cpf_banner_small.gif (2059 bytes)
The
Fatherhood

Coalition

MC_Hammers_big.gif (5167 bytes)

... Domestic Violence Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Part 3  The Lying Liars

Mark Charalambous, Feb. 16, 2004

Part 1  Domestic violence lies and the lying liars who tell them, Nov. 9, 2003

Part 2   Harvard researcher hides study data behind university lawyers, June 28, 2004

Part 4  Domestic violence distortions conceal culture of male hatred, Nov. 1, 2004


The first report in this series focused on debunking a specific domestic violence lie, that it is the leading cause of injury for women’s hospital emergency department visits. We then raised the important question: What does it say about us that we are conditioned to accept such a gross exaggeration of the truth?

Now we turn to examining the motivations of the “lying liars” themselves.

At a domestic violence conference in Maine last year, in response to a question about the relative prevalence of male/female victims, a presenter blurted out: “I don’t care about who is victimized more. I just want to help people!”

This noble sentiment was met with a round of applause, but it highlights the real ignorance of what we call the “domestic violence industry.”


Female-on-male domestic violence is the proverbial “elephant in the room” that must be addressed if the domestic violence community wishes to maintain any credibility.

The decades-long propaganda campaign against men cannot be simply ignored in this fashion. The framing of domestic violence as a “women’s issue,” focusing exclusively on women’s victimization by men has led to the present distorted climate which misdiagnoses the problem.  The true nature of domestic violence, as has been confirmed time and again by valid scientific research, is not gender-dependent. Women are at least as likely as men to assault their intimates.  The one and only true assertion by the domestic violence community – and one which should not by downplayed – is that men are capable of inflicting greater injury than women owing to their general superiority of size and strength.

Female-on-male domestic violence is the proverbial “elephant in the room” that must be addressed if the domestic violence community wishes to maintain any credibility. In order to do this, we need to identify and understand the three kinds of protagonists in this debate.


“As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher … I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence.  It is creative applied sociology.”

─ Ann Goetting, Western Kentucky U.


The first group is those who recognize that domestic violence has been politicized to further an agenda. These people are typically men that have been personally stung by allegations of domestic violence, such as fathers who lost their children in a divorce when their wives/girlfriends played the “abuse card.” They also include a growing population of family members and friends who have experienced secondhand the ease with which any decent man can have his life destroyed by a vengeful woman, as well as a growing minority of honest researchers who are questioning the established party line.

The second category of protagonists is those that enthusiastically champion the party line on domestic violence. These include the “experts” in the domestic violence community: the social science academicians, social workers, medical and legal practitioners, as well as the media elites who promote the agenda through selective and biased reporting.

For these people, domestic violence is a lot more than just another social issue/cause. They are on a mission from the Goddess. Their words are often messianic in tone and draped in pseudo-scientific psycho-babble. Here’s a quote from Anne Flitcraft, regarded as the source of the emergency room injuries factoid:

“Yet it is true that for too long, violence against women remained largely invisible. Hidden from view not because it takes place in homes and private spaces or behind enemy lines, but hidden from view because it is so universal, deeply imbedded in the background of everyday life.” (“Synergy: Violence Prevention, Intervention, and Women’s Health, Ann Flitcraft, MD, JAMWA Vol.51, No. 2, p76)

Many of the academicians are little more than intellectual frauds. Here’s a quote from Ann Goetting of Western Kentucky U., from a presentation at a conference in San Diego in September, 2002:

“As a feminist sociology professor and a researcher … I was able to read, teach, and research about domestic abuse – the politically motivated terrorism of women and children held hostage by batterers in our patriarchal social order – for only so long before I was compelled to act. I consider my expert witness work on battering and its effects as a form of feminist activism that follows naturally from the expertise I have gained as a researcher, teacher, and author of domestic violence.  It is creative applied sociology.” (Ann Goetting, Family Violence Conference, San Diego, Sept. 2002)


People like Goetting and Flitcraft ... are zealots who see the world in stark, victim-feminist terms. Like other “isms”, their philosophy regards the entire history of humanity through a lens of gender conflict. They are not educable and no more deserve to be part of the discussion than would an Islamic terrorist at a roundtable on religious tolerance.

It needs to be understood that people like Goetting and Flitcraft, representative experts of the domestic violence community, are zealots who see the world in stark, victim-feminist terms. Like other “isms”, their philosophy regards the entire history of humanity through a lens of gender conflict. They are not educable and no more deserve to be part of the discussion than would an Islamic terrorist at a roundtable on religious tolerance.

The last category in this breakdown includes those individuals who simply have an awareness of or interest in the subject. They have neither been affected by it personally nor have they been subjected to the intense propagandization. These people are, therefore, educable.

The naive individual at the Maine conference who expressed his exasperation at the competing claims of those from categories (1) and (2) needs to get a reality check.  It won’t be possible to correctly address domestic violence in the current climate as long as the discussion is monopolized by the “religious” fanatics. 

The failure to recognize the truth about domestic violence hurts not only men and their children, but also the very people it is designed to protect: women. The false framing of the issue has led to laws, policies and procedures that criminalize innocent men while at the same time enabling violent women. “Abuse protection” tools like domestic restraining orders (209As) that are designed to be easily abused by women are actually causing real violence against women; violence that might never have happened if domestic situations were initially evaluated in an environment free of gender bias.

We need an approach that rejects the feminist worldview that domestic violence is a function of “patriarchal oppression,” and accepts that it is a complicated family dynamic in which women are just as likely to be guilty as men.

# # #

The author is a Leominster, MA resident. He is the Spokesman for CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition and an instructor in the Massachusetts state college system.


cpf_home.gif (3511 bytes)