As I delve even further into statistics, the incredible social irresponsibility of standard Western feminist policies becomes ever clearer. Last week, I demonstrated that forcible rapes and sexual assaults of all sorts could be substantially reduced merely by ensuring that children’s fathers have the opportunity to protect them.
However, I wouldn’t have expected that this also had another, important implication: women who stay with their husbands are far less likely to be victims of domestic violence than those who go it alone.
It turns out that the safest place for women of all is in the marital home, living with their husbands. This goes for women with or without children, and the differences are dramatic. A single mother living alone with her children is almost thirteen times as likely to be a victim of domestic violence as a married mother. Married women without children at home are safest of all; their risk is about 3% that faced by single mothers and 10% that of single, childless women.
The highest risk group is separated women — those who choose to end their marriages. I’m sure the risk during separation is real, but I’d also be a bit wary of those statistics, because accusations fly during separation and divorce procedures, and this surely drives up the numbers somewhat.
However, in all “stable” household situations, it’s indisputable that single mothers are at highest risk.
So, it seems that the typical battered woman is not an oppressed, timid wife in a patriarchal household, but an “empowered single mother.” The typical batterer is not a controlling husband, but a badboy lover. The conclusion we can easily draw from the above is that the best way to protect women from domestic violence is to ensure that as many women as possible are in stable marriages living with their husbands under the same roof.
How often do we hear of this reality from feminist domestic violence advocates? Hardly ever. In fact, their primary goal seems to be to create as many single mothers as possible, which will necessarily drive up the rate of domestic violence by putting women in unsafe situations. Feminists are more concerned with removing women and children from safe places and tossing them into circumstances that, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, are clearly dangerous.
Why is it that feminists have so little concern for the average woman? Why do they pursue policies that endanger women and children even as they claim to be their saviors?
The shameful answer to those questions is that it is politically profitable. By creating problems then posing as the savior, they guarantee themselves a position of some importance. It is akin to the doctor who deliberately poisons people to increase his business and enhance his reputation as a healer.
There’s really only one way to deal with these people: expose them for the frauds they are. It’s time for men to stop handing responsibility for family affairs off to people whose only interest is in helping themselves. We must point out the obvious implications of ruinous family policy, and in the meanwhile ignore the hollow accusations feminists so casually toss around. Turn those accusations back on them. If they call you part of the “abuse lobby,” point out that feminist anti-family policy is responsible for far more violence against women than you could be if you attacked a different woman every day for the rest of your life.
Accusations and arguments over responsibility aside, it’s truly sad that the solutions to these things we have been arguing over for years are so simple and self-evident, yet so widely ignored. Again, we can see that women and children are safest with men who love them, yet we expend our efforts in attempts to drive them apart.
