When faced with men’s advocates’ complaints about anti-male discrimination in criminal court, and the use of unproved abuse allegations against fathers in custody cases, feminists usually deflect to their pet conspiracy theory, “That’s part of Patriarchy!” and claim no legislative or policy reform is needed, because the problem is not caused by existing law or policy.
Is that the truth?
Let’s take a short trip down memory lane.
Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing throughout the 70s, backed by grants from several elite institutions with big wallets, the feminist movement began infiltrating academia with the invention of a new college course titled “Women’s studies,” which might as well have been titled “Feminism 101.”
The pressure campaign to convince post-secondary institutions to adopt this curriculum was funded by the Ford Foundation, with additional funding coming from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller and Mellon Foundations, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
By the mid-1970s this effort had stretched from the development of a single class curriculum to an entire department, which later evolved through the label “gender studies” and “intersectional studies” to become the modern “interdisciplinary studies department.” Truth in labeling would have it labeled the “Political Grievance Studies” department. The expansion of feminism’s “women’s studies” curriculum into “interdisciplinary studies” did not just create new women’s studies coursework. It branched out like a vining weed whose tendrils surreptitiously invaded other academic departments. Today, you cannot study anything in business, marketing, the arts, education, criminal justice, journalism, or medicine without being fed feminist theory as part of your classroom curriculum, and the cult is currently invading the hard sciences, engineering, math, and other academic areas that at one time were free of gender politics propaganda.
Meanwhile, feminists within this manufactured academic field began trying to find a way to legitimize claims that male-perpetrated intimate partner and sexual violence were more prevalent in society than commonly believed. To achieve that they had to find something other than data from the justice bureau, which showed that these crimes were relatively rare. They also couldn’t rely on surveys that asked people directly about their experiences, because they weren’t getting the answers they wanted. Many tried to redesign their survey questions to get the desired results. Mary P. Koss managed to create a formula that her movement found satisfactory; one that was vague enough to get responses she could count as incidents of rape whether the respondant agreed that the described incident occurred against her will, or not.
This research was promoted and gained widespread attention after it was published in Gloria Steniem’s feminist periodical, Ms. Magazine, and as a result, Koss’s stats were used by then-senator Joe Biden in his 1993 push for passage of the original Violence Against Women act, which became law in 1994.
Of course, feminists argue to us that this has nothing to do with discrimination against men, and in bringing it up all we’re really doing is complaining about the first US legislation to give women recourse against their abusers, but is that the truth?
In January of 2013, I re-read the original act, and confirmed what I remembered from my college days. VAWA was not the first such legislation. The Family Violence Prevention and Services act of 1984 was. VAWA was an “update” to FVPSA, intended to gender the law and use funding to create a system of training and data manufacturing that would create the illusion that gendering the law was justified. To that end, the statute funds research done with the express goal of justifying the continued application of enforcement aimed at benefiting only women. The section laying out the standards for this uses entirely gendered language to describe intimate partner and sexual violence in order to emphasize the presumption of female victims and male perpetrators. Also funded by VAWA is training for personnel at every level of the criminal justice system, from law enforcement to court personnel to employes in the prison system… all based on feminism’s gendered beliefs about these types of violence. Finally, the law contained grants to encourage arrest policies, in a section that was literally titled “Grants to encourage arrest policies.” The goal of that, after prejudicing officers to assume that any incident will have a male perpetrator and a female victim, was to ensure that the man in any domestic conflict would be arrested.
In other words, the bias is written directly into the law, using grants to promote and incentivize bias against men in cases involving women’s intimate partner and sexual violence allegations.
How much do you think feminist academia is capitalizing on this?
This week, HBR talk welcomes a new guest Therapy Snek, an anonymous criminology student, to talk about his experiences with gender politics in his field of study. The discussion streams on multiple platforms. You can tune in to the youtube livestream, or find other listening options on honeybadgerbrigade.com.
My report on my research into VAWA:
Opening Monologue transcript
Support the badgers: http://www.feedthebadger.com
Patreon us on patreon: http://www.patreon.com/honeybadgerradio
Subscribe to us on minds https://www.minds.com/HoneyBadgerRadio
Follow us on twitter! https://twitter.com/HoneyBadgerBite
Join our Facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/honeybadgerradio
Watch us on twitch! https://streamlabs.com/honeybadgerradio
Prim Reaper – https://www.youtube.com/user/Aceticacidplease
Deborah Powney – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DOT_N7Ib0Pwi4m4XbX04A
- Depp vs Heard: Duluth Model expert testimony | HBR Talk 223 - May 5, 2022
- The woke mind virus | HBR Talk 222 - April 28, 2022
- We’ve got to talk about woke boundary issues | HBR Talk 221 - April 21, 2022