The central myth of MISANDRY: “the inherent non-violence of women”

In 1986, Barbara Hart, one of the central architects of the notorious VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) expressed, in an introduction to a book on domestic violence between homosexual women, her disappointment in finding that such relationships were indeed statistically at the top of the domestic violence heap. Hart wrote candidly, describing the revelations as personally “painful,” and stating that the data “challenges our dream of a Lesbian Utopia. It contradicts our belief in the inherent non-violence of women.”*

In this brief statement this cultural Marxist, or “feminist,” delineates two important principles of the feminist plan: utopianism, a perfect socially engineered system that would serve the ideals of those who fantasize about it, and, a bedrock a priori position, a “belief,” specifically a belief that women are inherently not violent beings.

While the passage quoted makes clear that Hart had discovered both the utopian fantasy and the belief to be unwarranted – and explicitly contradicted by the facts – she nevertheless plowed forward, along with fellow travelers in the social engineering industry to construct an authoritarian agenda backed by the force of Federal power (and in many respects in violation of the Constitution of the United States), which would be signed into law by on September 13, 1994, eight years following Hart’s confession that the facts contradict the theory – or belief – or wish – or fantasy – behind the entire enterprise.

*[preface to Kerry Lobel, Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering,  Seal Press, August 1986]

***

INSTRUMENTAL vs. EXPRESSIVE

The professional term for the type of violence that women – according to the false stereotype – are supposedly incapable of is “instrumental,” referring to deliberate, premeditated action. ‘Instrumental’ is opposed to ‘expressive,’ referring to action taken only in a moment of passion or insanity. Peter Vronsky, in his 2007 book on female serial killers points out and explains this fallacy of female inability to be calculating, cold-blooded agents of violence:

“When women commit violence, the only explanations offered have been that it is either involuntary, self-defense, the result of mental illness, or hormonal imbalances inherent with female physiology: postpartum depression, premenstrual syndrome, and menopause have been included among the named culprits. Women have been perceived to be capable of committing only reactive or “expressive” violence – an uncontrollable release of pent-up rage or fear – and that they murder unwillingly and without premeditation.

‘Instrumental violence, however, murder for a purpose – political power, rape, sadistic pleasure, robbery, or some other base gratification – remains the domain of the male. After all, every male is a potential killer in the form of a warrior – and he only becomes a murderer when he misuses his innate physical and socialized capacity to kill for ignoble, immoral, and impolitic reasons. While the male is built and programmed to destroy, the female nests, creates, and nurtures. Or so the story goes.” [Peter Vronsky, Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters, 2009, Berkley Books, p. 6]

Here is a sample “instrumental violence” case from 1889:

FULL TEXT: Zanesville, O., Sept. 10.— Frank Amos, one of the most prominent citizens of Morgan county, was murdered at his home in the western part of this county by Mrs. Hampton, his niece, who literally hacked his face and head to pieces with a butcher knife which she had carried for weeks avowedly for that purpose. Amos was picking berries in the field with his wife when the attack was made. She and a man who was passing on the road were attracted by his cries of m ardor and reached him only in time to see him breathe his last and to see Mrs. Hampton and her daughter run away. The trouble grew out of a law suit in which the testimony of Amos threw the costs on Hampton. [“A Woman's Fury, She Hacks a Man to Pieces With a Butcher Knife.” Galveston Daily News (Tx.), Sep. 17, 1889, p. 2]

***

VAWA, with its enormous budget has, in subsequent decades, managed to use propaganda and behavioral conditioning programs to quite literally hypnotize the American public into accepting the “belief in inherent female non-violence,” despite the copious data contradicting the belief and an endless stream of gory news stories of vicious female-perpetrated violence.

It is with this fact in mind – the fact of mass delusion, or mass cognitive dissonance – that The Unknown History of MISANDRY approaches the question of female-perpetrated violence. Visitors to the site may be perplexed to see such a large number of stories of violent women whose victims are women, or girls, or babies of either sex. What has this to do with misandry? It has everything to do with misandry, actually. These reports of crimes of the past constitute hard evidence –  anectodal evidence which because it offers a wealth of detail gives psychological insight not afforded by statistics – that may be used to break the spell, the spell caused specifically by misandry (as well as instinctual chivalry) that causes us to overlook the truth, that causes us, like sleepwalkers, to accept and even adopt the delusions perpetrated by the feminist hoax.

***

This particular collection is one of several specialized categories designed to shed light on female violence in the past, in the era before cultural Marxism came to the supposed rescue of women as a class being victimized by men as a class.

It is recommended that the visitor looking into female violence against victims other than adult men take the time to browse the following categories (found in the list to the right of the screen) in particular:

Acid Queens (women who throw acid into the face of a victim with the intention of ruing the victim’s looks, but sometimes “accidentally” killing the target)

Child Care Providers (women who abuse and murder the children they are paid to care after)

Female Serial Killers Who Liked to Murder Women

Maternal Filicide / Spousal Revenge Motive

Step-Mothers from Hell

***

 

“Our belief in the inherent non-violence of women” leads to violence against men, women, girls and boys.” The epidemic of attacks on men by women in Kenya, with 4,600 cases reported in 2011 alone, provides a vivid example of just how fallacious the heavily financed international campaigns which single out one sex as blameworthy for the flaw of aggressive violence really is.

SEE:

►Articleon Kenyan violence by women against men

►Videoon Kenyan violence by women against men

***

[1794-11/23/21]

***

“Herstory” is Collapsing

The false narrative known as “Herstory” is collapsing now that the true history of the relations between the sexes is being revealed in documents posted on The Unknown History of MISANDRY.

►•►•► Men’s Rights 101:

If you did not learn about Sigurd Hoeberth (Höberth) in college you were robbed.

►The first lesson in Men’s Rights Activism is to read “The World's First Men's Rights Organization - 1926-1930”

***

Herstory “forgot” to tell you about something. Click the image of Louise Vermilya  if you dare.

***

Alimony Reform League vs. Sociopathic Sadism in 1935

The present-day passionate devotion to the notion of a police state – with its kidnapping, theft of property, mental torture (alienating children from their fathers), and state-condoned homicide – which is exhibited by present day cultural Marxists (“feminists”) was not shared by mainstream feminists in the early 20^th century, but such devotion to tyranny was throughout the entire 20^th century – as it is today – indeed shared by a large population of sadistic sociopaths of the female sex (link to 1912 article*).

There has always been a large number of female sociopaths, despite the failure of psychology researchers who use male criteria on female subjects – resulting in skewed unreliable comparative statistics.

The following articles demonstrate that the sociological tendencies which result in misandric behavior need not have the trappings of political “theory” to be pervasive and damaging – all with the active support of “white knight” males.

The organization discussed in the following 1935 article is but one of many such early men’s rights organizations formed in the 1920s and 1930s to combat the Alimony Racket.

***

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): What do you suppose an ex-wife is thinking about when she has her husband put under the jailhouse for not paying alimony?

That question has bothered thousands of former husbands who from the inside of the jail saw no rhyme or reason in it. It led to formation of the Alimony Reform League of New York, which inquired into the subject. Now the story can be told.

Such women are psychopathic cases almost every time! And they are sadistic! At least they are bordering on some kind on some on some kind of psychosis that approaches sadism.

The Alimony League got back about one-half of 2,000 questionnaires it sent out. The first three questions ran: “Why did you send him to jail? Are you satisfied now that he is in jail? How long would you like to have him remain there?”

More than one-fourth of the women answering the first question declared he belonged in jail, deserved it. About 63 per cent were tickled to death with the status of everything in answering the second question. They were satisfied. About 21 per cent were sorry, the rest, undecided.

Answering the third question, 49 per cent – on how long he ought to be kept in jail – declared: “Until he rots!” Their composite view of the man in jail – the “ex” – was expressed in the most fulsome eloquence:

 “My husband had the grace of a hippopotamus, the brain of a gnat, looked like a giraffe, stung like a wasp, and he had the personality of a dead salmon.”

Perhaps some slight exaggeration crept into the description.

And to the question of them not getting any alimony as long as he is in jail, the answers tended to sum up to this:

“That’s perfectly all right with me. I’ll get along without his money.”

That, of course, really doesn’t make sense, but perhaps it’s the reason that the Alimony League declares that women who send husbands to alimony jails “suffer from some sort of mental ailment.”

[“Those Alimony Seekers,” syndicated, The Palm Beach Post (Fl.), Jul. 19, 1935, p. 4]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): New York. – The alimony reform league set out today revise the state’s archaic marital laws. If successful, a lot of time and carfare will be saved New York couples who have agreed to disagree – and Reno’s divorce mill will loose its best customers.

Another result might be a “for rent” sign on that unique institution of the metropolis, the “alimony jail” in which may be confined, for as long as the woman in the case desires, former husbands unwilling or unable to keep up alimony payments.

The league’s campaign began with submission to Gov. Herbert Lehman and John W. MacDonald, secretary of the law revision commission, of six proposed new marital laws, designed to bring the richest and most populous state in the union up to date in dealing with the marriage problem.

The two most important measures sponsored by the league, said Jack Anthony, executive secretary, would establish the right to sue for divorce after a separation, and would establish a new marital court.

Anthony pointed out that New York permits legal separation on grounds of abandonment, non-support or cruelty, but grants divorce only for adultery, which must be sworn to by witnesses. Abandonment, non-support or cruelty are grounds for divorce in every other state except New York and South Carolina.

“It is positively ridiculously inhuman for the law to require two people to remain married to each other after they have been legally separated and are living apart,” Anthony said.

After a couple have gone through the court procedure necessary to secure a separation and have failed to effect a reconciliation during a two-year period, it is logical to assume that their marriage has proven a failure. From every social and economic standpoint, separations are impractical and unsound.”

Another new law urged by the reform league would establish a five-day period which must elapse between issuance of a marriage license and performing of the ceremony, similar to laws now in effect in 20 states.

Establishment of a separate and distinct court to hear only cases arising out of the marriage status would prevent attorney from “shopping around” among scores of judges, often leading to action by judges unfamiliar with all circumstances of the case, if not to actual miscarriage of justice, Anthony said.

The other new laws recommended provide for absolute divorce after a two-year legal separation on motion of either party, and reform the alimony statutes – particularly by providing that a man may not be sent to jail for non-payment of alimony, without first having an open hearing in court, at which witnesses are orally examined and cross-examined.

[Dan Rogers, “Alimony Reform League Working to Change Laws,” syndicated (UP), Middlesboro Daily News (Ky.), Dec. 17, 1935, p. 2]

***

From another source: Although Jack Anthony had printed on his questionnaire form that answers need not be signed, 90% of the returns were signed anyway. Indeed 40% of the women called on him personally to enlarge their views. Among the written responses was one which threatened his person.

Among the responses not quoted in the articles above was this candid admission: "I heard so much about the alimony jail and I wanted to see the inside so badly that I sent my husband there so that I could visit him."

Anthony concluded that the jailing wives represented in his study wives were unmercenary, at least in the sense that they would rather discomfort their husbands than get money from them. This facts is where it was inferred that need for, or greed for, money was not the dominant theme in women’s court petitions for putting their ex’s in jail. Bur rather, the pleasure gleaned from seeing the man suffer was of greater value.

[“Science: Maniacal Wives,” TIME, July 22, 1935]

***

*[Marguerite Mooers Marshall, “Give Men Rights, Is the Doctrine of Suffragists – No Wife Should Take All of Her Husband’s Wages, Says Mrs. C. A. Hughston. - Wives Ought to Help. – They Should Not Keep Their Earnings Out of the Family Fund.” Jul. 6, 1912, p. 10]

NOTE: The photograph illustrating social justice (empowered woman with inferior being) did not appear in the original article.

***

***

For the story of a suicide caused by Alimony Sadism see: “A Fatal Case of Alimony Racketeering - 1932”

***

For more revelations of this suppressed history, see The Alimony Racket: Checklist of Posts

***

[894-5/14/21]

***

1912 – Early Feminists Against Misandry Say: “Give Men Rights”

FULL TEXT: The much-abused and grossly neglected person, the American wife, is again to the fore. Now it is William Hard, magazine sociologist and author of “The Women of Tomorrow,” who submits a legislative programme in behalf of married woman to the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, meeting in San Francisco.

“The wife’s earnings should belong to her,” vehemently vociferates Mr. Hard. “There is just one case in which a wife should be charged with her husband’s support – when he is infirm and unable to work.

“Husband and wife should have precisely equal rights in the custody of their children,” he adds. “They should have equal rights to the services and earnings of their children, and to the arrangement of their children’s property.”

~ THE WOMAN GETS HERS WHETHER OR NO. ~

It seems to me that most sensible men and women will agree as to the justice of this latter paragraph. But why should a wife be entitled to the whole of her earnings any more than a husband is entitled to the whole of his? Even if there are no children, a man has to give a certain percentage of his wages to the woman he marries. The courts have so decided over and over again. A man may be separated or even divorced; he has to divide his pay envelope just the same. The only exception ever made to this rule is when to rthis rule is when the wife has been guilty of gross misconduct and, presumably, will be looked after by some other man.

The “gentle grafter” has always been one of my pet aversions, the lady who believes that while it may be more blessed to give it is certainly more comfortable to receive. Suspecting that I might find a sympathizer, I asked Mrs. A. C. Hughston, chairman of the Public Demonstration Committee of the Woman’s Suffrage party, if she thought a married wage-earner should let her husband pay all the household bills.

~ MANY WIVES TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND RUN UP BILLS. ~

“This is of course an abominable state of affairs. But the wife is not always the patient, uncomplaining victim. Many an American husband turns over every penny he makes to the woman he marries, receiving back from her a meager allowance for carfare and lunches. Perhaps she runs up extra bills; if she does, he struggles meekly to pay them, and consoles himself with the fact that Mary and the girls look ‘better’n any body in town.’ He breaks down from overwork in his early maturity, and nobody has anything but pity for his family.

“This isn’t the right way to do business, either.

“The only fair and square settlement of the vexed question of matrimonial finance is the three pocketbook system. That is, the husband should have his private allowance, the wife hers – as exactly equal one – and the rest of their earnings should go into the joint fund for home and children.

“A wife out to be as valuable an economic factor as her husband in the partnership of marriage,” Mrs. Hughston declared. “If, through improper education, she is not his economic equal, she should give as much as she can. Certainly if she is a wage-earner she has no more right than her husband to keep all her salary out of the common fund.

“Probably the money question is responsible for more marital unhappiness than any other thing. There are two very wrong but very common ways of solving this problem. In one case the husband has the only pocketbook. His wife works for her board and lodging and such few clothes as she can wheedle out of her lord when she is in a good temper. She becomes the household drudge, and the man of the house swaggers about loudly declaring that ‘women ain’t fit to handle money.’

“If a woman continues to go to her office after marriage her household arrangements must be on a different scale from that which they would be if she stayed at home. One or more extra servants will be required. Or perhaps it will be required. Or perhaps it will seem best to live in an apartment hotel or at a boarding house.

~ WIFE SHOULD BE HER HUSBAND’S HELPMATE ~

“Now it would be manifestly unfair for that woman to spend all her salary on her own clothes, or deposit it to her husband pay rent or servants’ wages or board for the two of them, and perhaps, later on, for the children. A woman who marries take upon herself certain obligations. She is to be her husband’s helpmate, and that most emphatically does not mean that she should sit back and let him pay the bills.”

“Then you believe in men’s rights, as well as women’s?” I suggested.

“Indeed I do!” Mrs. Hughston asserted warmly. “So do all suffragists. We have always said that things are too hard for the men. If they weren’t, Kipling never could have written his bitter bachelor’s creed –

“’Strong hearts faint by a warm hearthstone.

He travels the fastest who travels alone.’

“Everywhere nowadays you hear men saying, ‘I’d like to marry, but I simply can’t afford it.’ So they put marriage off year after year, delaying their own and some woman’s happiness until it perhaps disappears altogether. Because, other things being equal, people who marry early in life are apt to be happier than the couples who wait. The young husbands and wives are more easily adaptive and grow together with less difficulty.

“The remedy for the delayed marriage is simply the popular chorus. ‘Put Your Wife to Work.’ Only the self-respecting wife to-day doesn’t have to be ‘put’ to work. She was a wage earner before she met her husband, and she asks nothing better than to continue doing the work she has come to love.”

[Marguerite Mooers Marshall, “Give Men Rights, Is the Doctrine of Suffragists – No Wife Should Take All of Her Husband’s Wages, Says Mrs. C. A. Hughston. - Wives Ought to Help. – They Should Not Keep Their Earnings Out of the Family Fund.” The World, Evening Edition (N.Y.), Jul. 6, 1912, p. 10]

“America is suffering now for lack of the red blood of those who rebel”: William Evans’ Rebellion - 1936

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Stubbornly insisting he never should have been arrested for assertedly stealing his own child, William H. W. Evans, Ojai actor-writer, yesterday completed the twelfth day of a hunger strike launched in the County Jail as a protest against his incarceration.

Evans was arrested Thanksgiving Day on complaint of his divorced wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, who charged him with taking the 6-year-old daughter of the couple, Deirdre, from Mrs. Evans’ Brentwood home.

Nothing except water has passed Evan’s lips since his arrest.

~ REFUSES TO EAT ~

“I’m not going to eat, either, until they free me,” he declared belligerently from his cell in the County Jail. “Mine – is a ‘poor man’s’ stand against the deep corruption that exists in the administration of justice in California.

“I represent the dwindling tribe of rugged American individuals who are willing to fight for their convictions, fight as their forefathers would have done. America is suffering now for lack of the red blood of those who rebel.”

While Evans stated emphatically that he will remain adamant in his hunger strike, Chief Jailer Clem Peoples was plotting otherwise yesterday.

~ FEEDING THREATENED ~

“The Sheriff is charged with the keeping of the body of a prisoner,” Peoples said. “He is bound by law to keep life in the body of a prisoner and deliver him in a healthy condition for court trial.

“If Evans does not eat soon, we will have to resort to forcible feeding.”

Evans already has been in court once, last week when he was held to answer on the child-stealing charges after preliminary hearing before Municipal Judge Chambers.

[“Jailed Man in Hunger Strike – Actor-Writer Passes Twelfth Eatless Day in Protest at Arrest,” Los Angeles Times (Ca.), Dec. 9, 1936, part I, p. 2; NOTE: The left-hand  photo, from this article,  was nationally syndicated (AP); Right-hand photo: Oakland Tribune (CA.), Dec. 13, 1936, p. 10-A]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Los Angeles, Dec. 10 – The chief jailer said it might be crackers, but William H. W. Evans, British actor-writer, said it was his “clear conscience” that enabled him to continue his 14-day hunger strike today while looking well fed.

Evans began refusing county jail fare two weeks ago in protest against his arrest on charges of stealing his daughter, Dierdre, 6, from his divorced wife, Elizabeth.

Chief Jailer Clem Peoples said:

“He looks better fed than I do. I wonder if he’s nibbling crackers, or something, at night?”

“I haven’t had anything but water,” replied Evans. “I’m in good physical condition because my conscience is clear.”

[“’No’ to Food – ‘Clear Conscience’ and not Crackers Keeps Him Looking Well Fed,”

Syndicated (AP), The Ogden Standard Examiner (Ut.), Dec. 10, 1936, p. 6-A]

***

Full Text (Article 3 of 3): Charges of child stealing against William H. W. Evans, 29, British oil salesman [this description of his profession seems to be erroneous], were dismissed yesterday by Superior Judge Valentine when the defendant produced a written agreement between himself and Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, his divorced wife, sharing custody of their 6-year-old daughter Deidre.

~ REPRESENTS SELF ~

Evans, arrested and returned here from Canada after he assertedly took the child last fall, represented himself in the court action.

Judge Valentine gave as his opinion that Superior Judge Heney, who granted the couple a divorce, failed to take the written agreement into account when he gave sole custody of the child to the mother.

~ TERMS DISCLOSED ~

Under terms of the agreement Mrs. Evans was to have custody of her daughter for ten months of each year, with Evans caring for the girl the remaining two months.

[“Child Theft Case Dropped – Judge Dismisses Suit When British Oil Man Shows Custody Pact,” Los Angeles Times (L.A.), Feb. 3, 1937, part II, p. 15]

Golden Age of the Mangina: Turn-of-the-Century USA - 1904

FULL TEXT: As society is made, it is almost impossible for a man to go the right way about his relations with woman. The system prescribes a certain attitude. It is the attitude of crawl, salaam, obsequiousness and second fiddle.

If you depart from it by a hair’s breadth your woman become suspicious of you. If you advise other men to depart from it you get a bad name.

Women stand up for women’s rights and are made the subject of applause, bouquets and  illuminated addresses. The man who dares come out strong for men’s rights does not breathe. Men do not want him. They are like canaries in cages, afraid to go out lest the cat get them. Peace at any price is man’s rule of life.

Abroad he will swagger and bluster, and bully. “Nemo me impune lacessit!” he roars. At home his watchword is ‘‘Blessed are the meek.” Abroad he frowns and breathes fire; at home he is plain, unvarnished “him.” Abroad he struts, at home he slinks. Abroad he is very wise, at home he is a little child.— Gentlewoman.

[“Poor, Abused Man! What Male Is There Who Will Stand Up for Man’s Rights?” Boston Globe (Ma.), May 1, 1904, p. 32; Illustration from fashion article on preceding page (31)]

***

[745-9/4/21]

***