Post

The Dawn Of The Feminist Police State

By Henry Makow

August 23, 2003



In 1931, Clark Gable's acting career took off after he decked Barbara Stanwyck in the movie Night Nurse. He got 10,000 fan letters from breathless females.

Today male and female superheroes routinely slug it out on the big screen but if ordinary men and women so much as shove, they can be arrested for "domestic assault."

Men risk jail, legal bills, and the loss of family, house and job if they so much as argue with a woman.

This is the result of the widespread "zero tolerance" policy which defines domestic assault as any physical contact, no matter how innocuous. The charge is laid by the state even if no harm has been done.

Ostensibly this policy protects women but its real purpose is to emasculate men and persecute heterosexuals. It's another front in the Rockefeller-based elite's campaign to degrade society, destroy family and decrease population by making heterosexuality unworkable.

THE DANGER ZONE

Couples all experience stress, especially if they have children. Now a woman having a tantrum can incarcerate her husband simply by dialling 911. She can hold this threat over his head.

The policy undermines male leadership. A husband called his wife "lazy." A neighbor told her to "teach him a lesson." So she called the police and falsely charged him with slapping her.

"Now she needs help with the children and but we have to live apart," he said outside court. "She is very upset and sorry."

"Women make false charges like crazy," a Legal Aid lawyer said. There is no penalty for doing this.

A male said his common law wife falsely charged him to get him out of the house. From the back of the police car, he saw her standing on the lawn with her boyfriend.

Another man heard the 2 a.m. "knock on the door" after he had broken up with his girlfriend earlier the same night. She charged him with holding her arms (when she was hitting him.) He had a hefty legal bill and risked losing his job.

The majority of these cases are "stayed" after many court appearances because the women won't testify or its his word against hers.



WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER



The policy accustoms people to the interference of police in their personal lives, which is the hallmark of dictatorship.

Having an argument is now a crime. "The walls are thin," one couple said. They were arrested after a neighbour heard voices raised. A witness vouched they didn't touch each other but the cops have no discretion.

People lose respect for the law. "It's supposed to be a free country but it don't seem free any more," a man told me.

The policy is a grotesque boondoggle for police, therapists, prisons, courts and lawyers. It swells the ranks of the bureaucracy which has an economic stake in the elite's new world order.

In Winnipeg where I live, half the 1200-man police force is dedicated to domestic violence. "To me that statistic is staggering," police Chief Jack Ewatski, told the Winnipeg Free Press "It puts a significant stress on our ability to police the city in other areas."

More than half the inmates at the overflowing "Remand Centre" are husbands. Special facilities have been built at a penitentiary to house 200 more "domestics." Most of these men have yet to be convicted of anything.



NINETY PER CENT TRIVIAL



I have interviewed about 65 people charged with domestic assault for my web site, www.zerotolerancesucks.com. Most of these people have limited means. Their fights are usually trivial, harmless and involve alcohol.

I met only one person who fits the profile of a "battered woman." Even she wants the choice of charging her abuser or not. She feels she can handle her situation.

A veteran lawyer who specializes in domestic violence confirmed that only 10% of his clients fit the profile of chronic wife beater.

Most people call the police to help defuse a tense situation only to be arrested, finger printed and jailed. They miss work and lose jobs.

"Sometimes I deserve a smack," one male said. "She gave me one. I pushed her out of the way and left. We're fine. We're a normal couple. We had one rough night. No one was hurt. No one charged anyone."

I do not condone or encourage domestic violence of any kind. But most of these incidents should not involve police. Police should intervene only when someone has been injured or complains. They should be given discretion over whether the complaint is serious.

When two men in a bar get into a fight, there is a mediation process. No charges are laid for a first offence. Why are lovers treated differently?

Finally, I have seen only one same-sex couple (2 lesbians) in 20 courthouse visits although domestic violence is reputed to be fairly common among homosexuals.



WOMEN FAVORED YET ALSO VICTIMIZED



A lawyer said: "The women call the shots." Police often refuse to accept a man's charge. When a wife bit his husband's finger, the cop told him: "What was your finger doing in her mouth?" Another man was told to "take it like a man."

Yet the system is capricious. Women are often victimized. One mother of four on social assistance slapped her common-law husband when he said he didn't care about the children. He pushed her against a wall and she called police.

They arrested only her. "That's what I get for being honest," she said. "I don't know why I'm being persecuted."

Another woman slapped her boyfriend when he made light that she was pregnant with his child. He called the police and she was arrested. Legal fees: $1200.

Another woman said: "My ex boyfriend called me from jail. He was out in two days and bothering me again. What's the point of calling the police? It's not worth the trouble."

In the crush of trivial cases, women in genuine danger are overlooked. Feminist activists don't care about women who are "sleeping with the enemy." They are using endangered women to advance the elite's lesbian agenda.



A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE



The zero tolerance policy makes a mockery of the principles of justice. A real crime (i.e. injury) must take place before someone is arrested and jailed. There should be a presumption of innocence. There should be evidence and not just one person's word.

Domestic violence was not a problem before feminists and their elite sponsors invented it. It isn't a problem today. For example, according to the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey, only 7% of people married or common law experienced "some type of violence" within the previous five years. These are almost evenly divided between men and women.

The rate of spousal homicide for wives is 7 per million in Canada. In the U.S., the murder rate for wives/girlfriends is between 1 and 4 /1000th of one percent depending on race.



CONCLUSION

Something fundamental has gone awry when half the police force is dedicated to marital spats.

Heterosexuals should wake up and smell the coffee. We have been under sustained attack for over 40 years. It is no accident that the roles of wife and mother have become stigmatized and men have been demonized. It's no accident that, as with people who have a terminal disease, we hear little discussion of our collective future.

Society is victim to an insidious campaign of elite social engineering and political persecution. It's time we told our Lucifer-loving financial elite, "Enough."

Undertone Undertone 46-50, F 12 Responses Mar 6, 2010

Your Response

Cancel

"Ostensibly this policy protects women but its real purpose is to emasculate men and persecute heterosexuals."

I was reading patiently until this. I think there is a problem with the way domestic violence is handled, but it stems simply from over-eagerness to protect genuine victims of chronic abuse, who often refuse to speak up and either they suffer for years, or the situation escalates severely. Police efforts to combat this have just gone too far the other way, and now occasionally pursue instances of one-off violence or mere argument. In other words, it's not a conspiracy-- like so many putative conspiracies, it's caused by general incompetence, not organised malice.

WhatchaSay22, I like your reply. It may be (probably is) different in the U.S (I’m an Aussie) but what is to stop a man from going to kangaroo family court and saying something like the following: (assume that our pretend man has a house and 2 kids under 5 with his wife)



“This is how it’s going to be. She gets half. I get half. We get the kids one week each alternating. School holidays are done alternating too. She can go first. We each pay for the children while we have them. She gets no maintenance from me, she gets no alimony (don’t think we have this in oz). If she doesn’t agree to this, then I destroy as many assets as I can get my hands on, quit my job, end up in jail and she gets nothing instead.”



I think the worst part about this scenario is that I actually think I would do it. Granted I don’t have the two kids, and they would most likely be a dis-incentive for this kind of thing, but I’m not a very tolerant person. If someone is trying to (effectively) ruin my life for (at least) the next 15 years, I’m going to do everything I can to **** on them. If that means destroying assets and providing no income for the government to take on her behalf, then so be it.



Does anyone have any reasons why this wouldn’t work? The only one I can think of is that it might give the appearance of harming the kids. I doubt it actually will though. Society will do everything it can to protect mummy and the kids. That child support is going towards shoes and handbags anyways.

"(don’t think we have this in oz)" You do or don't have alimony in Australia? I think in the feminist age alimony is an outrageous anachronism which must be abolished, just like the idea that a woman is entitled to to take out of a marriage assets she did not bring into it.

Your scenario assumes the man has no genuine interest in seeing his kids, otherwise he wouldn't risk the lose-all option. The reason this doesn't happen in real life is that if a father has an option between seeing his kids once a month or making a half-or-nothing ultimatum, most will take once a month. Essentially, fathers value their contact with their children more than courts do.

I have chosen to never become a father. I have seen too many men destroyed by the courts and feminists to ever put my faith in either the courts or feminists to never screw me over. One reason I have lost all respect for feminist women is because of how they view their husbands and children. Feminist women will not hesitate to use their children as weapons against their ex-husbands. The courts will not hesitate to give feminist women the benefit of the doubt and view the ex-husband as the enemy.



I hope feminists are proud of themselves for destroying the family unit.



Society now has multiple generations of men who view feminist women as evil spinsters, and they have earned that title by acting like horrible human beings. I will not participate in the dog and pony show that has become the modern family. I also refuse to fix the mess feminists created.

This is an excellent story, undertone, and if you haven't already you should copy and paste it into as many EP groups as you can.



I would say in response to the first two posters that we live in an evil world. The illusion that if government is sufficiently empowered you can eliminate something like wife-battering is pernicious. All stats I have seen indicate that wife-beating occurs in a very small portion of marriages. The notion that the legal monstrosity described above is acceptable is intolerable. Decent people must demand thorough reform and must expose the extremism and misandry of the Domestic Violence infrastructure.



Concerning first-wave feminism, it was less deplorable than today's feminism, but it is not well understood. People think that 19th century feminists were purely and simply suffragettes and therefore everyone is afraid to criticize them lest they be accused of opposing women's suffrage. But the first-wave feminists also had horrible, malicious, slanderous attitudes toward males, and their rhetoric turned people of both sexes off and undoubtedly delayed women's suffrage. Those feminists had an agenda that was in many ways not good. For example, they thought American families were too large (although they had to be large before antibiotics, because of rampant childhood mortality). So they undertook a somewhat successful campaign to reduce marital sex. Prior to them women were not looked on as creatures without sexual needs in Western civilization or any major civilization I know of. Female "sexual repression" or "Victorianism" was not imposed by religious leaders or by males (who certainly wanted to bonk with their wives) but by 19th century feminists. I wrote about this and sourced it in my story "Sex And Feminism : A Marriage Made In Hell, Part One" at EP Link



Evidence I've seen indicates wives are more easily orgasmic in many non-Western cultures than in Western cultures. This is of course runs opposite to our stereotypical thinking which portrays non-Western men as brutes who regard women as slaves.This can be laid at the feet of modern feminists as well as their predecessors. They completely dominate the ranks of sex experts and have ruined sex for many women for generations by teaching such demonstrable falsehoods as : the vagina is insensitive or only sensitive in the outermost portion; only the clitoris and not the vagina is designed to ******; and most women are incapable of orgasming from no-hands intercourse. Sex experts give reams of information on how to do oral sex and say virtually nothing about how to do intercourse--obviously because they have an ideological aversion to placing much importance on intercourse. As a result, it's harder than it should be for a Western woman to find a husband who knows how to give her top quality intercourse, because to find information on it, a man has to be an excellent and dedicated researcher.

Apparently, I am very lucky in the choice of person I married. She learned how to ****** every time, and happily shared with me what she learned. And what she told me was new news to yours truly, someone who read everything about sex that came my way in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

Thank you dougbmorris for your comments, I will check out your sources., good for you, for being able to see through the false paradigm of the feminism movement, funded by the Rockefeller foundation and steered by the CIA. The end goal of the feminist movement was not for "helping" women.., but for destroying the family....Individuals are powerless against the state..

I don't see that the wave of feminism that came from the Progressive Movement and resulted in the Roaring Twenties was any better than the one that came from the Civil Rights Movement and resulted in the Free Love 60s. Both social movements started well, but the victims and activists became irresponsible. The first hedonistic party of excessive private credit brought on the Great Depression and the nanny state. The second brought on public debt, affirmative action, and not just any old emasculation. It brought on the destruction of the noncommunist values of able white men, values key to the success of Western civilization. Interestingly, the Federal Reserve was legally established in 1913, and people could get more of the credit they 'deserved' in proportion to the individual accountability that was whittled away. (I recommend the video Money As Debt to anyone who votes.) Interestingly, I spoke with a black man who was peeved that affirmative action helped women instead of concentrating exclusively on minorities, but without feminist action there is no politically viable minority action: three-fourths of the United States is white, but only half is male.



The American melting pot shared British-American values with all comers who could step up to that level. Undertone, I couldn't agree more about the danger of emasculation. You might be interested in my cyclical modeling of history, which features emasculation. Or it might simply scare you. I focused on Anglo-American culture and history. The prior Western heyday was based on Greco-Roman culture. Washington is now Rome. I have a video on youtube about how 'Culture frames Capacity': www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQr3Nxejc8



Anyone who knows history well knows that women of a general population never lived so well compared to women of Western civilization. Does anyone care that women in the Middle East are not allowed to drive, walk alone, or go to college without permission if at all? Maybe sharia law is no worse than common law. Let's try it. In yellow Asia, without Westernism, do not the women walk several steps behind the men? With Westernism the practice of foot binding faded. In Africa is still the practice of mutilation of the clitoris.



Anyone who knows history well knows that a societal population of blacks never lived so well compared to blacks in America. Does anyone care about the black Haitian slaves working the sugar plantations if their masters are black Dominicans? Where is Al Sharpton on that? Runaway child soldiers getting their ears cut off as an example to other children? Anyone? In the wonderfully tribal parts of the world, where people are surely more wholesome, we may rejoice that the men and women there share an equal footing of bare feet and dirt floors. Their shiny institutions of equality and justice are the example for us all!



Can any student of history tell me of one viable civilization led by women as much as men? or one real civilization more uplifting than our Western civilization made in the image of white men? Mother Nature does not reward Affirmative Action: she's a *****. If you think Western society is viable as it is now, you're crazy! I'd like a divorce. I would not like to share one world government with fools. Let there be State secession. Let federal government be federal.

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution, womaninbliss.

Interesting story Undertone. The history of the emancipation of women is coloured with many mis-truths and negative propoganda like most stories. The sixties and seventies were a time of change and feminism took an extremist road often and has paid the price for it since. There is always room for balance and a middle road. Motherhood and being a stay at home wife were indeed undermined and replacing those tasks with some boring administrative job is not ideal of course. But surely choice is paramount here. Women now have choices and many do still choose to be at home with their children. As for the way the law is biased against heterosexuals and against men, in favour of women and their false accusations - well surely it's the application of the law which is at fault here - there are many cases where women do need protection from abusive spouses - there will always be those who cry wolf or manipulate the system to suit themselves. The word of our ancestors would be along the lines that women should be respected and revered for their place in the world as nurturers and life givers - as indeed should the elderly be revered for the wisdom gained over years. But, since when does modern society give credit to the word of our ancestors? Complex arguments here Undertone, but those who choose to manipulate the law in their favour are surely the bad apples which spoil the barrel for the rest of us.

As for history that is given to us, through University, I am not impressed. We are taught what we are "allowed" to learn in the institutions, not the truth., I have family bibles that are 200 years old., I will believe the words of my Ancestors, before I believe the info that people pay thousands of dollars for, so they can receive letters behind their name and a "degree" and a "mortarboard" on their head...Freemasonry? You Bet., sorry I don't trust Universities. Have a nice day

The Suffragettes were "The first Wave" of feminism. My focus is on "The second Wave". Sometimes there is more to one side of a "revolution", the second wave of bra-burning, male emasculation, and the ridiculing of traditional roles was and is Communist driven. As for "the positive aspects"., Since when is anyone "allowed" to forget. I am merely posting another view. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and I know for a FACT that the traditional roles of wife and mother were CONSTANTLY undermined as "unfufilling" ., as if working in some boring job is. I am sorry to hear about your father, but he was/is an individual, not a rep of the whole.

Although I agree with you that the "zero tolerance" law can be abused and is in need of some revision, please consider the possibilty that some of the "falsely accused" have been getting away with REAL abuse for years. My own father has routinely beaten and verbally abused every woman he's ever been with -- the police were finally called to his home one night recently after the neighbors reported loud noises coming from his place. The officers found no obvious evidence of abuse but my dad was arrested anyway on the basis of my stepmother's complaint -- thank God. Over the kast 20 years he has struck her down to the floor, broken her glasses, pushed her, ripped her hair out, slapped her face, called her filthy names, etc. Considering the fact that he has beaten at least three other women over a 50+ year span, I'd say he got off pretty light with just a night in jail plus a required course in anger management.



I think that many of us have forgotten some of the positive elements which have resulted from "the feminist agenda" over the years such as voting rights, economic independence and property rights, equal opportunities for education, a greater awareness of rape and domestic violence issues, more reproductive rights, improved opportunities for employment, etc. And I have no idea where you get the notion that marriage and motherhood have become "stigmatized." I was happy to be a wife and mother and most of the women I've known through the years feel similarly -- but I'm also happy that I live in an era in which I'm not condemned for wanting to work particularly since we could not survive if I did not have employment.

I absolutely disagree. Without the sustained efforts of the feminist suffragettes, neither you nor I would have the right to vote. Domestic violence has been with us for centuries, read medieval history, my dear. I was a History minor in college. I think that you romanticize a past that you did not live.

A minor in history. That's amazing. Truly you are beyond reproach in all things historical. I stand in awe at your accomplishment.