Archer, J. (2006). Cross cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153. (A review article which suggests that "women's empowerment is associated with lower victimization rates from their partners." Greater individualism and empowerment by women, however, are also associated with higher perpetration rates.)Note the passage which I have highlighted in boldface. In the first part, it is saying that if you are more powerful, people are less likely to mess with you. Well, I'm glad that wiser folk than me are conducting academic studies to recover such arcane truths from obscurity and make them available for all to know. In the second part, the sentence is saying that power corrupts. Yes, that is what it is saying. It seems that if women become more individuated and empowered, some of them will commit more physical aggression against their intimate partners than they would otherwise. That is what "perpetration" means - that the perpetrator is the aggressor. So the lesson we draw, within this micro-context at least, is that women are inherently no less aggressive than men.
If you want to see the most recent edition of Fiebert's bibliography (with 343 entries), go to the following and click on the link which says "Assaults by Women on their Male Partners". The document will download as a text file:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/
All right. As it now stands, based on Fiebert's bibliography and other lines of evidence, we may conclude that women perpetrate at least as much intimate partner violence as do men. I say "at least", because there is reason to suspect that women are worse than men in this department. But since I am not greedy, and since I don't want to look like a misogynist bent on casting women in the worst possible light, I will conservatively settle for a 50-50 split. I will not state categorically that women ARE more violent, only that they might be. However, I have inserted the qualifying phrase "at least" because, to me, the quest for truth is ultimately more important than not seeming misogynistic. In the end, this gives me the best of both worlds. In a textual way, it clears me from undue imputations, and yet it leaves the field open to anything the quest for truth might ultimately reveal.
To hear the feminists talk, you'd think that men are pummeling innocent women everywhere to enforce "the patriarchy" like squadristi enforcing Mussolini's regime. Such is the world according to feminism. It is what they want you to believe - they are banking on it! They have poisoned the public mind with this story for many years and made it part of the cultural ambient, so our task becomes, somehow, to undo all of that. It won't be easy.
It will not do to assert categorically that men, as a class, are oppressing women, as a class, in the realm of intimate relations. It will equally not do to assert that men in such relations are initiating violence any more than women are. The evidence will not support any of this - it is not certifiably factual. Yes, we know that such statements are commonly made and taken for granted by millions of naive people, but those millions are supporting a grotesque lie and a towering intellectual crime. They may be forgiven inasmuch as they were misled and deprived of the tools to effect their own intellectual liberation. But if they stubbornly persist in upholding the lie even when the full story is given, they lose their claim to indulgence. As for those who originally conceived and propagated the lie, indulgence is at no point warranted.
As I never tire of repeating, the intimate partner violence narrative is the crown jewel of feminism's anti-male talking points. To undermine this narrative, eventually to the point of collapse, will damage the feminist regime more than anything else I can think of. So let's get cracking, shall we?
No comments:
Post a Comment