Violence issues that government and feminist didn't think about Yet!

"Take back the Night" march ...............................................

Give Back the Night
by Dick Freeman

Every year a group of women gathers in Victoria's Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. They want to "Take Back the Night". These are the ideological twisted-sister femi-nutsys who have succeeded in portraying men as selfish beasts, much in need of legislative control for everything from child-support to workplace conduct. But, what the heck... we surely do want to please the "ladies", don't we fellahs?

Thanks to the "Take Back the Night" marches, we now think we have the solution for women (and men) experiencing violence at night. The marchers say they would like to take back the night and we think we men really should give it back to them. We don't remember who took it from them, but it seems only fair to have our own (men only, of course) "Give Back the Night" marches.

Now, most men will stop reading right here, assuming this is yet another journalistic sell-out to the femi-nutsy crowd - but please consider these facts: StatsCan statistics for 1994 showed 378 male adults were murdered, versus 61 female adults; as well as 48 male youths versus 4 female youths.

A study from the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England, on domestic violence injuries, found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons". Along with more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing men are just as often physically abused by their spouse or girlfriend. Research even shows that approximately ten times as many men are sexually assaulted as are women*.

There is, in fact, no category of violence in which men do not lead as victims. If most of this violence occurs at night, we'll theoretically cut men's exposure by more than half by giving back the night! Full credit to the women for this idea of course.

Giving back the night will also reduce risky crowd control assignments for police officers. For example, when two men managed to get too close to TBTN marchers, three police officers quickly ran to the marchers aid to have them removed. Apparently the men were "bothering" the women simply by existing in a public park.

So, okay, many guys initially won't like this, and will object that femi-nutsy marchers are forcing an evening curfew on them. However, we think guys can be convinced by the following reasoned argument: Sports are mostly televised at night!

Let us gather representatives from each side at once, and meet at the newly constructed monument to "women murdered by men" in a formal turnover of the night in Thorton Park - which is surely an appropriate symbol of the "equality and fairness" (or is that misandry?) principles at issue here. Some high level bureaucrat from the Attorney General's Ministry or Women's Equality would be amply qualified to conduct any negotiations in a fair and equitable manner.

Barney the Dinosaur has also been suggested as a possible candidate for mediator.
After signing, any man with a valid reason to venture out at night would require a permission slip from his wife or significant other. He would also wear a large rotating beacon on top of his head to warn all women (and police) of his presence. With this system in place, and with appropriate legislation to put some teeth in it, the femi-nutsy marchers would be assured that any man out at night was female-approved, and therefore somewhat non-violent and probably safe.

Much safer, we're convinced, than the women at this years TBTN march who actually had signs which read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor".

Don't we have to wonder about the mental stability of a group that claims on one hand to be condemning violence, yet holds up Lorena as some kind of venerated saint or icon? Referring to the author of such a heinous crime as a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of responsibility and judgment, and reveals the darker side of women. This should be of concern to everyone; though it is clearly not a concern of the media - as their silence on this matter has been deafening.

And we also have to wonder why male victims are always ignored in their marches? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, Husband, Boyfriend, or Son? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? That sort of 'thinking' is a philosophy not unlike the KKK.

In any case, giving back the night is certainly easier than many other suggestions for reducing violence: like stronger families and establishing good moral foundations for our children. Thank you for such a wonderfully simple idea!

*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 male sexual assault victims. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assault victims - United States.

Publication refused by Jody Paterson, Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper
Published on The Backlash! Website

....................................

By the Dick Freeman Boys

(A sanitized version of our rejected Give Back the Night article.) 


It's said that everyone in Canada has been touched by violence in some way. Every victim is someone's Father or Mother, Son or Daughter, friend or co-worker. When any member of our society is victimized, each of us feels some level of sorrow and/or empathy for that person and their family. Such is often the impetus for constructive efforts geared toward reducing all violence in our society. On the other hand, there are those in our midsts who choose to divide their concern to two categories of victim: those labelled "worthy" and "unworthy". And only one set of factors is used to make their determination: gender. 


Every year a group of women gathers in Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. The only male victims they deem worthy to be included in their march for safety and justice are boys; though it is not clear just how old a murdered boy has to be before he is no longer counted as a worthy victim.

Is there something particularly unique about violence against women that it needs such special attention?


Statistics Canada numbers for 1994 show 378 adult males were murdered versus 61 adult females. That is a ratio of over six to one! Furthermore, 48 male youths, and 4 female youths were murdered; a ratio of twelve to one! New worldwide studies show that substantial numbers of men are victims of sexual assault. Research on the levels of rape in prison show that Ten times as many men are raped in prison as are women in the general population*. And when it comes to domestic assault, there are more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing that men are just as often abused by their spouse - including the category of "severe abuse". For example, the study done by the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England on domestic violence injuries found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons".


In point of fact, there is NO category of violence in which men do not lead as victims, yet WE do not play the violence-against-men thing - rather against violence, period! To emphasize the "male victim" would amount to a trap, and lead to "excuses" we wish to avoid. To take responsibility of ones' words and deeds is to be a responsible citizen.


What would we think of a group that protested violence by minority immigrants, yet ignores similar violence by their own members? Would the media be as supportive in their cause as they are to those that highlight violence against women by men?
Is it not clear that any group that uses such tactics to de-humanize a particular group are in fact hate-mongers?


At this year's march, so strong was anti-male sentiment that police removed two men merely walking through the park when marchers complained they were "bothering them".

These are marchers who carried signs that read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor". Don't we have to wonder at the moral inconsistencies of those who claim to be militantly against violence, yet hold up the image of a violent woman as their hero or icon? For them to suggest the author of a heinous act is a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of judgement and responsibility, and perhaps shows us the darker side of women.


And don't we also have to wonder at their constant banishment of male victims from their scope of concern? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, husband, son or boyfriend? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? A philosophy we would expect from the KKK perhaps. Is part of the problem some sense of "entitlement" on the part of many women? Do they feel that, simply because they are women, they should be given special protection? Perhaps this is a carry-over of our historical past?


Whatever the "reasons", we remain convinced that those who are truly sincere about reducing violence in our society, do not take inventory of a persons anatomy before deciding who is a "worthy" or "unworthy" victim. Violence against any living person is to be condemned with EQUAL vigor and diligence. Those who use the topic of violence to denigrate a particular group of society are the real enemy in our fight to reduce violence.


Those who think it their right to stir up hatred and flaunt their bias in the name of "social responsibility" are grossly misguided. Surely we can all see this?
*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 sexual assault victims -United States. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assaults.


Published: Victoria Times-Colonist November 14, 1997 Page A17