According to this article, boys in certain schools in Victoria, Australia will attend mandatory classes in feminism in order to combat violence against women (Herald Sun, 11/26/09).  As to violence against men, we are left to assume that that's OK regardless of who does it.  There will be no classes about that, feminist or otherwise.

Apart from its blatant sexism, the initiative in Victoria suffers from the shaky notion that feminism has a clue about violence, whether against women or men.  Radical feminists have, for many decades, preached the sermon that men commit violence to oppress women, to keep them in "their place."  And, like clockwork, every time a man hits or kills a woman, the feminist pundits pop up in countless media to reinforce the message.  When George Sodini murdered three women in Pennsylvania exercise gym earlier this year, feminsts leaped at their opportunity.  Here was another example of men using the most extreme methods to keep women down.

The fact that all of that is the most extreme nonsense - and obviously so - goes unmentioned.  Feminists routinely ignore the fact that women are far less likely to be victims of violent crime than are men.  They're not interested in the fact that the George Sodinis of the world are certifiable nutcases who bear no resemblance to the vast majority of men.  Who could tell from reading what these radical feminists write that male serial killers are much more likely to target other males than they are females.  And if men are so bent on keeping women under control and denying them all sorts of rights, why are they making such a hash of it?  They don't explain.

When it comes to domestic violence, radical feminists prefer people not to know that women attack their partners as often as do men.  Thirty-fve years of social science establishes that beyond doubt, but somehow I suspect the boy in Victoria won't hear a word about it.  Nor will they hear that DV is only treatable therapeutically, not via political indoctrination.  That the vast majority of people who commit domestic violence were exposed to it as children doesn't fit well with the "all men use DV to keep all women powerless" snake oil peddled by radical feminism.

Since none of that fits with radical feminism's worldview, facts need to be fudged and definitions blurred - or indeed changed altogether - to help make the case for ever-greater denigration and, yes, control of men.  So since women are unquestionably a small minority of the victims of violence, feminsts are happy to simply change the definition of the word to include things that are overtly not violent.  Therefore, something called "economic abuse" is now defined on U.S. government websites as "violence."  It is now literally true that a man who repeatedly tries to convince his wife to spend less or not see so much of a friend who's a bad influence, commits domestic violence.

So it should come as no surprise that the article's very first example of what a class in feminism might teach boys is how to refrain from sexual coercion.  I suppose it's never too early to start teaching boys that saying "if you don't have sex with me, I won't ask you out any more" constitutes not merely boorish behavior, but violence.  After all, that's the society they're growing up in; they might as well learn the rules.

This all comes from at the behest of a report entitled Respectful Relationships Education.  It's a nice title.  Reading it, you might even believe it has something to do with boys being nice to girls and girls being nice to boys.  Apparently not.  It seems to proceed from the idea that girls are already nice enough, so only boys need to change.  (You remember that old feminist concept "sugar and spice.")

So girls in Victoria won't get any instruction about not treating boys and men as walking wallets.  They won't be encouraged to be honest about whether they actually did take the pill before sex instead of just saying they did.  Telling the truth about who's baby it is needn't be taught either.  Not lying about DV to gain the upper hand in divorce matters isn't part of the curriculum any more than maternal gatekeeping or honoring visitation or not alienating the child.  I could go on indefinitely, but won't.  After all, why discuss things that girls don't need to learn because women never do?

Seemingly, there may be a flaw in this otherwise perfect world.

But the authors of the "Respectful Relationships Education" report admitted there was considerable community hostility to feminism, even among teachers and students.

But not to worry - Big Sister knows best.

"However, a feminist conceptual framework is essential both to reflect research on violence in relationships and families and to anchor the political commitments of the program," they said.

You see?  It's essential that boys learn concepts long known to be false and misandric, and any resistance on the part of communities must be overcome - for everyone's own good of course.   

This entry was posted on Friday, November 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am and is filed under Feminism/NOW, Boys/Boy Crisis in Education/Schools. You can trackback from your own site.