note that this definition covers all the various kinds of Feminism
that you can read about in Feminist publications. Since men traditionally
held (and mostly still hold) most of the powerful, decision-making positions
in society, this definition really implies that Feminists believe that
men oppress women.
As far as I am aware, Feminism, in the above sense of the word, received
its first substantial formulation in Mary
Wollstonecraft's book. So, when I mention Feminism, I am referring
to Feminist theoretical writing and political activities from 1796 to
the present day -- including the call for the right to vote, equal pay,
and so on and so forth.
Two questions that arise from this approach (which, nowadays, is practically
in the air that we breathe and in the water that we drink) are:
- Is it actually true that men oppress women? and
- What tactics does this belief lead Feminists to adopt?
Here are my answers to these two questions:
- There has been no study that I am aware of -- certainly none that
has been carried out by Feminists -- which systematically compares the
disadvantages which men suffer in society with the disadvantages which
women suffer in society. All that the Feminists have ever done is to
look for issues which they can use to claim that women are disadvantaged.
However, it would not be relevant to state that men (i.e. the men in
the powerful, decision-making positions in society) oppress women and
also oppress men! When you hear someone say that women are oppressed,
they mean that women are oppressed and that men are not -- or, at least,
that women are oppressed more than men are. But until there has been
a study which systematically compares the disadvantages which men suffer
in society with the disadvantages which women suffer in society, we
will never know for certain that women are oppressed. After all, men
are often chivalrous towards women, and it may well be that the men
in the powerful, decision-making positions in society make more decisions
that are chivalrous towards women than decisions that disadvantage women.
- Since a) Feminists believe that men oppress women, b) the decision-makers
are mainly male, and c) Feminists want to persuade the decision-makers
to make decisions which favour women and Feminism, Feminists are likely
to believe that, if the decision-makers do not agree with Feminist demands,
that must be because the decision-makers are male and are oppressing
women by rejecting the Feminists' demands! This kind of thinking does
not leave room for the concept of objectivity. The male decision-makers
might think that they make decisions on the basis of objective reasons,
but Feminists who think that the male decision-makers are biased will
not believe that. If the Feminists do not believe in male objectivity,
what incentive is there for the Feminists to be objective themselves?
The situation which they believe exists is a purely political one where
women make demands and men in powerful positions reject them because
they are men. So no Feminist would trust a man to hold Feminists to
a standard of objectivity, and there is no incentive for Feminists to
impose a standard of objectivity upon themselves. However, there is
a logical flaw in the Feminist position, because male decision-makers
have been making countless concessions to Feminist pressure for over
one hundred years!! This contradicts the Feminist assumptions that I
have just mentioned.
Subjectivity
As we have just seen, Feminists believe that men oppress women, although
this has not been proved. This belief leads Feminists to reject the
possibility of male objectivity and to neglect imposing objectivity
on themselves (even if they could). The belief that men oppress women
is also inconsistent with the fact that all sorts of laws have been
passed by males that resulted from Feminist pressure -- including laws
giving women the right to vote, for example. If men oppress women, why
did men give women the right to vote? Why did men give women the vote
without making sure that women would be drafted into the frontline in
wartime, as men continued to be?
This may be part of the reason for the fact that Feminists are generally
subjective in their theoretical writings and political activities.
A well-known Feminist political slogan is:
The personal is political.
Imagine that a man and his wife or female partner are having a discussion
or an argument. Will that discussion or argument be decided purely on
the basis of objective considerations? That is extremely unlikely! There
is too much emotion involved in the relationship, there are too many
"games" that can be played, and there is too much emotional
blackmail that may be used. Sometimes the discussion or argument is
merely a cover for some other, deeper issue in the relationship, so
that the discussion or argument will not really be resolved until the
deeper issue is resolved by some action such as love-making or the purchase
of flowers, etc.. In some cultures -- maybe in all cultures -- there
are tactics that women can use in these situations which men can never
use in the same way. In some relationships, it always has to be the
man who apologises, because the woman never will.
In some ways -- maybe in all ways -- the Sex War is like these relationships.
Most male decision-makers have a female partner or wife who wants to
make sure that he makes decisions that she approves of. Even if she
does not want to interfere in his work, the more powerful his position
is, the more likely it is that Feminists have befriended his wife or
female partner and persuaded her that she had a duty to use her position
to influence him, to make him more Feminist.
Let us take French President Sarkozy as an example. He has an ex-model
as a wife, he decided that half (7 out of 15) of his cabinet would be
female, and his wife's sister persuaded him not to extradite a female
murderer, a former Red Brigades member, to Italy. Obviously, he does
not care whether his ministers are competent or not, because there is
no way of being certain that there is exactly the same number of competent
females as competent males available for such positions. The decision
on extradition is even more irrational, since Sarkozy had promised to
end the policy of not extraditing such people.
Men have generally been unable or unwillling to impose objectivity
on Feminists. There are various reasons for this, including the personal
issues I have mentioned above. Another issue is that Feminists are much
more organised than men are. For two centuries now, women have been
joining Feminist organisations in large numbers -- whereas I once had
the experience of being told by a man (who was basically on my side)
telling me that "Men don't join Men's Rights organisations,"
as if that was some sort of universal wisdom that I should understand!
In fact, people join political organisations if they have been led to
believe that that is an appropriate thing to do. Women did not join
women's organisations in large numbers until they were persuaded by
propaganda that that was an appropriate thing to do, and men will not
join men's organisations in large numbers, until they have been persuaded
that that is an appropriate thing to do.
Another reason why men have been unable to impose objecticity on Feminists
is that Feminists have played the guilt card. Issues such as Domestic
Violence, Child Abuse and Rape have been emphasised -- especially by
Lesbians -- in order to keep men guilt-ridden, and therefore politically
passive -- or even anti-male. Another reason why men have been unable
to impose objecticity on Feminists is that Feminists have intimidated
men in many ways, such as by shouting them down, threatening their careers,
and even assaulting them, as I have myself experienced. Here is an example
of how Feminists behave in universities:
A year or so later I was in the audience when my colleague Murray
Straus presented the results of a study on which we had collaborated
with Suzanne Steimetz …. The study included data on violence
by women towards their husbands or male partners. Straus was unable
to complete his presentation because the yells and shouts from members
of the audience drove him from the stage. To even discuss female offenders,
I was told later, could only undermine the case for battered women.
Straus, who also considers himself a Feminist, was, in his own words
… “excommunicated” from the mainstream Feminist
community. He was rarely invited to speak at conferences on wife abuse,
many of the speeches he gave were boycotted, and he has received threats,
including death threats, over the past 15 years! (Gelles, Richard
J., Research and Advocacy: Can One Wear Two Hats ? Family Process
33, March 1994.)
There are various things we could say about this passage.
- It demonstrates the domineering way in which women can and do behave,
which is relevant from a Domestic Violence point of view.
- It demonstrates the corrupt and perverted atmosphere that pervades
modern Western academia, which atmosphere necessarily must pollute the
teaching and research going on in such institutions.
- The sheer political pressure of organised Feminist lies and half-truths
must necessarily affect Straus' own work, as he struggles to survive
professionally in this surreal atmosphere. What compromises is he forced
to make?
I am a great admirer of the recent research carried out by Murray
Straus on Domestic Violence. However, he is an admitted Feminist,
and this leads him into error. In an otherwise excellent paper, Straus
states:
At the same time, service providers need to remain alert to
cases that do not fit the typical pattern, including cases which
fit the classical image of an oppressed and battered spouse. Although
there are men who fall in this category, it is more often women.
In addition, the harmful effects of all levels of violence are greater
for women, physically, psychologically, and economically.
(Straus, Murray: Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence
by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations, paper
presented at a conference on Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention
at New York University on May 23, 2006.)
I have no hesitation in saying that this passage, which is unsupported
by evidence, constitutes utter rubbish. What you find with academics
(and I could give examples from Linguistics), is that even very good
ones sometimes assume things without having evidence for them, and
this is a case in point.
The first issue is the phrase "the classical image of an oppressed
and battered spouse". The word "image" has no place
in serious discussion of domestic violence. What scholar with self-respect
would stoop to referring to a (media-imposed) image of a social phenomenon
? The word "battered", similarly,
has no objective denotation, but was created for the image that it
connotes. And the knock-out blow is the word "oppressed".
There is absolutely no chance that Murray Straus is employing a scientific
definition of this term, or that he is referring to studies where
both parties to such relationships have been impartially interviewed
and an objective diagnosis of oppression arrived at. The people who
use such terms in a domestic violence context avoid interviewing both
parties on the same basis like the plague. It follows, if I am correct,
that Murray Straus has no objective reason for asserting that this
image fits women more frequently than it fits men.
He also has no objective basis for saying that the effects of violence
are worse for women than for men. I am certain that no objective study
has been done into this, because it would involve assessing the psychological
impact on men of being automatically treated as the sole perpetrator
by the authorities -- irrespective of whether they are in fact the
sole victim or both victim and perpetrator. It would also have to
take into account the impact on men of being denied custody of or
proper access to their children after separation or divorce, as a
result of being unjustly branded the sole perpetrator of domestic
violence. It would further have to take into account the impact on
men of the need to refrain from retaliating to violence, in the fear
that any retalition would get them arrested -- whereas the authorities
would probably not take his complaint of his spouse's violence seriously
if he complained about her. It would also have to take into account
the impact of the child support payments that the man would have to
make as a result of the separation or divorce that followed the violence.
These and similar factors are sure never
to have been investigated properly, because of the nature of our Feminist-dominated
universities.
I am certain that Murray Straus committed these serious errors because
of the totalitarian Feminist (Feminazi) nature of the modern Western
university, where female academics assert and exercise power and control
over male academics. Since modern Western universities have been so
dumbed-down and politicised by the influx of women, only the exertion
of organised political force from men can restore balance and rationality
there.
The Biological Roots of Female Subjectivity
It may well be that women are more inclined to be subjective than objective,
because of the way that their brains function. The Neuroscience article
Sex differences in functional activation patterns revealed by increased
emotion processing demands starts with the following comments:
Previous research has revealed that women have greater skill in
identifying facial expressions of emation, show stronger evoked potential
responses to emotionally charged faces and tend to rate their emotional
reactions as more intense than men. Moreover, research has suggested
that sex differences in the reaction to face stimuli may be greatest
when the intensity of the emotions portrayed is maximal.
(Hall, Geoffrey B.C., Wittelson, Sandra F., Szechtman, Henry and Nahmias,
Claude, Sex differences in functional activation patterns revealed
by increased emotion processing demands, Neuroreport 15 2004,
219-223, at p. 219.)
The authors used paired visual and auditory stimuli to heighten the
saliency of the stimuli, and stated their conclusion as follows:
Recognition of emotion in cross-modal stimuli produced sex differences
with men showing greater unilateral left frontal activation and women
showing greater limbic activity.... These findings suggest that men
tend to modulate their reaction to stimuli, and engage in analysis
and association, whereas women tend to draw more on primary emotional
reference.
Biological Psychology ( Kalat, James W., Biological Psychology,
9th ed., Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, p. 574.) characterises
the Limbic System as a:
set of forebrain areas traditionally regarded as critical for
emotion....
The Brain: A Neuroscience Primer (Thompson, Richard F., The Brain:
A Neuroscience Primer, 3d ed, 2000, New York: Worth, p. 17.) states
:
During evolution the limbic system was the earliest form of forebrain
to develop; for example, essentially the entire forebrain of the crocodile
is limbic brain. No negative inferences about the function of the
limbic forebrain or of crocodiles are meant, for in addition to being
vicious, the crocodile is an intact, functioning organism responsive
to sensory stimulation and engaging in a variety of behaviors: feeding,
fleeing, fighting, and reproduction.
So, when we learn that women have greater limbic activity in their
brains during some kinds of emotion-recognition, we do not mean to imply
that women are not intact, functioning organisms, responsive to sensory
stimulation and engaging in a variety of behaviors, such as feeding,
fleeing, fighting, and reproduction. They may also be vicious, like
crocodiles. What we mean is that women have evolved to get primitive
and emotional about some things that men have evolved to be rational
about.
Subjectivity in the Legislature
Emotion is useful as a way of motivating people to carry out political
change, and the Woman's Movement has certainly not been short of emotional
issues. It is hard to tell to what extent the emotion in deliberately
drummed up as a conscious tactic, and to what extent women (and some
men, as well) just naturally feel emotional about them. One of the most
emotional issues is Domestic Violence.
It is clear to me, at least, that Feminists in powerful positions in
OECD countries are constantly looking at developments in each other's
countries that they can use as precedents, in order to argue for the
introduction of similar changes (often called "reforms") in
their countries. In this way, it appears that New Zealand domestic violence
legislation has been, or is being copied by other countries.
In New Zealand,
the Domestic Violence Act 1995 provides that a person may apply
for a protection order, in order to prevent some other person (now or
formerly living with them) from coming near them or communicating with
them. Protection orders can be imposed without the other person knowing
that a court was even considering the matter. This type of application
for a protection order is called an ex parte application.
Not only can a person have this penalty imposed on them without having
a chance to defend themselves, but subsections 13(2) and 14(5) state
that, in all applications for protection orders, the judge must take
into account:
(a)The perception of the applicant or a child of the applicant's
family, or both, of the nature and seriousness of the respondent's
behaviour; and
(b)The effect of that behaviour on the applicant or a child of the
applicant's family, or both.
So, not only is Natural Justice breached by the fact that a penalty
can be imposed on someone in their absence, but they can be penalised
for the effect of their behaviour on someone else and for the perception
that someone (apart from the judge) has of their behaviour -- neither
of which the latter person can fully control.
Some -- maybe many -- people would say that the effect of someone's
behaviour on someone else is something that the law should be concerned
with -- even if that effect is not totally under the control of the
former person. However, since the Act mentions the effect of someone's
behaviour, why should it also mention someone's perception of someone
else's behaviour, which is also not under the second person's full control?
Most people who apply for protection orders are female, so what is
really involved here is the law's concern for female subjectivity.
Section 22 of the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 reads as follows:
22.Liberty of the person -- Everyone has the right not to
be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
Does the Domestic Violence Act breach this section? There are two issues:
- Does the Domestic Violence Act provide for people to be arrested or
detained?
- If so, can they be arrested or detained arbitrarily, under the Domestic
Violence Act ?
The initial effect of a Protection Order is not to arrest or detain
the respondent. However, section 49 of the Domestic Violence Act provides
for
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine
not exceeding $5,000" (or imprisonment for up to 2 years for
certain categories of repeat offenders)
for failing to comply with the terms of an Protection Order or of
a direction to attend a programme. So, if, in a particular case, a Protection
Order has been imposed, and the respondent subsequently receives a prison
term under section 49 of the Domestic Violence Act, I consider that
he has been detained in terms of section 22 of the New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act 1990.
The next question, then, is whether there is scope for the arbitrary
imposition of a Protection Order under the Domestic Violence Act. This
is the point at which words almost fail me, because of the sheer scale
of the breach of the Bill of Rights that is involved, and because of
the fact that it appears to have attracted no public criticism.
I refer to sextion 13 (2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which reads:
13.Application without notice for protection order -- (1) ....
(2) Without limiting the matters to which the Court may have regard
when
determining whether to grant a protection order on an application
without
notice, the Court must (my emphasis) have regard to --
(a) The perception of the applicant or a child of the applicant's
family, or
both, of the nature and seriousness of the respondent's behaviour;
and
(b) The effect of that behaviour on the applicant or a child of the
applicant's family, or both.
Section 13 applies to Ex Parte Protection Orders, but there is also
a smilar section which applies to ordinary (on notice) Protection Orders.
I do not claim an encyclopedic knowledge of the Law in all its historical
and geographical forms and variations, but this subsection seems to
me to be unprecedented in what we arrogantly call "civilised"
communities. Normal courts routinely have to determine what the objective
facts of a case are. In criminal cases, they also routinely have to
determine what was going on in the mind of the alleged perpetrator at
the time of the alleged crime, in relation to the mens rea (i.e. intention,
recklessness, etc.) elements of the crime, as described in the statute.
All that is reasonable, since a person has control over his acts (with
certain exceptions), and can reasonably be held to account for his own
intentions, negligence, or recklessness, etc.
But to be subject to a court sanction -- which may be converted into
a fine or imprisonment if one does not comply with its terms -- because
of what goes on in the mind of another person is such an unreasonable
assault on the inherent dignity of the individual, I submit, that even
the Third Reich, that icon of crimes against humanity, did not go so
far in its inhumanity to man. This modern, Feminist, New Zealand provision
is certainly arbitrary, in my opinion.
The Academic Manifestations of Female Subjectivity
It is my experience that what gets published or taught by the education
system is decided on the basis of political and economic factors. Since
Feminists claim to represent a disadvantaged group (women), and this
claim is arguably a foundation-stone of the dominant ideologies of modern
Western states, powerful political and economic factors ensure the publication
of Feminist writings.
Not only do Feminists get public money to carry out so-called "research"
into legal and other issues which is politically biased -- many of these
researchers do not even try to be objective. The following prominent
New Zealand Feminist researchers, for example, come into that category:
Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson, Hilary Lapsley, and Joanne Morris OBE
( a former Law Commissioner).
The publication which apparently was most influential in the passing
of the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which robbed men of their right to
Natural Justice, was Protection from Family Violence (Victims Task Force
1992, Protection from Family Violence: A Study of Protection Orders
Under the Domestic Protection Act 1982 (Abridged), Commissioned
by the Victims Task Force and prepared for public release from an original
report by Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson and Hilary Lapsley, University
of Waikato), which was written on the basis of work by Busch, Robertson
and Lapsley.
On page 25, this publication states: "It is now widely recognised
that 'objective' data is largely a myth...." This work relies,
instead, on a subjective assessment of archival material, interviews
with selected people, including women's refuge workers, and submissions
from women who had experience of how the law dealt with domestic violence
in practice. It is noteworthy that it included no input from men's rights
activists or men who had experience of how the law dealt with domestic
violence in practice
Similarly, the methodological Appendix to Women's Access to Legal Services
(Morris, Joanne, Study Paper 1: Women's Access to Legal Services:
Women's Access to Justice, He Putanga Moo Ngaa Waahine ki te Tika,
Law Commission, Wellington: June 1999, p. 268) states that "...
neither qualitative nor quantitative research is 'objective'."
This belief is inconsistent with her paper's statement (on page 1)
that a justice system should:
- be just in the results it delivers;
- be fair in the way it treats litigants.
Feminists do not seem to have the intellectual capacity to avoid contradicting
themselves, and Western men have lost the courage to demand ( a difficult
task, admittedly !) that women reason logically. But it is obviously
impossible for a justice system to be just and fair if you can't rely
on the objectivity of research -- to some extent, anyway.
In fact, Morris simply ignored the submissions of Men's Rights submitters
such as myself, and went on to produce such a biased draft report that
even the Law Commission (hotbed of Feminist politics that it is) created
a historical precedent by refusing to publish it under its own name.
So it seems, from the above two examples, that the notion that objectivity
is a "myth" (a favourite Feminist word) amounts to nothing
more or less than a justification for the usual Feminist practice of
ignoring men's points of view, men's needs and men's rights.
The history of philosophy is full of discussions of various points
of view on the issue of objective knowledge about the World. This is
not a new issue -- nor has this ongoing discussion been resolved by
consensus in the way the above authors pretend. There is more available
than just a simple choice between saying that objectivity is real and
saying that it is a myth -- there is also the possibility of saying
that objectivity is possible to some extent, and that the publication
of of rival research helps society as a whole to get close to objectivity.
This, in fact, is the working hypothesis that underlies the vast majority
of research in the World today.
When I was studying for a Graduate Diploma in Psychology at Massey
University, New Zealand, there were two courses in experimental methods.
The introductory one was what you would expect -- it was full of statistical
methodology, and ways of ensuring good experimental design. However,
the more advanced course emphasised subjective and politicised forms
of research, referring to standard scientific methods pejoritively as
"Positivism". This course was taught by a Feminist, who twice
said that men committed more domestic violence than women did, but was
unable to provide evidence, when challenged.
This Subjectivist, Left-Wing culture in Social Science teaching has
the following characteristics:
- It lowers standards of objectivity;
- It is staffed mainly by Leftists;
- Consequently, the objective result of 1. and 2. above is that standards
of objectivity are lowered by and for Leftist researchers, while their
results are publicised to the public at large as if they had the same
validity as the results of objective research;
- These Leftists base their promotion of subjective methods on the
notion that real objectivity is unobtainable;
- However, there is a self-contradiction between believing that real
objectivity is unobtainable and continuing to carry out research;
- If that is one's belief, one should cease to carry out research;
- It is possible to react to the notion that real objectivity is unobtainable
by attempting to get as close as possible to objectivity, in the belief
that there are degrees of objectivity;
- We all recognise that there are degrees of objectivity, and to pretend
that we only have a choice between total objectivity and total subjectivity
is a scam which benefits the Left-Wing ideologues who control much Social
Science research and teaching.
What is more fundamental than objective knowledge is the rules of
logic. Researchers cannot be allowed to contradict themselves and
maintain credibility by mere (Feminist) political pressure. If someone
believes that there is no such thing as objective research, then they
should stop doing research, because otherwise they are contradicting
themselves.
In practice, moreover, as we have seen above, doing research while
denying the possibility of doing it objectively has the practical
result of allowing you to be more blatantly subjective than you would
allow yourself to be if you believed that it was possible to be objective.
People who believe that objectivity is impossible should stop researching,
because their research will be super-subjective.
Self-Contradiction as a Type of Subjectivity
Although Feminism has acquired the power that it now enjoys by claiming
that it was fighting for equality for women, neither Feminists nor men
have been willing to stop making special allowances for women, in areas
where it is obvious that women are inferior to men and would suffer
if real equality was enforced. This applies principally to sports,
Female athletes do not compete against men, but against other women
-- and make a lot of money, in some cases;
Female athletes get the glory of competing in a separate competition
at the same time as men, while other types of athletes, such as Juniors,
Seniors, Special Olympians, and Para-Olympians, have to compete in separate
events, away from most of the publicity;
The Feminist media delete the word "women's" from terms such
as "Women's World Champion", "Women's Competition",
etc., so that it seems that their medals and results mean the same as
men's.
I propose that the Special Olympics, Para-Olympics, Junior Olympics
and Senior Olympics take turns to replace women at the Olympics, so
that Men would compete at the Olympics every four years, but that the
Women's Olympics, Special Olympics, Senior Olympics, Junior Olympics
and Para-Olympics should each only take place once every 20 years.
Ultimately, the Women's Olympics should be abolished, in favour of an
open competition on a level playing field.
Some chivalrous men have said to me that New Zealand men would never
be in favour of sexual equality in sports. Why not -- why should women
get so-called "equality" only when it suits them, and never
when it suits men ?
There are serious consequences resulting from this chivalrous attitude
towards women: Since women are allowed double standards in sports, they
are also allowed into the Police force at lower physical standards than
men. This robs men of jobs, produces physically incompetent female police
officers who can't restrain aggressive members of the public, and endangers
these females' male colleagues, because they have to compensate for
this female physical incompetence, as well as do their own job -- on
equal pay!! Because female police officers are physically incompetent,
this increases the pressure to let the police use deadly weapons, which
endanger the public.
What is most important to note here is that our societies are getting
used to the notion of double standards for men and women. This is not
necessarily limited to physical standards, since intellectual standards
are harder to assess objectively and harder to enforce. There are also
double standards as between words and actions. Feminists talk about
equality but practice chivalry.
Self-contradiction, of course, is an extreme form of illogicality.
The article The Emergence of Feminist Jurisprudence: An Essay
(Scales, Ann C., The Emergence of Feminist Jurisprudence: An Essay
(Patricia Smith (ed.), Feminist Jurisprudence, OUP, New York, 1993,
94-109) is indicative of how unbridled Feminist subjectivity can lead
to self-contradiction. Ann
Scales is described as "among the founders of the field of
Feminist legal theory."
The above essay by Ann Scales relies crucially on a self-contradiction.
The issue can be stated quite briefly: On page 99, Scales states her
conclusion as follows:
If I am right that the “rights-based” and “care-based”
approaches are incompatible, we must make a choice between adjudicative
principles.
It will surprise no one that the choice she advocates is the Feminist
approach, which she calls the “care-based” approach. Note
that the term care-based appeals to the stereotype of Woman as Caregiver.
Scales characterises the difference between the two approaches as follows
(page 98):
Whereas the male self/other ontology seems to be oppositional, the
female version seems to be relational. The female ontology is an alternative
theory of differentiation that does not define by negation or require
a “life and death struggle” to identify value in the world....
It perceives dichotomization as irrational.
Having stated on page 98 that a Feminist, care-based approach avoids
dichotomization, why does she create a dichotomy between the “rights-based”
and “care-based” approaches on page 99? Having stated on
page 98 that the care-based approach does not define by negation or
require a “life and death struggle” to identify value in
the world, why does she state on page 99 that we must make a choice
between adjudicative principles?
It is clear that Scales, in choosing between the “rights-based”
and “care-based” approaches, is in fact adopting the so-called
“male”, “oppositional” approach. She has identified
value in the Jurisprudence part of the world by using supposedly “irrational”
dichotomization to promote the victory of female ontology over male
ontology – negating it in a “life and death struggle”.
Telling Lies as a Form of Subjectivity
Contrary to popular belief, women do not always tell lies -- they only
tell lies when they are communicating, and they generally only communicate
when they are awake.
Now that Feminism controls the Western World, what has changed is that
women now ban truth. According to the webpage http://english.sina.com/sports/1/2006/0109/61055.html
,
Spectators booed loudly when Murray said "we were both playing
like women" in a first set in which there were seven breaks of
serve.
Now, people who watch sports matches are not doing it in order to think.
They are doing it either because they can't think, or because they want
a break from thinking. Obviously, these spectators were not thinking
when they booed.
It is bad enough that we have sexual apartheid in sports, with women
earning huge amounts for competing in second-rate competitions with
each other, when they would not survive in free and fair competition
with male players. In the rest of the employment sector, men have to
compete on a level playing-field with women, even if this means earning
much less than women do -- e.g. in the modelling industry. As if that
were not bad enough, the spectators who go and watch those events are
now booing people who point this out !
The Political Roots of Female Subjectivity
Once people become convinced that men's domination over the World has
disadvantaged women, it becomes hard to insist that Feminist arguments
or policies be objective. That is because the Feminists can argue that
the men who are still dominating the World are using their power to
judge Feminist arguments as subjective and/or illogical. The problem
is that there are no objective judges who can decide a dispute between
men as a whole and women as a whole -- everyone has a conflict of interest,
and so everyone can bee seen as biased.
Some people might have been surprised when fathers started picketing
the houses of Family Court lawyers, psychologists and judges, but this
was, in part, a reaction to the conflicts of interest that affects all
professions in New Zealand society -- including those three. The two
main conflicts of interest involve women who see their careers and/or
relationships as (in part) a way of pursuing Feminist goals, and men
who see their careers and/or relationships as dependent on not upsetting
such women, which leads them to reinterpret issues in a feminism-compatible
way. The personal is political.
Historically, this started with a conflict between the interests of
separate groups. The family was a strong institution that stood between
the individual and governmental and other organisations. Like all institutions,
the family needed leadership, and this was provided by the eldest male.
Feminists manage to persuade a large proportion of society that these
males were affected by a conflict of interest which was detrimental
to the interests of females, and that the solution was to move towards
a model involving "equality" -- later, this often became "equity",
and then sometimes "girl power."
However, Feminists themselves have been affected by a conflict of interest,
as a result of the fact that they have been involved in political activism
over many decades, in order to attempt to solve the conflict of interest
mentioned above. They have claimed victimhood for women and have often
acted to suppress attempts to disclose the male victimhood which arguably
existed (and still exists) -- even under the patriarchal model. They
have clearly seen that any societal acceptance of a victim-role for
men would undermine the case for female victimhood that Feminists have
been building up.
A Court of Law would not simply accept one party's bald assertion that
that party's goal is equality or equity between the parties, and then
deny the other party a say in the determination of what that equality
or equity might, in practice, involve -- yet that is the way the Law
Society, the Institute of Judicial Studies, Law Schools, law journals
and the vast majority of individual lawyers appear to behave in relation
to feminism. Natural Justice is absent.
For all its power, Feminism is basically a brain-dead ideology that
achieved its remarkable victories through a combination of bullying,
blatant lies, simple-minded distortions and emotional blackmail, rather
than on the intellectual merits of its arguments. Kate Millett, for
example, is a very important name in the intellectual history of modern
Feminism, yet her reasoning is rife with errors:
If one takes patriarchal government to be the institution whereby
that half of the populace which is female is controlled by that half
which is male, the principles of patriarchy appear to be twofold:
male shall dominate female, elder male shall dominate younger.
(Millett, Kate, Sexual Politics. London: Abacus, 1972, p. 25).
That is Millett's definition of patriarchy. Her crucial point is the
notion of "control." What Millett means by this term is made
clear as follows:
(O)ur society ... is a patriarchy. The fact is evident at once if
one recalls that the military, industry, technology, universities, science,
political office, and finance – in short, every avenue of power
within the society, including the coercive force of the police, is entirely
in male hands. (ibid, page 25).
It is a good rule of thumb that, if you want to look for the weaknesses
in someone's argument, find sentences starting with words such as "evident,"
"evidently," "obvious," or "obviously."
These flag the weak assumptions the writer/speaker needs to prop up
with confident-sounding language. In this case, the weakness is the
fact that there is a large number of males in these professions does
not logically imply they are "controlling" women any more
than they are controlling other men. Men may occupy many high-status
positions, but they comprise the majority in very many low-status occupations,
as well. More importantly, if the "coercive force of the police"
is directed mainly at women, why do men constitute the overwhelming
majority arrested by the police?
Feminists assume that male officials usually promote the interests
of men over those of women, which is seldom the case. True, male officials
may at times have been unaware of a female perspective on certain issues,
but this was counterbalanced by paternalistic chivalry, which has led
male officials to treat women more leniently than men. Nowadays, in
Western societies, Feminist propaganda is the ruling ideology, and few
male officials are unaware of Feminist positions on everything under
the sun - whereas pro-male viewpoints are either derided or ignored.
At the same time, male chivalry has hardly decreased, and Male Feminists
are anti-male, so that women now have it both ways.
Female Feminist officials, on the other hand, use their power almost
exclusively to benefit females. For example, New Zealand Minister of
Women's Affairs, Christine Fletcher, used her power to establish the
position of Women's Health Officer in her Ministry. She did this without
the slightest attempt to prove women have greater health needs than
men, who certainly don't have any "Men's Health Officer."
This sexist woman just felt "passionate" about the issue,
and that was that!
The fact is that we can make a case that democratic countries are actually
matriarchies, and male politicians are the paid servants of Feminists.
The litmus test is whether the (mainly male) politicians enact legislation
favouring men's interests more than women's interests. What we find
is that during the last two hundred years western history is peppered
with examples of mainly male governments enacting legislation benefiting
women more than men. Since the late 18th Century, mainly male governments
have enacted legislation giving women the vote, according women equal
pay with men, liberalising abortion laws to permit mass-murder of infants,
increasing penalties for rape, and so forth, all without protecting
men's interests in family, mating rituals, work-place behaviours or
educational institutions.
Most decision-makers in society's political institutions may be men,
but they have done and do little for men and much for women. Why?
Male decision-makers are subject to pressure from individual women
(friends, family members, etc.), as well as female pressure-groups.
Feminism created the slogan, "the personal is political,"
thereby turning many a bedroom into a battleground, forcing men to choose
between their marriage and their principles, between love and integrity,
between wealth and poverty. Feminist policies also contributed much
to the increase in two-income families. While employers' need for workers
grew at about the same gradual pace it had always grown at, the supply
of workers almost doubled over the span of a few years. Wages stagnated
while profits grew and the male executives who prospered as a result
have a vested interest in perpetuating the Feminist system and catering
to Feminist sexism.
Here is an example of Male Feminist behaviour: at a regional meeting
I attended of teacher union representatives, the chairman, who was the
male partner of a high-profile Feminist teacher, started the meeting
by telling us on which floors the toilets were, and saying, dead-pan,
there were combination-locks on the women's toilets, but not the men's,
because men were too stupid to operate combination locks! No one protested
this blatantly sexist remark, but as he gazed across the room he received
a glance of affirmation for his Uncle Tom-like behaviour from the women.
Imagine the enraged reaction had he said women were too stupid to operate
combination-locks.
How can they get away with such behavior? Where are the groups speaking
on behalf of men? Women's pressure groups far outnumber men's. For example,
as of December, 1999, a search at Alta Vista for "men's rights"
produced 2,256 pages/results while searching for "women's rights"
produced 39,527 pages/results – 17½ times as many. Evidence
of just how much Feminists dominate gender-issues: men's voices in this
area are virtually silenced by the overwhelming pressure Feminists bring
to bear on male decision-makers. On this basis, one could almost suggest
women have about 17½ times as much power as men in western societies.
There are various forms of power in Society:
- the power of decision-makers, such as politicians, judges and juries;
- the potential military and police power to apply armed force;
- the power of the media to cover and package (or ignore) issues as
they see fit;
- the power of the educationalists to inculcate values they believe
in;
- the power of pressure-groups to influence the media, politicians
and the bureaucracy;
- the power of bureaucrats to interpret legislation and regulations,
and discriminate against certain clients.
This last sort of power is also now largely in the hands of women:
the December 1998 New Zealand Household Labour Force Survey, for example,
shows men concentrated in employment categories involving working with
objects, whereas women are concentrated in occupations dealing with
members of the public. This pattern is likely to be the same all over
the western world.
Men outnumber women in:
- Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing by 107,300 to 49,900;
- Manufacturing by 195,700 to 86,300;
- Construction by 104,300 to 12,500, and
- Transport, Storage, and Communication by 70,300 to 34,000.
On the other hand, women outnumber men in:
- Education by 89,600 to 41,000, and
- Health and Community Services by 98,400 to 23,100.
In Other categories ("Wholesale and Retail Trade, etc.",
"Business and Financial Services," "Other Services",
and "Not Specified"), men and women were present in roughly
equal numbers. This gives women disproportionate power in administering
and interpreting – on a daily basis – the rules and regulations
affecting the lives of men, women and children. Whenever a man or boy
comes into contact with a social worker, court psychologist, teacher,
etc., that person will probably be a woman, or – even if not actually
a woman – a member of a female-dominated profession with a hefty
bias against men.
Nowadays, Feminism is so mainstream that Mussolini's granddaughter,
the leader of a Neo-Fascist party, described herself as a Feminist.
However, 20th Century Feminism originally tacked itself onto the back
of the Left in general, and Marxism in particular. This is the part
of the political spectrum which loves to use the word "oppression."
Feminists rely heavily on the Frontman Fallacy. They point to the number
of male decision-makers as evidence the political system favours men.
This argument is extremely superficial and has flourished only because
of the lack of intellect, objectivity and male input into Gender Studies.
Hence, Women's Studies is really an ideology rather than an academic
discipline.
Ideologies are akin to religion. Like religions, an ideology such as
Feminism or Marxism is compatible with more or less any state of affairs
in the real world. All theologians and ideologues worth their salt can
explain virtually any apparent counterexample, if necessary, as being
irrelevant to their beliefs, and therefore compatible with them. However,
religions have an other-worldliness that gives them greater durability
than ideologies. Political, economic and military failures tend to be
blamed on governments and their ideologies more often than on religions.
So ideologies come and go.
Marxism is no longer the force it used to be. Feminism has been around
longer than Marxism, and is bound to be weakened by the virtual demise
of Marxism because of the de facto alliance between the two (See, for
example, Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for
Feminist Revolution, 1970, William Morrow). Feminism started off
as an underdog ideology, but has long since become firmly entrenched
in the establishment. This is helping remove the blinders from all the
men conned by their claims of oppression. In fact, I am quite pleased
that New Zealand has had a female Governor-General, a female Prime Minister,
a female leader of the main opposition party, a female Chief Justice,
and a female head of Telecom, the country's largest listed company,
because it makes it harder for the Feminists to portray all women as
victims of the "Patriarchy". As the Feminists consolidate
their power, people will see them as the establishment. With that kind
of status comes the glaring scrutiny they have avoided so far, and this
cannot help but contribute to their eventual demise.
The comparison of women with oppressed minorities has generally been
done in a completely unbalanced way. Their hunt for similarities between
women and genuine minority groups has been more than a little biased.
The obvious differences between women and genuinely oppressed minorities,
on the other hand, have been determinedly overlooked. For example:
- women are a numerical majority in most electorates;
- they have a greater life-expectancy than men;
- much more research is done into their diseases than male diseases;
- Gynecology is a medical field in its own right, but specifically
male diseases are hidden away in Urology; in most universities;
- women have the vote but do not have to do military or alternative
service in countries where men have to do this – e.g. Germany
and the United States – nor are they drafted into the front line
(even in Israel);
- women are much more likely to get custody of children on separation
and divorce;
- many more men than women are in jail, even when women live unscathed
on the proceeds of their male partners' crimes.
Feminists believe their own lies. So they almost never seek equality
with men in areas where men are at a disadvantage compared to women
– how many demonstrations have you heard of demanding that women
be subject to the draft on the same basis as men? Certainly, many Feminists
are ruthless in using their positions of power to advance their cause.
Until this changes, is it really a good thing to promote even more women
into positions of even greater power? As the "False Prophet"
says, "There's no use in exalting the humble and the meek. They
don't remain humble and meek once they're exalted." (Martin Burke,
the "False Prophet,"—formerly at: www.tribal.com/newtrib/inter3.htm
).
Subjectivity in the Judiciary
A Seminar for New Zealand judges on so-called "Gender Equity"
took place in 1997, where the term "Gender Equity" was not
even defined, and occurred in the title of only one paper -- and even
that was just an introduction to research on judges' attitudes! Bear
in mind that one of the main activities of working judges is defining
terms!! The reason for this gross, mass incompetence by the judges is
that "Gender Equity" is just a slogan covering a wish-list
of political issues that Feminists want to brainwash judges about. That
brainwashing is now continuing in the Institute of Judicial Studies,
which provides in-service training for judges.
One of the papers presented at that seminar was entitled: Proving
Gender Bias in the Law and the Legal System. (Martin, Sheilah
L., Proving Gender Bias in the Law and the Legal System, Paper
presented at the Seminar on Gender Equity in the Judicial System, Rotorua,
New Zealand, May 16, 1997.) This paper did not attempt to prove that
gender bias existed. It was just about how hard it was for Feminists
to prove that gender bias existed. (There was no paper which actually
tried to prove that gender bias existed.) This paper mentioned several
factors, but basically it just assumed that other Feminists had already
proved that gender bias existed elswhere in society, and that it therefore
must exist in the law and the legal sytem, so the paper concentrated
on explaining why this had not been proved yet (mainly because male
judges and lawyers were biased). However, there is an
official government statistical study which shows that being a male
in itself increases the likelihood of receiving a severe sentence for
a given crime. Note that this study was published after the Seminar,
however.
Because there is so much money invested in Feminism -- i.e. because
so many people are paid to carry out Feminist research and advocacy
-- there are a lot of studies which Feminists can refer to, and claim
that those studies have proved some fact or other, which relieves the
person doing the referring from the need to prove that fact themselves.
(Contrast that with the position of men and fathers, who almost have
to start from square one and prove every element of their argument from
the ground up!). However, these Feminist studies which are referred
to are often of very low intellectual quality and do not actually go
anywhaere near proving what they are said to have proved.
So the judges were given a talk which (wrongly) assumed that it had
already been proved that women suffered more bias against them in society
than men did, and which avoided trying to prove that anti-female bais
existed in the law and the legal system by trying to show how hard that
would be to prove! Imagine a trial where a female lawyer tried to convince
a male judge that a man was guilty of a crime against a woman, and the
lawyer's main argument was that it would be very hard to prove that
he was guilty, and so he should be convicted! We may laugh now, but
Western legal systems are getting very close to that position already!
Objectivity and the Role of the Men's &
Fathers' Movement
Since policy and law are increasingly being formulated on the basis
of what women feel and want (female subjectivity), the only possible
response for the Men's/Fathers' Movement, in the first instance, is
to assert what men feel and want (male subjectivity). However, it is
also important to assert the importance of objectivity, and to try to
hold the Men's/Fathers' Movement to the standard of objectivity. There
are two reasons for this:
- Society will tend to break down, if it becomes obvious that women
and men are just fighting for their own self-interest, and if there
is no standard of objectivity on which Society can rely most of the
time and for most purposes.
- If the Men's/Fathers' Movement holds itself to the standard of objectivity,
then it will be able to gain support amongst those people who are not
committed Feminists.
One source of the problem of Feminist subjectivity is war. Although
women had the vote in most countries at the time of the Second World
War, only men were conscripted to fight in the frontline. This was unjust:
either women should have been denied the vote or they should have had
to serve in the frontline. In addition, we have to ask ourselves what
all those men thought they were doing during the Second World War. My
suggestion is that they thought they were protecting women and children.
That was their fundamental motivation, apart from the legal fact of
being conscripted.
After the Second World War, then, men continued to think that their
role was to protect women and children -- otherwise, their self-sacrifice
would have seemed meaningless. Women had used the opportunity created
by men's absence in wartime to take on many jobs that previously only
men had performed, and this was also unfair. However, since men saw
their role in life as protecting women and children, this mentality
was transferred, to some extent, into a tolerance of -- or even a support
for -- Feminist attacks on men's rights.
Conclusion
The topic which I have been addressing in this paper has been has Feminism
actually gone too far, or was Feminism already a step too far when it
first emerged? The answer to this question is that Feminism was already
a step too far when it first emerged. This is because Feminists did
not bother to carry out a a study which systematically compared the
disadvantages which men suffer in society with the disadvantages which
women suffer in society.
Feminists, instead of doing that, have concentrated on gaining control
of our brains, by controlling the information that gets into our brains.
They have done this by gaining control of most of the media, educational
institutions and trade unions in Western societies. They have not yet
got control of the internet, however.
Feminists have simply assumed that women suffer from male oppression
and that men do not, and have diverted huge resources to the search
for data to back up that assumption.
Feminism does not provide for any standard of objectivity that can
limit Feminists' demands. Sometimes Feminists back up a demand for change
by saying that they want equality or equity, but only Feminists are
allowed to select the issues where equality or equity are necessary.
There are many issues where we could say that men need equality or equity
with women. Moreover, only Feminists are allowed to define what equality
or equity means for those issues.
Increasingly, Feminists are finding that they do not need to claim
that what they want is equality or equity. It is enough that Feminists
want something for them to be able to get it. That is, the political
process revolves around female subjectivity, and what Feminists are
pushing for is for individual women to get whatever they want whenever
they want it. That is, law and policy will increasingly revolve around
female subjectivity.
Now, men have to choose between becoming selfish and subjective, like
women, or trying to reimpose objectivity on Society. The first approach
could be called the liberal approach, and the second one could be called
the conservative approach.
An optimist would perhaps be a liberal and a pessimist would be a conservative.
This is because the reimposition of standards of objectivity on male-female
relations would probably require a radical reaction against the permissive
and relaxed attitudes which have dominated the Western World since the
1960s. This might result from internal turmoil which occurred after
some crisis such as a great depression, or it might be imposed from
the outside by Islamic radicals, for example.
References
Corry, Charles E., Legal Tactics for Men and Fathers, http://equality.netfirms.com/legltctc.html
-- last accessed 22 December 2008.
Gelles, Richard J, Research and Advocacy: Can One Wear Two Hats
? Family Process 33, March 1994..
Hall, Geoffrey B.C. , Sandra F. Wittelson, Henry Szechtman and Claude
Nahmias, Sex differences in functional activation patterns revealed
by increased emotion processing demands, Neuroreport 15, 2004, 219-223.
Firestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist
Revolution, 1970, William Morrow.
Kalat, James W., Biological Psychology, 9th ed., 2007, Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Martin, Sheilah L., Proving Gender Bias in the Law and the Legal
System, Paper presented at the Seminar on Gender Equity in the Judicial
System, Rotorua, New Zealand, May 16, 1997.
Millett, Kate, Sexual Politics, 1972, London: Abacus.
Morris, Joanne, Study Paper 1: Women's Access to Legal Services:
Women's Access to Justice, He Putanga Moo Ngaa Waahine ki te Tika,
Law Commission, Wellington: June 1999.
Scales, Ann C., The Emergence of Feminist Jurisprudence: An Essay
(Patricia Smith (ed.), Feminist Jurisprudence, OUP, New York, 1993,
94-109.
Straus, Murray, Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male
and Female University Students in 32 Nations, paper presented at
a conference on Trends in Intimate Violence Intervention at New York
University on May 23, 2006
Thompson, Richard F., The Brain: A Neuroscience Primer, 3d ed,
2000, New York: Worth.
Triggs, Sue, Sentencing in New Zealand: a Statistical Aanlysis.
First published in December 1999, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/1999/sentence_in_nz/index.html
– last Accessed 28 December 2008.
Victims Task Force, Protection from Family Violence: A Study of
Protection Orders Under the Domestic Protection Act 1982 (Abridged),
1992, Commissioned by the Victims Task Force and prepared for public
release from an original report by Ruth Busch, Neville Robertson and
Hilary Lapsley, University of Waikato.
Wollstonecraft, Mary, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with
strictures on political and moral subjects, 3rd edition, 1796, London:
J. Johnson
Zohrab, Peter Douglas, Feminism is about Equality. Yeah right.
http://equality.netfirms.com/yehright.html -- last accessed 12 December
2008.
Zohrab, Peter Douglas, Sex, Lies & Feminism, http://equality.netfirms.com/contents.html
, last accessed 22 December 2008.
Zohrab, Peter Douglas, There is No such Thing as Battering.
http://equality.netfirms.com/battery.html -- last accessed 22 December
2008.
|
