The definition of DV. Part 2 (and stuff.)

You often hear stories from feminists and other idiots explaining how horrible and violent men are. You know the standard nonsense.

A trillion women get murdered a week, all women get raped at least a thousand times in their lifetime. Women, on average have to work 500 times as many hours for the same pay as evil men.Women never lie, never hurt anybody, and generally the Sun shines out of their Holy arses and any man who says otherwise is an evil kiddy-fiddling, woman beating, lying, rapist, misogynistic scumbag who deserves nothing less than a slow painful death etc.

Regarding violence between the sexes, plenty of evidence exists indicating that women are often, just as violent as men. Their methods of violence differ, and so does the definition, as I’ve touched upon here: Women’s Aid – The definition of DV. Part 1

Essentially, you have ‘abused’ your ball-and-chain when you do things like (note that the majority of these things women are particularly expert at):

* Destructive criticism and verbal abuse. Who defines this? The ‘charity?’
* Pressure tactics: sulking, threatening to withhold money, disconnect the telephone, take the car away, commit suicide, take the children away, report you to welfare agencies unless you comply with his demands regarding bringing up the children, lying to your friends and family about you, telling you that you have no choice in any decisions. They assume that there couldn’t possibly be a valid reason to do one of these things. She is neglecting the children? That’s not abuse, you having a go at her about it, means you’re abusing her.
* Disrespect: persistently putting you down in front of other people, not listening or responding when you talk, interrupting your telephone calls, taking money from your purse without asking, refusing to help with childcare or housework. So you must behave towards her in a certain way at all times. No requirements on her behaviour however. This is a direct expansion of the ‘you must respect women for being female regardless of her behaviour’ that girl power is all about (feminism.)
* Breaking trust: lying to you, withholding information from you, being jealous, having other relationships, breaking promises and shared agreements. And when women do any of these things?
* Threats: making angry gestures, using physical size to intimidate, shouting you down, destroying your possessions, breaking things, punching walls, wielding a knife or a gun, threatening to kill or harm you and the children. Actually, mothers are more likely to harm the children than fathers, but shhhh don’t tell the feminists! They’re reality averse.
* Sexual violence: using force, threats or intimidation to make you perform sexual acts, having sex with you when you don’t want to have sex, any degrading treatment based on your sexual orientation. And when your woman wants to do these things with you? Then you’re not fulfilling her ‘needs’ and she can leave you, and take everything.
* Denial: saying the abuse doesn’t happen, saying you caused the abusive behaviour, being publicly gentle and patient, crying and begging for forgiveness, saying it will never happen again. You can’t deny the abuse (even if there isn’t any) because that’s abuse!

Now the pathetic bitches at this charity are obviously just touting for business. The abuse industry needs victims to get funding, the same way the divorce industry needs divorces, and the AID’s industry needs AID’s patients. By claiming that anything a man does that is not personally acceptable to the Goddess at any given time is ‘abuse’ essentially presents a situation where any problem in a relationship can immediately be labelled as such and the man’s life destroyed. Whether he did anything or not.

Bad news for relationships. Good news for ‘charities.’

On top of that, the industry can catch more ‘victims’ and use those women in statistics, screeching that they need more taxpayers money in other to guess what? Widen the definition some more and destroy even more relationships…

The mere fact that agencies such as Women’s Aid are allowed to flourish while preaching their bullshit is testament to the ‘women-as-victim’ culture endemic to all societies that accept feminism. Relationships between men and women are absolutely crucial to society as a whole. Any government with a true desire to protect the society it is supposed to protect will start with protecting the nuclear family unit. Man, woman and kiddies.

But what do we actually see? We already know feminism has a distinct hatred of the nuclear family, of men and of heterosexuality in general, the government obviously knows this, yet it will happily capitulate to the demands of a bunch of filthy man-hating bastards.


Because in a socialist/ communist (feminist) system, the goal is CONTROL of society, not PROTECTION of society. Men are the protectors of the family externally, women are the protectors of the family internally (to simplify things).

To men in government, the only real obstacle to controlling society are the men in it. History is replete with accounts of men arming themselves and taking on corrupt governments, and there really is no defence against the Will of Man.

At least not directly. The goal of feminism was to take control of women, behind men’s back. ‘Empowering’ women to attack their own men and children to fight their ‘oppression.’ Their mindless willingness to attack those who would die to protect them proves, to me at least, why there are countless quotes from great men and woman of the past exclaiming the idiocy of giving women political power.

Women never needed political power. They wielded power over men directly. Political power created a balance. Men, with their logical and objective thinking enabled them to make selfless decisions which would benefit society as a whole. Women are not logical and are subjective ‘thinkers.’ They think about themselves first.

Hence all of these stupid laws and rules with no regard for common law. Like innocent till proven guilty, and equal treatment under law.

Pah! Science, maths, objectivity, logic, equal treatment. These are just tools of the patriarchy to oppress women with!

Only a narcissistic bitch with serious penis envy could say something so fucking stupid.

“Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” – A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116

This all just adds weight to my hypothesis attempting to explain why women can’t seem to think straight, instead, choosing the bend reality to one which benefits them the most.

Which would then explain why feminism got so popular with the ‘sisterhood.’ Of course, funding from the Rockefellers (who seek the control of modern societies) didn’t hurt either.

Feminism is based on the works of a man. Karl Marx. Feminism was funded by (evil) men. The Rockefellers. Feminism could only exist because of the relative luxury and stress-free lives these women lived. Provided by men. Feminism is funded by governments. Created by men, and most taxes are paid by men. Feminism preach oppression while walking on paving slabs. Laid by men, in a street made by men. While being protected by men. Their homes are built and maintained by men. The energy that comes into their homes is harnessed from the universe by men. The media they use to spew their shit on was invented by men, along with almost everything else in the entire history of the human race.

No wonder they have penis envy. Must feel shit as a feminist being constantly surrounded by the creations of Man!

LOL Femcunts.


2 thoughts on “The definition of DV. Part 2 (and stuff.)

  1. Pingback: Evil Women « End of Men

  2. I have often seen those DV lists for “abuse” and have often noted that they are FAR more the STEREOTYPICAL female traits of Social/Relational Aggression.

    I believe there is a reason for this, if you are trying to socially re-engineer society by manipulating women, which is obviously what is happening.

    It is becuase women adhere to collective projection of their own behaviours FAR more than men do. Just like all men know that there is no such thing as the “Patriarchal Boy’s Club,” women are prone to believe there is a Boy’s Club because there definitely is a Matriarchal Girl’s Club – you know the one, it is the one in which women excuse other women for their awful behaviour and CHOOSE to believe that it is all men’s fault – no matter what. You go, Grrrl! Women are so prone to believe in “patriarchal oppression” because they know full well how the “sisterhood” works, and they are projecting their own collective behaviour upon men, figuring men must be just as twisted as they are.

    The same goes for the type of “abuse” that is listed above. This is STEREOTYPICALLY female abuse, not male. Not that males NEVER do these things, but when a male would threaten or do some of those things, it would likely be in a flash of anger during a heated two way argument. Very few men would bother to scheme for months or years on end to destroy a woman’s self esteem.

    BUT, women plot and carry out the EXACT same abuses as above over great lengths of time. This IS how women are. This IS how women aggress.

    I believe that these organizations spew this filth out about abuse because they know that women identify with how evil this kind of behaviour is because they know exactly the dark evil that lurks in their hearts when they plot to hurt others via this type of psychological abuse. They are manipulating women through collective projection of their behaviours.

    The following is in regard to different bullying styles between male and female children. (They only care about girls bullying other girls, as per the bias du jour). Of course, no ivory tower academic could ever put two and two together and figure out that females could also bully males in this same manner – and gasp, yes, even into adult relationships.

    Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, I>also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

    There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

    There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s