The following article is an English translation of an original article by El Tivípata, a Spanish blogger specialized in antifeminism. Originally published on 4th October 2015. Published with his explicit permission. Link to the original in Spanish:
http://eltivipata.blogspot.com.es/2015/10/violencia-machista-o-violencia-domestica.html
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE/LINGUISTIC DRIVEL: In Spanish, machismo is a word defined as “an attitude of male supremacy/arrogance over women”. Therefore, in Spain, any offence or crime against a woman by a man (based on their respective genders) is labelled machista, and what was formerly known as “domestic violence” has slowly gravitated towards “gender violence”, and nowadays, as violencia machista (“macho/male chauvinist violence”), effectively taking men as victims and women as perpetrators (let alone children, or homosexual couples) out of the equation of domestic violence. Here, I have translated the term machista in different ways according to the context: “against women”, “sexist” or “male chauvinist”. That should be taken into account while reading the article: the problem of incorrectly labelling a crime as machista is a bit more apparent in Spanish than to call it “against women”, because although it nominally is “AGAINST women”, it is not “against women FOR being women”.
According to a study by Oxford University, the Spanish media are the worst of 11 media analyzed, which included countries like UK, Germany, Italy, or Brazil. The scarce quality of TV talk shows, the lack of objectivity or the instrumentalization of journalism for political goals… all of that has a lot to do with the fact that only about 30% of the Spanish population believes in their country’s media. And of course, we can’t forget the total absence of rigor over their treatment of news.
But there is a particular sphere where journalistic rigour just goes out the window, bowing down before the gender violence industry: in any incident where the woman is the victim, and the man is the perpetrator. Whenever a man assaults or murders a woman, the incident is immediately addressed as a case of violence against women, just assuming that the assailant or murderer committed that violent act due to the female condition of the victim. But what are the requirements for a crime or an aggression to be branded as “against women”?
In the United States, a man murdered his wife in order to collect her insurance. There were no records of previous abusive behaviours, nor any evidences suggesting that the woman was suffering from domestic violence. None of their relatives, friends, or neighbours saw anything that could make them suspect there was a violent relationship ongoing. In Spain, this news would have been announced as violence against women; it would have joined the lists they use for propaganda, and the “businesswomen of suffering” would have taken out their “We love ourselves alive” banners in one of their marches promoting discrimination and hatred.
Now, undoubtedly, it is a horrible crime, but it can’t be considered a crime against women, given that the motive was entirely economic. We can say that the murderer is an empathy-lacking sociopath, but he is not a sexist murderer.
The press also tried to make us swallow the case of the drummer of a band named Los Piratas, as a case of assault against women. A Civil Guard officer gunned the musician down while he was in a state of extreme agitation. We later learned that the band member was suffering from severe mental disorders, which he had managed to control thanks to proper medication. Shortly before the incident that led to his death, his psychiatrist had considered it appropriate (in what could very well be a case of malpractice) to interrupt his patient’s treatment, with disastrous consequences. In light of the awful media coverage of this event, we can’t help but wonder: how many cases of schizoid, psychotic, and demented men murdering their wives —not for being women, but for being the nearest person available— have been passed as crimes against women, in order to keep skewing the statistics?
On the other hand, someone who kills a partner due to a pathological sense of possession is not necessarily a male chauvinist, because the sense of possession is not limited to one gender. You only need to google this: “Woman kills her husband (or tries to) when she discovered he was being unfaithful”, and we will verify that having an unhealthy, possessive, and toxic concept of relationships is something that affects both men and women, and therefore, it’s not an exclusive domain of male chauvinism.
Crime against women is not analogous to domestic crime, even if the worst media (according to Oxford University) use them as interchangeable concepts, in order to keep alienating the ignorant reader who continues to buy into the lie that violence always has the same set of chromosomes.
El Ratel ha presenciado el auge de las estupideces políticamente correcta, el lenguaje inclusivo y la ideología feminista en su país natal, España. Tras entrar en contacto con las ideas del Movimiento por los Derechos del Hombre y el antifeminismo, sus intentos por hablar de ello fueron recibidos con desdén y desprecio. Por eso, tomó la decisión de adoptar una identidad secreta y hacer lo que mejor se le da: difundir información a través de la escritura y la traducción.
- Los maricas están oficialmente fuera (del bando progresista) - November 16, 2016
- Sword and Glory – A game about male disposability - November 15, 2016
- Guía para dummies para que las adolescentes respeten a los chicos - November 14, 2016
by 
