Suseonline is a female supremacist who subscribes to the radical lesbian feminist notion of 'wonderful' womyn who are the perpetual victims of men. Men, boys too, see as their raison b'etre and first priority the control, victimisation and denigration of wonderful womyn.

Suseonline SAYS!

Suseonline will tell you that serious crime is with very few exceptions indeed, always a masculine problem. Any rare female deviance is seen as a consequence of the 'mens' fault and wrongdoing somewhere. Something wonderful womyn were forced into by men, even where the said woman lay in wait as meticulously planned for her partner with a firearm checked to flatten the largest boar and purchased well before.

Womyn must be excused and better still never investigated for the serious crimes that they could not have committed through their own choice and volition. The government, police and society are to recognise womyn as forever victims, vulnerable and frail, totally believable and not capable of deceit and deception which wouldn't cross their childlike innocent minds, and in need of protection, not really responsible for any of those decisions that result in nasty consequences.

Remember, "Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails, That's what little boys are made of. Sugar and spice and all things nice, That's what little girls are made of".

What stake do the Suseonlines have in NOT wanting independent study of violence in the broad and coordinated effort to deal with it? Is it as simple as a self-serving interest in what is putting bread on their table and the careers that go with it?

Violence is violence. Regarding violence, 'partner violence' or any other, as a gender crime just gets in the way of understanding violence and its causes and fragments efforts to study, detect and resolve

raison d'etre

//What stake do the Suseonlines//

You do know the difference between 'singular' and 'plural' grammatical senses don't you?

//have in NOT wanting independent study of violence in the broad and coordinated effort to deal with it?//

I very much doubt any feminist has a problem with independent study; I think their objections are more against dealing with violence against men when the resources could be devoted to dealing with violence against women. They are, after all, feminists. I prefer to think of myself as a 'personist' (because 'humanist' has attached baggage which I don't necessarily wish to claim).

//Violence is violence. Regarding violence, 'partner violence' or any other, as a gender crime just gets in the way of understanding violence and its causes and fragments efforts to study, detect and resolve//

Hear, hear.

Toni, I prefer "sentientist", it sounds so much more pretentious and it only has one more syllable.

I'm prepared to entertain alternatives that may be more syntactially, if not semantically, efficient.

ttbn, ".... statistics clearly show that most violence is directed towards women." Well what you say is probably true but those women known as "access bitches" ie. those who perpetuate the worst form of emotional violence often show up as victims themselves as a consequence.

Because women seem to suffer the most out of relationship conflict flare ups we only need to maintain a very narrow focus on who are the victims and who are the perps. Nothing else really matters...not even who initiated the violence.

Toni Lavis,

While I might take issue with your first two points, that matters little because it is the final crucial one that matters and on which we agree.