At the outset I want to explain the use of Domestic Violence as a proper noun. Domestic Violence is an abstract term that is subjectively defined. If you arose from a comatose state you may realize that it is during the “day” but not that it is a “Monday” unless someone aware of that subjective definition relayed such to you. We can collectively see “violence” and know that it is “violence” because as a society we have objectively defined “violence”. Alternatively though we may see “Domestic Violence” and not be aware of it due to its subjective nature. We could experience an interaction that may be innocuous in itself but become the phenomenon of “Domestic Violence” once we change our perception of the interaction. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
As an example: being told by your spouse “I want to be just like my mother” as he or she starts heating a pan of water on the stove is innocuous. Place this in the context of having just told your spouse not to go freely spend money reserved for upcoming non-discretionary expenses. “Domestic Violence” yet? Now add that your spouse is patting your toddler on his head while he is in his high chair. DV yet? Finally, throw on the recollection of an anecdote about how your mother-in-law, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at your spouse's now current age, dumped a pan of boiling water on your spouse as a child. Now, to the parent hearing this, it may be “Domestic Violence” based upon the perception that the other parent may be preparing to dump boiling water on the child unless the demand for money to go on a spending spree is met. To the neighbor walking in on the comment “I want to be just like my mother” there is no violence. That is why Domestic Violence is a subjective proper noun.
Now for the examples of Domestic Violence bias, who perpetuates it, and why.
There is a segment of the population and policy influencers who, for their own financial and political gain, want to see children abused and harmed. These are invaders of feminism known as "women-only feminists", “Feminazis” or “man-haters” who promote misandry. Here you will see examples of how they have taken over legitimate feminism and infected the family law courts to ensure their objective inclusive of its consequence of harming children.
The following are excerpts from A Judge’s Guide: Making Child-Centered Decisions In Custody Cases Second Edition
More than half of men who physically abuse their female partners also beat their children, and children of battered women are “up to 15 times more likely than children overall to be physically abused and neglected.”
Children who witness their fathers abuse their mothers, even if not physically harmed, can suffer serious psychological injuries and behavioral problems from their exposure to violence.
These are innocuous statements in themselves. They are conditioned gender labels. That is, a limited amount of fathers or men are abusers. However, no corresponding data about mothers or females who are abusers is provided. These omission are intended to portray that women or mothers do not commit Domestic Violence and that children who observe female initiated DV should not receive counseling.
Children who break the silence and disclose the abuse often painfully learn that the abuser finds yet a new reason to further harm them or their mother.
Now a different tact is taken. Here the sentence contains the appropriate gender neutral term “abuser” but contrasts such to “mother”. The reader's mind then subconsciously deduces that “abuser” is a placeholder for father.
You should gather information from multiple sources, including “the mother, the children, past partners of the batterer, court and police records, child protective records, medical records, school personnel, and anyone who has witnessed relevant events.”
Again, the same tactic is employed to condition judges to contrast “mother” with “the batterer”. The elimination of gender neutral terms ensures that subconsciously “the batterer” is used as a placeholder for the not mentioned father.
Two commentators have proposed comparing the gathered facts against the following 13 points:
~ Level of physical danger to the mother.
~ Level of psychological cruelty to the mother or the children.
~ History of using the children as weapons, and of undermining the mother’s parenting.
~ History of placing the children at physical or emotional risk while abusing their mother.
~ Refusal to accept the end of the relationship, or to accept the mother’s decision to begin a new relationship.
Of the thirteen bullet points five referenced women in a victim or targetted posture. None of the other eight points mentioned fathers. This is to ensure that judges do not perceive fathers as being targets or recipients of DV but to also not see the bias of naming men as abusers.
Patterns of domestic violence often begin, persist, or escalate during child custody battles, as the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she leaves her abuser.
Here “victim” and “she” are used in a conjunctive phrase. This is to correlate the gender neutral “victim” with “she” and to make “abuser” subconsciously correlated with the unspecified – he.
In order to maintain control over their wives, abusive spouses may use threats to seek custody in order to maintain control or other tactical advantages.
Here “wives” is distinguished from the gender neutral “abusive spouses” so that “abusive spouse” becomes synonymous with the unspecified – husbands.
Following the separation, abusers discover that they can manipulate and control the spouse with threats.
That sentence and the following section clearly demonstrates that the American Bar Association knows how to write in gender neutral terms. But as has been previously demonstrated, and based on an agenda that I will explain at the end, has choosen to not do so.
In the American Bar Associations' publication Child Custody and Domestic Violence by State gender neutral language is also used.
“First, the abuser has ignored the child’s interests by harming the child’s other parent. Second, the pattern of control and domination common to abusers often continues after the physical separation of the abuser and victim. Third, abusers are highly likely to use children in their care, or attempt to gain custody of their children, as a means of controlling their former spouse or partner.”
The purpose in choosing not to use gender neutral language when speaking of domestic abuse is so that “advocates” can appear to be beneficial while ensuring that children do get harmed and further perpetuates the need for these “advocates”. The ABA knows how to use gender neutral language that will further protect children.
It is generally not recommended that mediation be used in cases involving allegations of domestic violence “as it may place women and children at risk for ongoing intimidation.”
Again, this sentenced is used to reinforce into the minds of judges that men cannot be the receivers of Domestic Violence and that only women are in danger.
If allegations of domestic violence have been raised, the visitation exchange must be monitored to ensure the safety of the child and the custodial parent. Title 31 Chapter 6 of the Indiana Code.
The Indiana General Assembly knows how to use gender neutral language.
There is very carefully crafted psychological manipulation occurring here by the American Bar Association. To give the appearance of neutrality fathers are never directly equated with abusers. Instead, fathers are used in a conditional sense then related to abusers. Thus, there is no indication that 100% of fathers commit abuse or that 100% of abuse is committed by fathers. However, the same conditional experiences are never applied to mothers who are abusers. Aside from the limited portion of fathers who are abusers no other reference is made to fathers. In a legitimate writing about Domestic Violence all non-conditional references would be gender neutral but in the ABA'a Judge's Guide this is not the situation. Mothers and the related feminine pronouns are used in manners crafted to portray mothers only as “victims” of DV. The gender neutral “abuser” is always contrasted to mothers. Thus, while fathers are not explicitly labeled as abusers the elimination selection process that naturally occurs in our minds leaves only one option – fathers. This follows mothers, which are explicitly stated as victims, are eliminated from the two options our minds perceive. “Abusers” thus becomes synonymous with “fathers”.
There is a powerful motive for the American Bar Association to obfuscate fathers who are targets or recipients of Domestic Violence. It is that the ABA, in reality, WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN HARMED AND KILLED by mothers who do not receive the mental health assistance they need. Thus, if fathers are ignored as receivers or targets of DV they are left to do what I was told to do by Boone County Sheriff's Deputies – take care of it yourself. The results are that children remain in the custody of female abusers and suffer abuse or fathers fight back -- possibly harming or killing the mother -- and get criminally prosecuted. Either way, that results in additional litigation and that is the financial incentive that the ABA has to WANT TO SEE CHILDREN HARMED AND KILLED. Additionally, those harm and death statistics are used to perpetuate the so-called need for the funding of DV “advocates” and shelter directors. In a perverse twist they don't care if mothers do harm or kill children. The more the better as they have a way to manipulate those numbers to propound a need for additional funding.
Consider the manner in which the US Center for Disease Control processes responses from the The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study and publishes results. These findings include that “13% of children witnessed their mothers being treated violently” while 0% witnessed their fathers being treated violently. This statistic seems suspicious at best. All advocates for children know that mothers commit acts of Domestic Violence nearly as frequently. There is a simple explanation as to why that statistic is 0%. The US CDC does not want you to know that women commit acts of DV because it would contradict the societal ethos and the former gender based discrimination policy of the United States Government as propounded through the VAWA. How did the US CDC ensure that the statistic about witnessing fathers being treated violently would be zero? Here is the Domestic Violence question --
7. Was your mother or stepmother:
Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?
or
Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?
or
Ever repeatedly hit at least a few minutes or threatened with a gun or knife?
The statistic that “13% of children witnessed their mothers being treated violently” will then be followed by an account of the total numbers of children affected by DV with attributing the gender of the perpetrator. By preconditioning the reader to perceive mothers as victims the mind of the reader will subconsciously infer that the perpetrators are fathers.
Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, provides this analysis of the Feminazi basis for gender exclusion. “The argument for a women-only space is rooted in a belief that domestic violence results from the general societal oppression of women as a class by men as a class.
In short, women-only feminists argue that women are battered not merely by an individual male abuser but by the entire male gender and, so, they must be protected from both.
This is similar to claiming that a white person who has been beaten by a black perpetrator needs to be in a black-free environment because they have been battered not merely by a specific black person but by an entire race.
To carry the analogy one step further, it is similar to demanding that blacks should not be employed or allowed on the premises of a whites-only shelter . . . even if those premises are tax-funded and, so, prohibited from discrimination.
As men and their children continue to be subjected to gender based discrimination and prejudice, and subsequently denied relief from Domestic Violence they are given the same option that was presented to me by law enforcement – “you're a man” – take care of it yourself. When men and children are provided with the same legal protection as women, when women are held accountable for their actions, and when the resulting decline in Domestic Violence occurs so will the harm to children, the funding for purported efforts to reduce DV and the high paying jobs of those who perpetuate the Feminazi or pro harm to children agenda.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Another example of Domestic Violence bias against men - or - Why the American Bar Association seeks to perpetuate Domestic Violence and how it is covertly accomplished
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment