Here's another case of a "poor woman", "victim" committing what would have to be called a gender hate crime.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-severed-penis-idUSTRE76B6TZ20110712

"Becker is accused of drugging her husband's food to make him sleepy, slicing off his penis with a knife, tossing it into the garbage disposal and turning the unit on, Nightengale said. She then called 911, he added."

No doubt she was suffering from some form of mental illness at the time. The poor thing needs our help, not our condemnation...

It's fascinating how many of these penis assault incidents seem to involve Asian women. Is this some form of tradition in some Asian countries? Must be one of the benefits men enjoy from that patriarchy thing, eh?

Pelican, how do I articulate it all?

We are limited here by the written word, and word limits. Secondly there is always the communication problem.

I have many absolutely lovely women in my life, and a few who are the devil incarnate.

I often quote material published and written by other women. So how can using material written by other women, be anti-female?

http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/toc.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20050302090133/http://www.nojustice.info/FearAsaWeapon.htm

< Until the early 1990's almost all research victimization was conducted by interviewing women only. Even those researchers, like Walter DeKeseredy, who conducted bi-directional surveys, published only the findings pertaining to male-on-female abuse/violence. The data on female perpetrated and initiated violence was available only to researchers.>

Have a look at the material written by Eeva Sodhi.

The usual response when confronted with material or information that conflicts with your beliefs is denial and after 30 or 40 years of feminist propaganda and distortion of facts it can be difficult to come to terms with more accurate and truthful material.

I can understand you sentiment about 'anti-female bias' afterall my own gender has been under a sustained feminist assault and demonisation for longer than I have been alive.

James, Eeva Sodhi is a "traitor" to the Sisterhood. anything she shays has to be taken as a betrayal of her sacred obligation to never question the claims of other women.

As you say, this is so ingrained after 40 years of propaganda that it's simply not questioned, even by intelligent women like Pelican. It's become an article of faith.

James not sure if you spotted it but one of the point's I mentioned from the report I referenced yesterday was the following -

"Victimisation surveys ask women about the violence they have experienced and some of these surveys also ask women whether, to their knowledge, children had witnessed the violence."

Eg when you ask only women about DV you get different results than if you ask their kid's what they have seen (and if you asked only men the right questions you could get the required answers as well - just to clarify because if I don't then it's a put down of women etc)

R0bert

Robert, I did spot it and that is how socalled research has been conducted.

Eeva Sodhi pointed out how research was conducted into fathers satisfaction with the current contact arrangments, they asked the mothers, not the fathers.

There is a saying that royal commissions are only ever held, when they are sure of the outcome. Typically feminist researchers only conduct research that supports, their own dogma.

And when research is conducted and the results differ from the feminist dogma, the feminist researchers then accuse others of doing exactly what they have been doing all along.

James I don't recall reading any of Eeva Sodhi's stuff before. I've just read a few of her pieces. Some good stuff there but also much of the same dramatic flair that marks the maternal bias crowd.

One piece http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sodhi1.html spoke of millions of men being woken by armed police, armed swat teams dragging people out of their offices etc, whilst it's likely that some individuals have been dealt with in those terms I've not seen any evidence that it's common place.

When she does analysis of the stat's she seems to do a good job in raising the right questions (although I think she was too dismissive of the impact of absent fathers on child neglect rates, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, not all absent dad's are excluded).

Some interesting material but I'm so over the stuff that over dramatises it from both sides.

R0bert