Hey Ladies, Are We Ready To End Intimate Partner Violence Yet?

A Conservative politician's campaign promise would protect women, but politicians can't fix what only women can.

Don’t be the victim. Image by akiragiulia from Pixabay

Here we go again.

Another politician addressing intimate partner violence, correctly, but as always, focused on males.

I don’t know if Pierre Poilievre, the leader of Canada’s Conservative Party campaigning for this week’s federal election, actually cares about protecting women through stiffer jail ‘n’ bail penalties for accused batterers, or whether he’s simply courting women’s votes, but I sigh the way I would no matter which political leaning.

Nothing that requests anything from women.

Women don’t want abusers, of course, but many jones for them, out of a misplaced notion of what being a man is and failing to recognize that hyper-masculinity sometimes masks insecurity, signifying a guy prone to lashing out. These women are often ignorant of the warning signals.

Others simply don’t know any better. Or don’t believe they deserve better. That no matter how hot or sexy he is, if he hits her, she should leave immediately without turning back.

Other ways women harm and offer themselves for abuse is not learning or developing important job skills, ergo depending on a man. Having babies she couldn’t afford on her own shackles a woman to a man who poses a danger to her and their children, especially if they’re not his.

Feminism fails women and girls again and again and again when it fails to teach them how to avoid abuse, rather than simply react to it.

Don’t BE the victim.

Poilevre’s plan

His proposed new law would keep violent men off the streets for longer which is always a good thing.

According to the Conservative Party’s website, he pledges to enact tougher conditions for those accused of abuse, and longer sentences for the convicted. Bail would require ankle bracelet monitoring and immediate imprisonment for breaking conditions. He would end the practice of downgrading a ‘crime of passion’ from domestic murder to manslaughter, a laudable change.

‘Crimes of passion’, like ‘gay panic’ and ‘trans panic’, remove the responsibility for emotional regulation. We shouldn’t be slaves to our emotional spikes, however justified. Poilievre says he wants to put victims first, rather than criminals.

I can’t argue with any of that. The courts have long been lax on the accused and documented batterers, so Poilievre’s policies, if implemented, would definitely protect women and children more.

But it doesn’t address the other root cause.

This isn’t a criticism of him or any other politicians attempting to protect the vulnerable from male rage. I admit my idea would be a a ridiculously risky policy push for a politician—to offer a program, something to address to women what they can do to avoid abusers—like become more emotionally and psychologically stronger and more resilient, so as not to take him back when he’s released, or find a new batterer to whack her around.

"Did you ever notice it’s the short guys who hit?”

Michelle’s question came out of left field. My first thought was, What on earth makes you think I’d know?

“No, I’ve never been hit by a man,” I replied in a steady voice, otherwise hornswoggled. “I’ve dated plenty of short men, but none of them had Short Guy Disease.”

You know That Guy. The man who struts around overcompensating for his perceived lack of manhood because he’s not towering over you like a cactus in the Arizona desert. Who’s more hyper-masculine than thou and hits women because he thinks they’re secretly laughing at him. And because they’re weaker than he, and if he can’t get respect for his height, dammit, people and especially those bitches will respect his superior strength.

Not the kind of short man I ever went out with.

Michelle believed this was normal, and part of every woman’s experience.

She didn’t know I’d made conscious choices my entire life, thanks to my mother teaching me to never allow a man to control you, belittle you, insult you, make fun of you, or hit you.

I doubt anyone ever told Michelle she shouldn’t allow men to treat her that way. I didn’t, that night. Domestic abuse wasn’t my interest back then. It didn’t affect me. I may have said something like, “I don’t allow men to mistreat me; if a man were to hit me, he’d be out the door in a heartbeat.” More likely I stuck up for short guys and the importance of avoiding those with Short Guy Disease.

Feminists don’t talk about this. It’s verboten.

A few years ago some do-gooder and always-clueless rights organization offered up another tired, pointless anti-domestic violence campaign plodding on about Canadian ‘femicide’ (which amounted to 182 domestic homicides a year, hardly a concerted effort to destroy women in a nation of forty million). It did nothing to address male patriarchy, a major root cause of intimate partner violence, and, bien sûr, failed to acknowledge that the much higher Indigenous IPV rate was the result of men also responsible for their patriarchal personal behavior, and that genocidal history, residential schools, and other unjust treatment by white society is no excuse for smashing your fist into your wife’s face.

This is one of the biggest problems with white feminism: They often make excuses for non-white batterers. It’s always wrong, or it’s never wrong; dudes with a sad story don’t get a free pass.

A real feminist and true social justice warrior would offer the slogan No Excuses, Dude!

I wish some political party would step up and offer programs and resources to encourage women to take back their power with better partner choices.

Fool you once, shame on him. Fool you three or four times, educate yourself until you can figure out why you jones for abusers, or what you’re doing to draw men who seek willing victims, however unconsciously.

It is consent, the first time you go back to him or fail to kick him out after the first offense. It’s giving him permission.

The Two Women Marilyn Manson *Didn’t* Abuse - Why Not?

The confounding question

Researchers and anti-violence advocates continuously seek the answer to a question about which there are multiple theories but no definitive answers: Why does violent assault increase the likelihood of another assault?

The heightened risk of ‘revictimization’ affects everyone, not just women. Your risk of being robbed again after an initial robbery increases nine times. Getting burglarized increases your risk four times.

For a woman who’s been sexually assaulted, including in childhood, the risk for a second assault increases 35 times!

No one can pinpoint exactly why violent attack victims are at heightened risk. With theft crimes, word may spread on the street that your house is an easy mark or that the homeowner doesn’t seem to have a gun. But what is it about rape and battery that increases a woman’s chance of a repeat, apart from living under the same roof as the perpetrator?

The theories flounder. Maybe she learns silence, maybe the trauma causes her to revert to familiar patterns. Maybe she hasn’t learned to distinguish between consent and coercion. Maybe she doesn’t resist enough or say no early enough. No one knows.

It’s as though she emits some sort of pheromone that advertises, “I’m a victim.”

I’ve actually considered that as one possibility. I don’t really understand how pheromones work, even though I’ve read extensively about them. If you ask me why I fancy this man or that man, or why I chose some former partner in my past, I’ll give you a lot of logical reasons along with how compelling he turned out to be for reasons I don’t understand.

Maybe I don’t respond well to some theoretical I’m heavily masculine and I’ll also beat you pheromone.

Maybe there’s no such thing. It’s my theory. Maybe abuse victims don’t know how to set boundaries, or recognize misogyny, or signal low self-confidence with body posture and facial expressions. Research has shown that certain psychopaths are actually excellent judges of victim potential simply by the way people walk; victims display unconscious body language that signify they’re easy marks.

This is not to blame the victim; this is to empower her to make changes to repel abusers and attract better quality partners.

If a woman was victimized early, as a young girl, she never had a chance to learn how to avoid abuse before the first incident. They, more than any other women, need education to teach them it wasn’t their fault but they still need to be extra-vigilant about how to identify early who is likely an abuser, who exhibits misogynist traits.

What Can We Learn From This Woman’s Abusive Relationship? - ‘Maria’ has no idea where she made mistakes and no one will tell her

Now more than ever, women in North America and elsewhere need to be educated and made aware of the potential for abuse, even from men who never were before. Because domestic abuse rises with economic and household instability, which the current President has threatened to make a permanent state for everyone.

Women must learn how to set boundaries and protect themselves and their children. With the decline of left-wing wokeness and the victimization culture it nurtured, common sense is making a comeback. Perhaps now is the time to address how women can lay down rules and boundaries early, and eliminate anyone who doesn’t respect them.

Just say no - it really is that simple

I applaud Pierre Poilievre’s proposed policy although I won’t be voting Conservative. PP, as we call him, doesn’t understand that Canadians are preoccupied with an increasingly hostile United States run by a cognitively deficient and aggressive old man; not chicks who like abusive dicks.

In fact, Trump exhibits the personality traits of a classic abuser, in his business and political dealings.

A savvy politician would put forth a tit-for-tat proposal: My newest policy for reducing intimate partner violence includes tougher sentences for abusers and an education program for picking better partners. And oh, it’s not just for women, it’s for men too, since they also suffer IPV. As do homosexual and trans partnerships. The dynamics are frighteningly similar regardless of who’s doing the battering and who’s the receiver.

Women, and others, possess untold power over abusers; they can just say no. An ounce of prevention. You have to recognize the warning signs and internalize the values that rule over animal instincts because he’s just so damned dangerous and sexy! A man who hits others may easily do the same to a partner; these men loathe weakness.

Bullying has returned to the world with a vengeance; populist right-wing dictators gain power around the world. The weak, overly-feminized left is giving way to an equally unhealthy male dominant dynamic. That never works well for everyone, as I expect a lot of ‘anti-feminists’ are discovering now that they realize the price for a cardboard DEI-hating he-man President is the giant sucking sound of their mortgage and grocery bills depositing themselves into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.

Now’s a great time to practice anti-bullying skills and assert one’s self against the Andrew Tates and Amber Heards in our lives. To practice more powerful body language and to walk like someone who isn’t going to take another’s shit. To learn how men’s and women’s minds work, to study the more narcissistic and publicly abusive dynamics of celebrities with fraught relationships as case studies. To consciously refuse to be someone’s bitch, whether one is male or female, (or used to be one or the other), or gay or straight.

It’s a choice.

When I’m not annoying fauxminists with glaringly obvious questions like, “Why does she put up with that shit?” I annoy the crap out of perma-victims with my pro-personal-power messages on Grow Some Labia.