VAWAG Violence against women and girls - and violence against children, i.e. and boys?

As a seafaring nation the call in Britain has always been "women and children first".

Men in Britain have been brought up to never hit a woman and to always protect women and children.

"Shame" - is the emotion which is engaged when a social rule is broken. Most of the men that break this social rule feel deeply ashamed of themselves. Men's violence towards women is very largely "inhibited" by that social norm.

Men's violence towards other men is not inhibited in the same way. So men are very much more likely to be violent (towards other men), and consequently men get a reputation for being violent. Johnson's research found that 95% plus of men are never ever violent towards a woman and found that 98 % plus of women are never ever violent towards a man, but what about girls and what about children and consequently what about boys?

If you read the NSPCC (Childline) statistics you see that xxx of people that ring them up are girls and yyy % are boys.

But you can also deduce that 37% of girls are abused by their mother, against 25% by their father and 39% of boys are abused by their father as against 28% by their mother. Since many more girls than boys ring the helpline obviously from those figures women are more prolific childabusers (14^ more!) than men. If this is the case then why is it that women are deemed "the safer option" for children?

This clip by manwomanmyth makes the point very poignantly, a man who chastises his son for stealing is banned from the family home for 8 weeks, a woman who abandoned her baby girl, to die, is to be re-united with her at the first possible opportunity!

Stopping violence against women and girls is an apparently laudable initiative which started in America 30 years ago. In Britain virtually every last self-respecting male would go along with this either actively or tacitly.

As we look around the world there are very many societies where women are still very, very vulnerable to deeply abhorrent, culturally supported almost "inbred "customs and practices" of abuse, a matter of very deep concern to all men and women - the destruction of female foetuses and the killing of baby girls in some cultures. In other cultures women are still "born into slavery". The disgusting face of patriarchy is clearly visible in very many places.

Britain, America, Canada, Northern Europe are amongst the least patriarchal countries in the world, but as with the emotion disgust, which "pollutes" everything associated with disgusting behaviour, radical feminism has seized an opportunity to grab for women a perpetual victim role for women and label all men as perpetual, inbred, inborn rapists and patriarchs.

For its own financial and political ends Radical feminism is using a strategy of splitting families, with the long-term aim of breaking down a family structure which is viewed by a radical feminist interest as not meeting their aims. Probably the vast majority of people who espouse the initiative are not even aware that this is an underlying goal.

Intuitively you would think that a strategy of splitting couples would improve the situation in fact it doesn't, in fact it makes the situation very very much worse, very dramatically increasing the mortality rates

In the radical feminist agenda women and girls are seen as the victims of men's oppression, and men and boys are seen as the violent oppressors of women.

One inference of linking violence as being against "women and girls" is that it is implied that girls are safer with women than with men, clearly the statistics in the other column indicate the opposite.

Girls are very nearly 50% more likely to be abused by their mother than by their father.

Boys are more likely to be more abused by their father than their mother.

It sounds as if girls would be more safely placed with their father and boys would be more safely placed with their mother!

Who drives these initiatives in Britain and how far have they got?

VAWA is housed somewhere within the Home Office