Much has been said about domestic violence in any number of forums. Of course, the politically correct view is that DV is something that only happens to women at the hands of men. It is well-known that DV is perpetrated by both genders roughly equally and that the most violent domestic arrangements are those between lesbians. So much for political correctness.
However, seeing as DV against women by men is seen as the greater problem, there needs to be some serious investigation as to how to go about reducing it. As much as feminists and their mangina lackeys have demonised men as being the greatest threat to women on the face of the Earth, precious few of them have put forth any reasoned arguments as to how to go about reducing the problem of DV against the female gender. Yes, I have heard all the pseudo-suggestions that left-wingers come up with to end the DV against women problem but precious few of them are based on logic. It has been claimed that longer prison sentences for men convicted of DV is a solution. This rarely works as women tend to be attracted to men who knock them around; once a woman gets rid of one abusive man, her nature dictates she will look for another to replace him. Social shaming has been put forth as a deterrent to DV however this rarely works as mentioned before, women commit DV against men at roughly the same rate they receive it. Fairly obviously, if the feminist movement chooses to put zero thought into any “solution” they come up with, then that said solution is likely to be complete nonsense.
I came across the following article the other day on the very subject of reducing the incidence of domestic violence against women…….
“Some other men are more likely to protect women, directly and indirectly, from the threat of male violence: married biological fathers. The bottom line is this: Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.”
Who’da thunk it? Contrary to the feminist narrative that women don’t need men and that fathers are useless, it appears that men whom are the biological fathers of the woman’s children are actually a major player in the said woman’s safety. If you have a think about it, it’s not a great stretch to see why; the man who places the most value on a specific family of children and the woman that birthed them is obviously going to be the father of the children. This tends to play out in the animal kingdom as well; males animals such as bears and felines are greatly protective of their own offspring at the expense of another male’s offspring. Commonly, when a male lion takes over as the alpha male of a pride, his first act is to kill all the offspring sired by the formed alpha. After all, the aim of mating is to ensure the survival of one’s own genetics, not someone else’s. If you think this doesn’t play out in the human species, you’d be dead wrong.
“As the figure above indicates, children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father.”
In other words, a child’s biological father acts as a protector when living in the same household and thus, being able to fulfil this role. On the other hand…….
“What’s more: girls and boys are significantly more likely to be abused when they are living in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult—usually their mother’s boyfriend“.
“[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”
So basically, mommy divorcing daddy and kicking him out of the house and then shacking up with the first guy who makes her ‘gina tingle is actually doing her kids a huge disservice. Relating this back to the abovementioned example of males in the animal kingdom, why would anybody be surprised. One would think that this would prompt the powers that be to pass laws against mommy kicking daddy out of his children’s lives without very good reason. But then, since when have law-makers ever put the rights and well-being of children ahead of the frivolous wants of women?
“Girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.”
To some degree, that mothers don’t care much for the welfare of their sons is not surprising – after all, most women hate men deep down anyway – but you’d think that women would at least care about the well-being of their daughters (they, at least, being the same sex). It would appear, apparently not. What’s worse, is that the lecherous stepfather is not an urban legend, it is a well played out reality in the lives of children throughout history. This being the case, why would any mother put her daughter is such a predicament? Again, why are their no laws stopping this kind of situation occurring? Again, it gets back to law-makers putting the rights of women above the welfare of everyone else.
“Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general. Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.”
If women ever wanted an argument in favour of keeping the biological father of their children around, the above would have to be it. Women are forever harping on about not being safe in the modern world, yet increasing numbers of them either refuse to get married or if they do get married, divorce the father of their children and move in another man who couldn’t care less for her children……..
“For girls, the research tells us that marriage provides a measure of stability and commitment to the adults’ relationship, that married biological fathers are more likely to be attentive and engaged with their children because they expect the relationship to be enduring.”
This might be another way of saying that if a girl grows up with her biological parents maintaining a stable marriage, then the girl will see this as normal and will want this for herself. On the other hand, the world is full of daughters of divorced women whom cannot hold a marriage together and thus, the cycle of single motherhood destroying children’s lives perpetuates.
One theory I have often had about marriage – without actually experiencing it myself – is that marriage moulds men into more nurturing and caring beings. This seems to be confirmed in the following quote…..
“[M]arriage also seems to cause men to behave better. That’s because men tend to settle down after they marry, to be more attentive to the expectations of friends and kin, to be more faithful, and to be more committed to their partners—factors that minimize the risk of violence.”
Generally I agree with that. I don’t mean that upon marriage, a man has to sacrifice his masculinity and become a blue-piller (although many do) but rather, marriage tends to make men think a little less of themselves and more of others. Ultimately, if a man is going to contribute to raising children, he basically needs to become less self-centred. The problem is, that I expect this only applies to men who are actually married to their female partners and have children with them. This again gets us back to the lecherous stepfather problem.
“[M]arried fathers are much less likely to resort to violence than men who are not tied by marriage or biology to a female.”
“[F]or the girls and women in their lives, married fathers provide direct protection by watching out for the physical welfare of their wives and daughters, and indirect protection by increasing the odds they live in safe homes and are not exposed to men likely to pose a threat.”
It pretty much all comes down to the above quotes; married dads are a good idea and non-biological stepfathers are a shitty idea. This is hardly new thinking but it’s always nice to see these ideas researched in proof. At the end of the day, being the controllers of sex and reproduction, women are effectively the gatekeepers to their and their children’s well-being. No doubt any feminist would try to punch holes in this argument but since when have women ever been required to take responsibility for their actions? I’ll leave you with a final quote from the article…..
“So, women: if you’re the product of a good marriage, and feel safer as a consequence, lift a glass to dear old dad this Sunday.”