The Fallacy Of Gender-Based Violence

By VennerRoad, 3rd Dec 2016

According to legal dominance feminism, gender-based violence is one of the biggest social problems of our age. The truth is, it is not even a real issue.

Convicted murderess Zoora Shah

Last month, Stephen Port was convicted of murdering four men. His crimes were carried out for a rational if twisted reason: sexual gratification. Port was a homosexual who met his victims through a dedicated homosexual dating website. In this day and age, your local imam may find that unpalateable, but even most Moslems don’t take umbrage at homosexuals who do not infringe on the public space.

Moral judgments aside, drugging people and then abusing their bodies is a crime; murder is a far more serious crime. Port is the latest in a long line of homosexual serial killers which includes Dennis Nilsen (15 known victims); Larry Eyler (over 20 victims); and Dean Corll (at least 28 victims).

Port’s crime spree was curtailed at four only because he was extremely careless. Had he taken more care disposing of his victims, he could have rivalled Nilsen at least. In spite of his carelessness, which included forging a suicide note, the police remained blissfully unaware that there was a serial killer on the loose in Barking. This led to Peter Tatchell accusing them of institutional homophobia - surprise, surprise. Writing in the Guardian he whined that they were blinded by the underground culture of promiscuity and risk-taking in which young homosexuals are believed to immerse themselves. Was this really so unreasonable? Promiscuity and risk-taking come with the territory, and when men meet up with other men for the explicit purpose of having perverted sex, why should anyone suspect them of being drugged and raped? And why oh why should heterosexuals - the police and the rest of society - be blamed for the depraved practices of one of their ilk who is turned on by murdering them?

If homosexual serial killers tend to murder men, often other homosexuals, no one should be surprised that heterosexual serial killers tend to murder members of the opposite sex. The same applies for lesser crimes, eg inter-personal violence. As homosexuals do not by definition enter into sexual relationships with women, they are unlikely to suffer any related anger issues, although that does not of course rule out murder for material gain, etc.

In fact, the situation is slightly more complex than that. Men commit far more murders than women; there are different types of serial killer, but generally female serial killers fall into one of three categories: angels of death, black widows, and killer couples. Killer couples are usually a man and a woman - lovers - although they can be of the same sex like Bittaker and Norris who kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered five teenage girls. Black widows murder for financial gain, and almost always only for financial gain. An angel of death is usually a doctor or a nurse, like Britain’s most prolific serial killer ever, Harold Shipman, or the deranged nurse Beverley Allitt.

For reasons that need no explaining here, serial killers tend to prey on the vulnerable; a predator who attacks a member of the local ladies football team may have his career terminated before it starts. While in a sense we are all vulnerable, those vulnerable especially to random murder are the young - of both sexes; drunken people, drug addicts etc, and of course prostitutes. Stockwell Strangler Kenneth Erskine preyed on elderly victims of both sexes. That doesn’t mean he was bisexual; it means he was a lowlife.

To brand a serial killer a misogynist because he murders women and only women is missing the point!

Interpersonal violence is usually represented erroneously as violence against women. The picture painted by feminist academics like the overtly dishonest Lisa Avalos is one of brutal misogynistic men terrorising delicate, unresponsive women. This false narrative is even endorsed by the United Nations and the World Health Organization backed up by the usual vacuous statistics. Try this on for size:

“Global estimates published by WHO indicate that about 1 in 3 (35%) women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.”

What does that even mean? Well, intimate partner violence means or can mean

“behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours.”

Note there is no necessity of actual violence here, aggression can mean simply talking tough or loud, and while there is such a thing as controlling behaviour, in this context it can mean almost anything.

Added to this is the fact that much if not most especially domestic violence is either reciprocal or female-on-male. In 2010, one UK campaigning group claimed that 40% of such victims were male. While these statistics must also be treated with caution, there is clear evidence that the police tend not to take female-on-male violence seriously. Indeed, there are those for whom male victims can only ever be perpetrators, thus when Zoora Shah poisoned her lover at the second attempt, she rather than he was exhibited to the world by wimmin’s groups as the victim. When Stacey Hyde stabbed Vincent Francis in the back, he rather than she was portrayed as the aggressor.

In the United States, the fallacious Duluth Model of dealing with domestic violence simply assumes that the male is always and only the perpetrator, which is unsurprising as it is based on the feminist lunacy of patriarchy theory. As its critics have pointed out, this is ideology rather than evidence. In spite of this, the whole feminist shebang continues to be endorsed uncritically by the sisterhood, and to be progressively implemented by social policy makers. Any opposition or exposition of inconvenient facts being denounced as sexism or misogyny.

A footnote to the above is the ludicrous statement by Hillary Clinton in November 1998 that “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” In other words, men don’t matter. When she said this, she was First Lady. Imagine what life would be like for men in the United States if she rather than Donald Trump had been elected President.

To Wikinut Articles Page