Monday, September 19, 2016

Angry Young Women

Yesterday, the British tabloid, The Sun, reported a shocking statistic. More and more strong empowered women in England have been assaulting their male partners. Large numbers of them are even being tried and convicted.

The Sun reports:

DOMESTIC violence against men has trebled in the past decade, shocking official figures reveal.

A record 5,640 wives and girlfriends were convicted of assaulting their male partners last year — up from 1,850 in 2007.

No more nice girls. No more ladylike behavior. Today’s young women feel empowered to beat up men. At times, emotionally. At times, verbally. But at times physically. The stigma against any man who lifts a hand against a woman is so strong that women feel that they have a license to vent their rage against their boyfriends and husbands. Most often they get away with it.

The Daily Mail has the story, too:

Worryingly, it would seem this is a dangerous trend, seen by many as yet another dark side of equality. Stories of professional women drinking themselves into ill health, trying to keep up with male colleagues are well documented.

But they are now matching men on the aggression front, too, putting themselves in physical danger — risking their good name, career prospects and relationships. In 1957, men were responsible for 11 violent offences for every one perpetrated by a woman — today, that is four to one.

As for America, we have statistics from 2010. Jenna Birch explains it on Yahoo:

Yet in 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data from itsNational Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey — and one of the most shocking statistics wasn’t just the sheer total of victims of physical violence but also how those numbers broke down by gender.

According to the CDC’s statistics — estimates based on more than 18,000  telephone-survey responses in the United States — roughly 5,365,000 men had been victims of intimate partner physical violence in the previous 12 months, compared with 4,741,000 women. By the study’s definition, physical violence includes slapping, pushing, and shoving. 

More severe threats like being beaten, burned, choked, kicked, slammed with a heavy object, or hit with a fist were also tracked. Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men. The CDC repeated the survey in 2011, the results of which were published in 2014, and found almost identical numbers — with the percentage of male severe physical violence victims slightly rising.

Birch continues, explaining the different types of woman-on-man violence:

Physical violence carried out against men is often similar to physical violence against women, Ivankovich says, though it can differ. “Abusive women have been known to abuse in ways similar to men, including punching, kicking, biting, [and] spitting,” she says. “In some instances, to make up for the differences in physical strength, women might use weapons including bats, guns, or knives.”

Sometimes — many times — woman-on-man abuse has nothing to do with thrown punches or weapons. Rather, it’s emotional. “In addition to physical abuse, women also engage in psychological abuse,” Ivankovich adds. “This controlling mechanism can include humiliation, intimidation, and belittling words or statements.”

You might have thought that women’s liberation was going to usher in a new era of harmonious relations between the sexes. You would have been wrong.

You might have thought that women’s liberation would lead to men’s liberation. You would have been wrong.

Apparently, liberated women have learned to hate men. They have learned to abuse men, to beat them up, to beat them down, to make a sport of hurting them. Doesn’t it make sense? If the patriarchy has been beating women down for all these many millennia, why would women not rebel? Why would they not fight back? Why would they not seek to even the score, in a rough approximation of justice?

Women have had their consciousness raised. And they have learned to lean in. This means that they have overcome traditionally feminine weakness and have begun to roar. It means that they have become more aggressive and are no longer afraid to get in a man’s face. They know that a man could do them some serious damage but they also know that if he does he will be held accountable.

Women are angry. The promised revolution has not worked out as planned. They have raised their consciousness and leaned in. Still, they do not have the lives that feminism promised. And they have learned to blame in on men. All of it. Because their cause is so just and their intentions so pure that the fault must lie with the other, the dominant sex.

Didn’t a leading feminist say that liberated women should turn their kitchens into war zones? Apparently, more than a few women have taken her words to heart. It is not a good thing. It does not advance a cause. People are getting hurt. More people are going to get hurt. Many of those who get hurt will be women.

Because, one thing I can promise you, when marriages and relationships become areas of open conflict it is not going to end well. For anyone. For now, men seem not to be fighting back. At least, not overtly. In time they will learn better and more subtle ways to do it. They do not forget the injuries, the slights, the insults and the offenses. They put it all on the ledger and await a good opportunity to settle the score. And, a reckoning will be had.

Here’s today’s political question: Is Hillary Clinton more like a woman enthralled to the feminine mystique or is she the kind of woman who abuses her husband, who beats him, who yells and screams at him, who treats him like worthless garbage?

Remember Vince Foster? The White House aide was trashed and humiliated one day in a meeting by Hillary Clinton. The beat-down was so vicious and so brutal that, two days later, Foster blew his brains out. Or, at least, that’s the current story. Perhaps it’s just a correlation. Perhaps the public shaming did not directly cause Foster’s suicide.

Still, it leaves open the question: Does Hillary Clinton embody the feminine mystique or the angry not-so-young woman?


Leo G said...

Well Stuart, we are now seeing the face behind the mask of the wimminz libbers, attacking their own sons to stay true to their dog - ma.

Sam L. said...

"You might have thought that women’s liberation was going to usher in a new era of harmonious relations between the sexes." No, not with the harridans
(activists/feminazis) who started this.

"They know that a man could do them some serious damage but they also know that if he does he will be held accountable." And they WON'T, most likely.

"For now, men seem not to be fighting back. At least, not overtly." Not getting married fits that description.

I'm going with "...the angry not-so/(at all)-young woman."

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: Apparently, liberated women have learned to hate men.

I find this assertion to be jumping to conclusions. But the only direct knowledge case-in-point I have is for my brother's first girlfriend, who grew up in an alcoholic family, and she left home at like 18, and moved in with my brother within a couple years of this, and she was a violent drunk.

And the case I remember at the end of their relationship was my brother foolishly trying to sober her up after the bar he agreed to drive her home but instead took her to 24-hr Perkins for some food where she got abusive and yelling and hitting him. So someone called the police, and he was arrested and put in jail overnight for apparently trying to defend himself from her blows.

So that's just one case, and I don't think his girlfriend was liberated by anything except from the chance to grow up with predictable and nonviolent sober parents. It is curious my family had no drinking at all, why my brother took up with her, but I suppose it was his own "white knighting" in action.

But I know, if why miss any opportunity to blame the feminists for ever ill in society? Of course there's lots of angry feminists doing the same in reverse, so maybe its all fair game? If feminists would just stop being angry, then we wouldn't have to blame them, and everything would be better.

What we really can guess is lower class families have a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms, and if they don't see that, many will pass those same bad "skills" onto their children. And we should consider high-stress times, like under financial hardship, these symptoms will seem to appear out of nowhere, while the original causes were brewed years or decades earlier.