Editorial note: The below article describes a false, sexist “White Ribbon Campaign” that operates in Australia and Canada. This should not be confused with WhiteRibbon.org, which is a campaign genuinely dedicated to educating the public in order to end the scourge of domestic violence. -Eds.
In probably the most frightening news to date, the White Ribbon mob has publicized their latest inroads into the annals of infamy with their Breaking the Silence in Schools Program. The Age, that bastion of doubleplusgoodthink, ran an editorial for them called “Boys act on domestic violence.”
We are to believe a schoolboy spontaneously became aware of feminist domestic violence statistics and found them “scary.” So scary, in fact, that he spontaneously decided to take action.
The resulting Waverley College Violence Against Women Forum – conceived and implemented almost entirely by the student leaders – aims to get students thinking about attitudes and behaviours that can lead boys and men to hurt girls and women.
Spontaneously, the White Ribbon lot got involved. With coincidental spontaneity, Channel 7’s Andrew O’Keefe, along with other domestic violence luminaries, spoke at the forum. Caught up in the spirit of spontaneity, The Age suddenly felt moved to publish an editorial on the matter.
We are assured:
Content was produced without advertiser influence.
Spontaneously, we are to imagine that “without advertiser influence” and “ideologically unbiased” are one and the same thing. This, of course, requires us to ignore that “family violence,” “domestic violence,” and “family and domestic violence” are all interchangeable terms for the same phenomenon: “violence against women.”
Can a man be a victim of domestic violence? While perhaps technically possible, it seems that the White Ribbon lot, nor the various luminaries who spoke, didn’t spontaneously feel the need to warn these schoolboys of that possibility.
And what are the chances, do you reckon, that the school, Waverley College, spontaneously asked the government for a grant to pay for the event?
At the very end of the propaganda piece was some sage advice for those who find themselves under threat.
Anyone in immediate danger should call the police on Triple Zero (000).
If a student is experiencing violence in their own home or relationship or suspect a friend is, they should call the 24-hour national Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line to speak with a trained trauma counsellor. 1800 RESPECT.
Other than tourists visiting this wide, brown land from afar, it is reasonable to expect that those with the literary skills required to read The Age will already know to call Triple Zero in an emergency. But the number is not put there for information purposes. Instead, the “immediate danger” is being used to heighten the sense of moral panic and hysteria.
Let me also ask this question: Why the two numbers? Surely those experiencing violence should be calling the police too. The answer, here, is a bit more subtle. With the ever-widening definition of what feminists call violence, not all violence results in an emergency, or is even illegal.
Tracy Howe, former Domestic Violence NSW CEO, who spoke at the forum, says many types of abuse fall outside of what is recognised by the law.
Howe says this as though it is a bad thing. But when we have such vague definitions of spiritual violence, economic violence, financial violence, and the like, it is without doubt a good thing that these issues have not made the statute books.
Consider this: “Withdrawing interest and engagement” is defined as emotional abuse by the Australian government, yet divorce is still legal.
But if a student suspects a friend, call this number? This is the most disturbing part of all. It’s slipped in, almost as an afterthought, yet it is actually the centrepiece.
Here’s something else to consider: The Department of Social Services engaged Medibank Health Solutions, who in turn engaged Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, to provide online counselling services linked to this number. So the more people who call the number, or use their online counselling services, the more these agencies can ask from the government budget.
But, by now, we shouldn’t be thinking about money. We’ve read “scary” and “violence” and “intimidate” and “abuse.” By now we should be hyperventilating in panic and thanking Gaia that the feminists have created this help line for those in crisis when the police (patriarchy!) won’t.
Of course, for those in crisis, the terms and conditions are clearly stated on the website. This informs us just how serious this matter is:
The information provided during the Online Counselling Services is for general information purposes only. The information provided during the Online Counselling Services is not and should not be regarded as advice, including legal or medical advice. [Emphasis mine]
It should be clear to all but the hard of thinking that calling that number is not going to help anyone with any kind of real and serious problem. However, it is also in the White Ribbon’s interest that the number of calls go up rather than down. They will certainly be quoting their cooperation with this “help” line on their funding requests and grant applications.
But there are two further issues, both related. First, it is clear, although unstated, that children should be dobbing in their parents. Could this phone line be abused by belligerent teenagers who believe, for example, that their parents should allow, and even fund, their drug use in the family home?
The second issue is even more sinister:
[Andrew] O’Keefe, a former chairman of White Ribbon, a national male-led organisation dedicated to eradicating violence against women, says it is important to challenge young people’s attitudes to gender and violence while they have the ability to easily learn and unlearn behaviours. [Emphasis mine]
So what behaviour is our suspicious student learning? Nova Peris, in the federal Senate, has the answer:
On Tuesday, Senator Peris, the first indigenous woman to be elected to Federal Parliament, called for all states and territories to emulate Northern Territory laws that make it a crime for any adult to fail to report domestic violence to police.
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, they were called The Youth League and The Spies. The Nazis, of course, had the Hitler Youth. We get the Breaking the Silence in Schools Program.
Today, it is being asked of our children to report domestic violence, with all the vagueness that now comes with that term. Yes, those youths who are not consider old enough to vote, sign legal documents, start a business, etc., because of their immaturity, are being asked to report “crimes” not only in their own homes but in their friends homes as well. And no actual knowledge is required. A suspicion will do.
It is worth noting that these same children cannot be compelled to give evidence in any trial that might result from these reports because of their age.
But breaking what silence?
The statistics at the beginning say it all:
More than one woman dies every week at the hands of an intimate partner. One in three women will experience violence from the age of 15. One in four children are exposed to violence in their family.
These are stated as fact. The sky is blue, the sun sets in the west, and one in three women will experience violence from the age of 15. These are the statistics that spontaneously scared the schoolboy.
Instead of dragging you through all kinds of data to show why the above “facts” are not actually facts, let me direct you to the link where Julia Gillard who, while prime minister, made a special YouTube declaration that one in three women will be “beaten and raped” in their lifetime.
That’s a lot stronger than “experience violence,” isn’t it? Why don’t the White Ribbon people say “beaten and raped” like our ex-prime minister? The truth is that neither statistic is valid. They are used for their dramatic effect, not their accuracy.
If questioned, the questioner will be pointed to any number of feminist authors who make the claim. Prepare to disappear in a maze of feminist author quoting yet another feminist author, while the words like “actual figures” get replaced by “estimate” as you spiral in the abyss. All of this is designed to bamboozle the feminists’ critics, and certainly not to seriously study and understand domestic violence.
I’ve included a link to Murray Strauss’s paper on how feminists corrupt domestic violence research.
However, we are not expected to question but rather be dutifully shocked and outraged. Again, it is unstated but should be clear that if one in three women are being abused, the equivalent of one in three men must be doing the abusing. And if this is the true number, then it is happening everywhere, all of the time, and we don’t even know about it. That is “the Silence.”
The White Ribbon Campaign, and now the boys who spontaneously started the Waverley College Violence Against Women Forum, are setting themselves as being somehow exempt from this statistic. Their plan, it seems, is to avoid being the victim of the witch hunt by being leading with the accusations.
Feminism has often been described as a religion. It is worth considering this when reading this statement in The Age.
Ending violence against women begins with changing attitudes and behaviours.
In this report alone, the terms “end,” “stop,” and even “eradicate” are used. This is more than a community reaction to a particular crime. It is a crusade for the Holy Grail of a Violence-Free, Problem-Free World for Women.
And, of course, the violence will never end because the definition will keep expanding. The real reason is that there is too much money and too many careers riding on the Violence Against Women bandwagon for it come to a halt anytime soon.
Meanwhile, these perhaps well-meaning but gullible young men will become feared and loathed in their community as the hysteria mounts and the phone calls for “help” become the “evidence” in courts.
And all because they feel compelled to distance themselves from the original sin of being born male.