Flat White

Domestic violence: where are the realists?

12 April 2017

12:13 PM

12 April 2017

12:13 PM

Why are the majority of politicians accepting a spoonful of the gender-biased narrative in Australian parliament without questioning their medication?

Why was there only one politician willing to put their hand up and question what they were being force fed?

In Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph, columnist Miranda Devine highlights that Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm was the only person to stand up and cross-examine the “Let’s Stop it at the Start” campaign at the Senate Estimates hearing.

Department of Social Services managers Tracey Bell and Dr Roslyn Baxter told the hearing that $420,000 had been spent on research.

Yet, neither could provide a whisker of evidence to justify the statement, “there is a clear link between violence towards women and attitudes of disrespect and gender inequality.”

Why can’t they provide any evidence? Because factual evidence actually highlights there is no justification for the fraudulent gender-biased narrative society is being force-fed by feminists.

My question to Bell and Baxter would be this: ‘Are you actually interested in understanding domestic violence and finding solutions?’

Because, if the answer to this is yes, first take a look at the world’s largest, rigorously evidence-based database from Partner Abuse State of Knowledge. You’ll find 2,657 pages with summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies. Here, research shows 24 per cent of individuals have been assaulted by a partner at least once in their lifetime – 23 per cent for females, 19.3 per cent for males.

Then read this…

Professor Peter Miller, Professor of Violence Prevention and Addiction Studies at Deakin University tells me, “Our societal approach is fundamentally flawed. There is no scientific truth to a gendered approach whatsoever. The real key is psychological predisposition around people with aggression: the ‘Dark Triad’. The aggressive psychological profiles are narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. These are found in people of both sexes.”

Why was $420,000 spent on research for “Let’s Stop it at the Start” campaign?

Baxter said, “It was a campaign that looked at the attitudes supporting violence against women.”

But, we know this isn’t factually correct, don’t we?

Therefore, this was an unjustifiable waste of money.

We are quick to shine a judgmental light on expenses scandals, ask Bronwyn Bishop, so why are we all willing to accept $420,000 being spent on what is essentially an advertising campaign to perpetuate the feminist narrative?

Who will speak up?

Who will tell the truth?

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Show comments