The Shotgun Blog

« A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day | Main | Richard Dawkins is smarter than you »

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Grant Brown: Women are always victims, even when they're not

Western Standard columnist Grant Brown is a stickler when it comes to impartiality and equal treatment before the law. This week, in "Women are always victims, even when they're not," Brown explores the double standards that came into play in the investigation of a murder-suicide by London Police Service Inspector Kelly Johnson. An excerpt:

"The report notes that the vast preponderance of murder-suicides is perpetrated by men in the context of a separation. Given the “markers” listed by the authors in the case of Kelly Johnson, it should be easy even for Faulkner to see why. Most men who are involuntarily separated from their partners suffer from most of the stressors she faced, and many more significant ones, besides. In addition to the personal rejection, sometimes by a very long-term partner, men also have to deal with being forcibly ejected from their own homes and the consequent loss of contact with their children, the automatic confiscation of a large chunk of their incomes, and sometimes the indignity of an investigation into false allegations of abuse or (worse) child sexual abuse.

In my family-law practice, I saw many male clients who were in far more dire circumstances than Johnson was facing. I was frequently amazed at the resilience and stoicism men show in the face of the unbearable expectations and outrageous injustices that are heaped upon them. Ironically, one stressor the authors specifically note is that Johnson was a woman in a demanding, male-dominated occupation. But the risks and stresses associated with male-dominated occupations affect men just as much as women. The surprising thing isn’t that most murder-suicides are perpetrated by men in the context of a separation; the surprising thing is that even more men do not snap under the burdens placed upon them by social expectations and our adversarial, mother-friendly family courts."

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553be78cf8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grant Brown: Women are always victims, even when they're not:

Comments

Such is a consequence of feminist fascism. Men have learned to live well with women; men have not learned to deal well with feminist fascism. This inability has had seriously negative impacts on the world.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-07-16 4:49:25 PM

By and large, women have never been interested in equality; they're usually just interested in the same things as men--what they want, right now. They can be pretty damned cynical and manipulative when it comes to getting it, however. This is their substitute for stick and firearm.

For a while, equality seemed a surefire vehicle to get the things they'd long desired, things they'd been told they couldn't and shouldn't have. However, they were shocked--and incensed--when it became clear that with equal rights come equal responsibilities. It was just about then that we started seeing "battered wife syndrome," "domestic violence," "stalking," and any of the numerous phantom menaces that plague the modern woman, so they could escape those responsibilities and be judged under a different, more lenient set of rules.

How do women see themselves today? As equal--yet special.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-16 4:56:40 PM

I doubt many people have considered what Grant Brown is saying. Excellent perspective.

In addition, after a woman kills her kids, the MSM and women's goups ususlly talk more about her depression and other problems that pushed her to do the unthinable. After men kill their kids, all we hear about is how women need more protection, men are evil, etc. They do not get equal treatment.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-16 4:57:34 PM

Well stated Agha, Shane and TM. TM do not forget that the feminist groups also scream for more gun control and even a total ban on guns when men kill their kids.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-16 5:08:01 PM

I found this particularly intriguing:

"The report notes that the vast preponderance of murder-suicides is perpetrated by men in the context of a separation. Given the “markers” listed by the authors in the case of Kelly Johnson, it should be easy even for Faulkner to see why. Most men who are involuntarily separated from their partners suffer from most of the stressors she faced, and many more significant ones, besides. "

Remember this the next time someone notices that women murder/abuse children far more often than men but are then excused because women spend more time with children. Another double standard?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-16 5:31:39 PM

A man's weakness is his facade of strength
A woman's strength is her facade of weakness

The "double standards" applied in our western world are so blatently obvious and clear that when you stare them in the face,you can't believe what you are looking at. Believing is seeing !! You think to yourself, I guess up really is down and maybe the Emperor never was fully naked(he was sporting a tan and wearing a toe ring after all)

Posted by: bw | 2008-07-16 8:47:45 PM

As any intelligent parent with a large family can tell you; if you do not treat all your children equally , you are looking for trouble. This should also apply to the two sexes. When is International mens day? When is violence against mens day?Anyone heard of men of color day or heard of take your son to work day ? How 'bout prostrate cancer month? I could go on but just trying to make a point. Woman have lobby groups, usually funded by taxpayers. Politicions want womans votes.Men have no lobby groups.Simple math.Political correctness equals votes.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-17 12:02:59 AM

What a bunch of whiny pussies you CONs are!

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-07-17 2:56:44 AM

Joe Bleau

"What a bunch of whiny pussies you CONs are!"

It's obvious you have no interest in social justice. Would you say that to a women expressing concern about women's rights? How heartless!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-17 4:46:19 AM

Peterj:

Prostate cancer awareness week is in mid-September. Some jurisdictions (Sask. is one) bump it up to the full month.

Never heard of "take you son to work day," but every year I hear "take your child to work day." Not sure why you would want it to be gender-specific when you advocate treating children equally.

International Mens' Day is the first Saturday in November (though in Canada, for some reason, is November 25). True, it's not very high-profile, but maybe if men formed lobby groups as you say women do, perhaps they could do something about that.

Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-17 6:13:53 AM

"It's not very high-profile, but maybe if men formed lobby groups as you say women do, perhaps they could do something about that."

Ah, man, can we try not recommending that people form additional lobby groups? Don't we have enough lobbyists already?

I want to put up a sign somewhere: "For the good of us all -- please! refrain from rent-seeking! K, thx, bye!"

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-17 8:58:12 AM

"Ah, man, can we try not recommending that people form additional lobby groups? Don't we have enough lobbyists already?"

Hah, too true! I was just trying to make the point that it is better to get out and do something about perceived injustices, rather than whining about how life is unfair.

Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-17 10:26:46 AM

I have spent some time reviewing as many statistics as I could find in reference to murder suicide and domestic abuse. I specifically avoided sites and studies funded by feminist groups to avoid any potential bias. These are the articles I found when I googled murder suicides in Canada...

The bodies of Nancy Denovan, 75, and David Denovan, 63, were found inside the bedroom of their Fulford home Nov. 24, 2007, by a tradesman who had arrived to do some work at the house.
Apparently depressed over the failing health of his cancer-stricken wife, 83-year-old Ed Kling shot Jesse, 81, and then turned the gun on himself.

Peter Lee, 38, was out on bail and under court order not to contact his wife, visit the family home or restaurant, or possess any weapons, such as a knife.

Lee, who was found with numerous self-inflicted wounds, was the last to die early Tuesday, Vancouver Island regional coroner Rose Stanton has said. "It certainly seems quite clear four people were murdered and one person committed suicide."

Lee's wife, Yong Sun (Sunny) Park, 33, son Christian, 6, and Park's parents, Kum Lea Chun, 59, and Moon Kyu Park, 66, were repeatedly stabbed with a four-inch, double-edged knife.

Chris Benoit's father said Friday that he was eager to see whether chemical tests can help explain why Benoit killed his wife and son and committed suicide, acts that the wrestler's father said he had no clue were coming.

Percy Stein killed himself after shooting his wheelchair-bound mother Sarah Grupstein, 84, in the College Park apartment they shared. Stein, 66, was suffering from terminal stomach cancer and had been his mother's sole caregiver for decades.

Statistics Canada tells us that in year 2000 fourteen men and one woman also committed an act of family homicide before ending their own lives: 10 men killed their spouses, three men killed their spouses and children, one killed his child. There was one high profile case where a mother killed her child during an act of murder-suicide.

There is no excuse or justification for violence unless it is for defense. In relation to the case that Grant presented...of course defence attornies grasp at whatever they can to use as a defense..that's there job. Whether it's a man or women on trial it is up to the defense to present an explanation. As humans we always want an explanation ever when there is none to be found.
So then I thought maybe I am not looking for the right info. so then I reviewed sentencing of said crimes and any differences between men and women. It seems more relevant to the discussion...here is what I found from Corrections Canada (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e123/e123g-eng.shtml)
Table 1
Comparison of Women and Men by Type of Sentence
Sentence type: Women Men
% (n) % (n)
Life: Murder 1 20 (16) 15 (624)
Life: Murder 2 and other 54 (44) 39 (1,666)
Dangerous Offender 0 (0) 6 (243)
Long- term determinate 27 (22) 41 (1,758)

Number of cases (82) (4,291)

(easier to view the chart at the link provided)

THe numbers provided from corrections Canada support that the majority of violent crimes are commited by men.

Other links that were helpful:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/famvio21.pdf
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/mlintima_e.html.
www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/alert48.pdf
"http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/MND_Family_Court_Bias_Injustice_Root_Cause_07MAR02.aspx"
I have more links but site will not post with full list

I could not find evidance to support that there are
Maybe the issue that should be addressed is how we treat each other as humans without concern for sex.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-17 11:39:35 AM

Peter Lee, 38, was out on bail and under court order not to contact his wife, visit the family home or restaurant, or possess any weapons, such as a knife.

Lee's wife, Yong Sun (Sunny) Park, 33, son Christian, 6, and Park's parents, Kum Lea Chun, 59, and Moon Kyu Park, 66, were repeatedly stabbed with a four-inch, double-edged knife.

There is no excuse or justification for violence unless it is for defense. In relation to the case that Grant presented...of course defence attornies grasp at whatever they can to use as a defense..that's there job. Whether it's a man or women on trial it is up to the defense to present an explanation. As humans we always want an explanation ever when there is none to be found.
So then I thought maybe I am not looking for the right info. so then I reviewed sentencing of said crimes and any differences between men and women. It seems more relevant to the discussion...here is what I found from Corrections Canada (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e123/e123g-eng.shtml)
Table 1
Comparison of Women and Men by Type of Sentence
Sentence type: Women Men
% (n) % (n)
Life: Murder 1 20 (16) 15 (624)
Life: Murder 2 and other 54 (44) 39 (1,666)
Dangerous Offender 0 (0) 6 (243)
Long- term determinate 27 (22) 41 (1,758)
--------------------------------------------------
Number of cases (82) (4,291)
(easier to view the chart at the link provided)

THe numbers provided from corrections Canada support that the majority of violent crimes are commited by men.

Other links that were helpful:
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/mlintima_e.html.
www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/alert48.pdf"

I have more links but this site will not post with full list

I could not find evidance to support that there are
Maybe the issue that should be addressed is how we treat each other as humans without concern for sex.

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-17 11:42:00 AM

maya, I read a Chatelaine article about 10 years ago that said the statistical split between the incidents of abuse inflicted by men vs women was almost 50/50. In the article I remember, it said this does not factor in the amount of damage done by men or women. They claimed that men are more likely to inflict physical damage than women, but not more likely to abuse.

Women on the other hand, may be more likely to physically abuse children. My guess is that it has something to do with being around them more often.

So when you factor in the incredibly low percentage of men that actually kill, or seriously harm people, you can almost ignore it as a statistical outlier.

Call it a draw.

There is no excuse for violent abuse, or murder of course. Men and women should be treated equally. But I don't thingk they are. I think people are shocked when women murder. They look for reasons that caused it. Maybe she was abuse. Maybe she suffered depression. The the Nation Organization of Women gets involved to support them.

When men murder, there is none of that. Think about it.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 11:58:40 AM

One reason men are more likely to commit murder-suicide than women is that women are much less likely to kill themselves after killing others.

Men know that they are doomed to a pretty bleak fate when they kill others, whereas women know they have a pretty good chance of beating the rap of getting off easy. They can count on all kinds of support (see the recent Teresa Craig murder trial for an example).

Who can honestly doubt that the same judges who are so lenient on women killers and child abusers also favour mothers in custody battles? The entire legal system favours women from start to finish and across the board. (Not in every single case, but in most cases, and therefore in aggregate.)

In May 2007, there was a big international conference at the University of Western Ontario in London, on the subject of how domestic violence affects children. It was organized by that moronic ideologue psychologist Peter Jaffe -- the "expert" who advised the Ontario government that Karla Homolka was a battered wife and should be given a nice plea-bargain. (He apparently advises Chief of Police Faulkner, too.) It was sponsored by the Ontario Women's Directorate. It must have cost $millions; there were hundreds of presenters from all over the world. Here's the thing: not a single person presented on the topic of violence by women, and in particular, violence by mothers against their children -- even though single motherhood is by far the biggest risk-factor for violence against children.

That kind of incessant ideological drum-beating goes a long way to explaining why our legal system is so consistently and deeply sexist. The moral panic over male violence against women and children, coupled with turning a blind eye to violence by women against men and children, places thousands of children at risk who needn't be.

I don't suppose joe bleau really cares about the children, since he thinks that pointing these inconvenient truths out is merely "whining"....

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-17 12:55:47 PM

Maya wrote: “I have spent some time reviewing as many statistics as I could find in reference to murder suicide and domestic abuse…”

It looks more to me like you’ve researched specific cases, not overall statistics, and also picked crimes, such as murder-suicides, traditionally committed by men, in order to make the men look bad. It’s easy for your gender to be under-represented in criminal statistics, when all the crimes traditionally committed by women have been legalized. Abortion? There isn’t even a law anymore. Infanticide? Six months maximum IF THE OFFENDER IS A WOMAN (really—the statute does say that). Kill your husband? Instantly you’re an abused wife. Kill your married lover? No jail time. Abandon your child to freeze, or drown all five of your kids? You poor dear, it must be postpartum depression.

Like I said, Maya, you have very selective vision.

Maya wrote: “There is no excuse or justification for violence unless it is for defense.”

Not true.

Maya wrote: “So then I thought maybe I am not looking for the right info. so then I reviewed sentencing of said crimes and any differences between men and women.”

This table shows that women receive shorter sentences than men for the same offence. Which is no more than what the blog’s premise says.

Maya wrote: “The numbers provided from corrections Canada support that the majority of violent crimes are committed by men.”

The total numbers are irrelevant; the subject under discussion is punishment for crimes committed. As for the disparity in the numbers, see my first point—an excuse has been found for just about every form of female violence.

Maya wrote: “I could not find evidance to support that there are[?]”

That there are what?

Maya wrote: “Maybe the issue that should be addressed is how we treat each other as humans without concern for sex.”

No. You are not permitted to change the blog’s topic if you find it uncomfortable. And since humans are hard-wired to treat the other sex differently than they treat their own, effects at “correction” are futile. You don’t really think you know better than 300 million years of evolution, do you, Maya?

Maya wrote: “I am not saying there is not bias but I think a better example of Mr. Browns point might be with custody. I have seen many good fathers passed over because of the attitude that the mother should always get the kids. Clearly there needs to more education and better standards established as to how to determine who gets custody.”

Education has nothing to do with it. A biased person will resist all efforts at correction because they have made an emotional investment in their beliefs. That’s why emotion is so dangerous when it comes to anything to do with policy. Facts play second fiddle to feelings.

Maya wrote: “Shane Mathews your opinions are truly starting to paint a picture of someone who has underlying issues with women.”

Not all women, Maya…just the ones who think they’re equal, yet special. Unfortunately that’s most of them, including you it seems. And once again you have gotten personal. Do you now understand why I am reluctant to trust women with anything to do with policy?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-17 1:56:53 PM

This why many of the men I know won’t risk getting married or having children.

From Grant Brown’s column:

“Most men who are involuntarily separated from their partners suffer from most of the stressors she faced, and many more significant ones, besides. In addition to the personal rejection, sometimes by a very long-term partner, men also have to deal with being forcibly ejected from their own homes and the consequent loss of contact with their children, the automatic confiscation of a large chunk of their incomes, and sometimes the indignity of an investigation into false allegations of abuse or (worse) child sexual abuse.”

The state is destroying the idealized vision that many men have of the traditional family. Watch for more men to choose a life of bachelorhood rather than risk becoming social pariah in the eyes of an unjust legal system.

Another brilliant column by Grant Brown.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-17 2:12:15 PM

Murder suicides was the case selected by Grant Brown. The point in researching that was to see how many were committed by men.... the answer is provided in the previous post.

The chart referenced shows that there are clearly a higher amount of men comitting violent crimes.

The sentence for murder 1 is 25 yrs no parole for 10 years. There is no variance on the Correctional Service Canada website between men and women, and I'll take there information over your opinion thanks. There is no disparity between sentencing for the crimes listed in the chart, only the amounts committed by each sex differ.

"Maya wrote: “Maybe the issue that should be addressed is how we treat each other as humans without concern for sex.”

No. You are not permitted to change the blog’s topic if your find it uncomfortable."

Who's changing the subject? How we treat each other is completely relevant when we are discussing domestic violence and murder.

And yes that issue (how we treat each other as humans)should be addressed because then we can work on making the world a better place...but hey keep on typing and see how much you change with that attitude.

"And since humans are hard-wired to treat the other sex differently than they treat their own, effects at “correction” are futile. You don’t really think you know better than 300 million years of evolution, do you, Maya?"

Who says we are hard wired to treat each other differently because of our sex? Do you have proof of this hard wiring?

We still continue to grow and evolve...do you think you can forsee the future Mathew?

Posted by: maya | 2008-07-17 3:30:17 PM

maya:

If you pick crimes with fixed sentences (murder 1, murder 2, dangerous offender), of course there won't be much variance in sentencing between men and women. Three problems:

1. Women routinely get acquitted, or convicted of only manslaughter, for what is actually murder 1 or murder 2. (Google 'Teresa Craig'.)

2. Women are routinely charged and prosecuted for lesser offences than what their acts warrant (e.g. assault with a weapon rather than aggravated sexual assault for taking a knife to a man's penis -- discussed at length on a previous thread).

3. The disparity in sentencing men and women on lesser offenses such as manslaughter is very great indeed. Women convicted of mansluaghter routinely get a slap on the wrist -- house arrest, in the case of the mistress in B.C. who killed her lover in a fit of jealous rage -- while men get 10 years or more. The more discretion judges have in sentencing, the more they favour women. Justice Sterling Sanderman of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta calls it the "female discount," and says it is "systemic." Nobody who knows anything about this issue seriously doubts him. There is gobs of research out there proving this.

We have been around this barn at least once before on this blog. Check the Archives. It isn't esoteric knowledge.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-17 5:03:34 PM

"We still continue to grow and evolve...do you think you can foresee the future Mathew?"

Vilifying men is not social progress, maya. Any man who reads what Grant Brown and others are reporting will no doubt reconsider marriage and children, at a time when the institution of marriage is already badly weakened.

I can't see the future, but I can make a reasonable prediction that the mistreatment of men by the courts will make them more reluctant to enter into marriage and fatherhood.

You don't agree?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-07-17 5:14:29 PM

Maya,

1. You miss Grant’s point. He was trying to illustrate that a lot of these murder-suicides consist of men who have been stripped of everything by the courts and have nothing left to lose. Given the incredible injustices perpetrated against men by the courts in the name of “balancing the scales,” I’m surprised there aren’t more incidents like this. If you want to make a man dangerous, there can be few better ways than accusing him falsely and then taking away his house and his children.

2. Most murder cases are “plead down” to manslaughter, in which case the judge has great discretion in pronouncing sentence. In one infamous case in B.C. a couple years back, a woman murdered her married lover and received NO jail time in return for a manslaughter plea. Only a defendant who thinks he/she has a real shot at acquittal will go to trial and risk 25 to life.

3. If you want to talk about how we treat each other, Maya, you can tell me why women’s groups are constantly demanding more protection from a “plague” of violence by men when in fact males are the victims of both assault and murder nearly three times as often as females. If statistics were the only indicator, men should be getting three times as much protection as females. Can you imagine the feminist lobby’s response to preferential treatment that TRULY favours males? They make enough hay with reference to patriarchal religions and bombs as phallic objects.

4. “Do I have proof of this hard wiring?” Who was it who just said that men are more violent than women? That sounds like a hard-wired difference to me. Look at any species from the tadpole up to primates and you’ll see that males treat males as rivals, females treat females as rivals, men treat females as objects and females treat males (whenever he’s amenable) as sources of security. Anyone with even a third-grader’s knowledge of biology wouldn’t ask a question this inane. “Proof of this hard wiring,” indeed! Do you HAVE a full-length mirror in your house?

5. I can’t SEE the future, but I am likely better at predicting it than you are. It requires a clear eye with which to observe ALL relevant information (not just the information that reinforces what you already think), a thorough knowledge of the past, and the intellect to put it all into context. To judge from what you’ve written thus far, you’ve none of these things. You don’t even acknowledge the biological and psychological differences between men and women, except when it makes men look bad.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-17 6:08:53 PM

another one today,bias is blatant and tiring

Woman is victim even when she is not

'I am not a monster,' says woman awaiting sentencing in beating death

http://fe1.ca.news.a1.b.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080717/canada/stjohns_wheadon_sentece

Posted by: bw | 2008-07-17 6:10:56 PM

Sorry for having double post syndrome!

Posted by: bw | 2008-07-17 6:14:52 PM

Gosh. Where have Logic Chopper, Researcher, nbob, truewest, and the rest of the motley gang gone? The cases seem to be building up to an overwhelming conclusion....

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-17 10:33:52 PM

Researcher......... unable to find "take your child to work day". Here in wingnut BC only able to find "Take your daughter to work day".

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-18 12:21:44 AM

Hey, Grant - when's the book due out, anyway?

Posted by: Researcher | 2008-07-18 11:59:29 AM

"Faulkner stated that domestic violence is a “gender problem... Men, and what it is to be a man in our society, (are) the problem.”

Why isn't this restricted hate speech in Canada. It is likely to cause men to face contempt or hatred. Whether such statements are true or not does not seem to be at issue when dealing with other groups in society.

I'm fine with this hate speech against men, even though its crap. Violence is a multi-dimensional problem and equally involve the participation and agency of women. Feminist Androphobic analysis be damned. Oops ... can you say that in Canada?

Posted by: Don Uthole | 2008-07-19 11:40:46 PM

Actually, you need to be very careful what you say in public about radical feminism, in Canada. If you dare to criticise even the most-radical extremist man-hating form of feminism, then your name can be placed on a published government document that describes you as a "masclunist" (in the Martin Dufresne meaning of "child killer, Marc Lepine wannabe etc.". The federal government can also name you and describe you as a "hatemonger" and say you "advocate extreme violence against women" etc. etc. etc.

If you protest that description (and perhaps even sue for defamation)then the BC Supreme court has ruled that such descriptions are defamatory, but are allowed as "fair comment".

Wrap your head around that - if you criticise the most radical extremist ideology, or even simply ask them to piss off and leave you in peace, then your federal government - with your tax dollars - will be allowed to publish any damn lie they want, and call it "scientific research".

And if you think you can fight this in a Canadian court and somehow win, then think carefully about how many years the courts have been subjected to "feminist legal theory" and what that really means. Think carefully about how much time and money you can bring to bear pursuing a fruitless legal remedy as compared to how much money the federal government can bring to bear. And then consider who it is that appoints judges to the bench and decides on their promotions.

We truly do live in a feminazi state, and I have the scars to prove it.

Posted by: Ken Wiebe | 2008-08-05 11:39:25 PM

Thanks, Ken. Keep your chin up.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-08-06 2:53:16 AM

Dear Grant:

I have just discovered your work thanks to Barbara Kay. I have the misfortune of residing in London Ontario pssibly the Canadian HQ for misandric feminism.

Your article regarding police chief Murray Faulkner was bang on. As you are aware the local university (UWO) paper was recently in serious hot water with local women's groups after an article fairly lampooned both the university's feminist community as well as Chief Faulkners pathetic ass kissing of local feminist idealogues.

It is difficult to maintain a rational dialogue (if not impossible)with the London feminist community. In the complex world of gender politics one struggles with what is feminist networking and what is conspiritorial.

London remains a community wher any genuine discourse regarding gender issues impossible. Any non congruent views of the established gender politic such as your own or Don Dutton et al are quickly silenced or disparaged.

As you mention, one local psychologist who originally was the only male member of the now disgraced CanPam has been arroganly perpetuating misandic views regarding men for years and has maintained his feminist reputation as darling of the feminist camp.

Perhaps well intentioned in his motivation his quality of research has been highly criticized.

His apointment to Can Pam coincided with then NDP Ontario's Attorney Marion Boyd ( London based feminist advocate and author of the more recent provincial protocol for medical care and screening standards for wife abuse).

A product of Can Pam was the local university based so called Centre for Research Against Violence Against Women and Children. Check its web site for its disgaceful standards of supposed objective empirical research.

But then this federally funded anti male organization has has been clinically directed by the same psychologist who was involved in the organization's original funding. This same psychologist's ex wife (also a psychologist and ardent radical feminist) just happens to sit on the board of thsi organization.

The male friend of this psychologist and former teacher at UWO (also a psychologist) has also been clinical director of the same organization. By the way both parties are supposed expert witnesses as well as on the advisory panel of the presently sitting Cornwall Gomery Inquiry.

THe same anti male psychologist also happens to be an active school board trustee known for his misandric ravings as well as his socially egineered school programmes regarding male violence. Incidentally these so called safe school initiatives were co authored by the same former clinical director and psychologist friend and colleague. But then his present wife (also a psychologist) just happens to work for the local school board.

Recent provincial funding has ensured the priviliged position of the London feminist network (including local woman abuse advocates and shelter staff et al.)and guarantee the silence of any genuine political dialogue regarding gender issues.

The establishment of a community based anti male sentiment has been well established in London. This London based network remains the darlings of the Liberal provincial government whose locally elected members continue to rave about the networks "groundbreaking" and "cutting edge" work on behalf of women.

The feminist power brokers of London have managed,through hardcore activism,to discredit and silence any gender political views that disagree or are in conflict with their own.

A recent relatively minor incident of misappropriation of public funds was noted when the local board of education and the so called CRAVAWC sponsored(at public expense)two events involving presentations by well established pro feminist anti male authors. Entire sectors of the local student body from local highschools were subjected to extreme anti male propeganda all without a word of concern regarding the overt misandric anti male views presented.

Enough rambling, the point remains what is legitimate community networking and what is hostile and mean spirited anti male diatribe. I am a woman and a proclaimed feminist. I'm ashamed of my community and its didain for reasonable rationale discourse. Thank you for providing hope that reason may triumph over ideology. Aren't you glad you dont live in London?

Regards

Susan

Posted by: Susan Longley | 2008-08-21 10:43:21 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Grant Brown: Women are always victims, even when they're not

TrackBack

Comments