Feminist, Em Rusciano, wants to censor Mark Latham

There is a major hue and cry about domestic violence going on in Australia at the moment, with some extravagant pseudo-statistics being quoted. Miranda Devine  pointed to the actual statistics some time ago. And, as she pointed out, those statistics do tend to expose the current mania as a lot of feminist nonsense. She has taken a lot of flak over her comments but nobody has shown any fault with her statistics

And the  Left are up in arms at the moment over some comments by Mark Latham about it. He offered  a perfectly ordinary account of the psychology behind wife-bashing -- and one which largely reflects what Miranda Devine showed -- but was apparently not apologetic or condemnatory enough about it.  Below is an emotional and unreasoned rant from feminist Rusciano in response to Latham.  She is, by her example, doing her bit to portray women as overly emotional and irrational.  One wonders what the "sisterhood" will think of that.

One also wonders if she actually read what Latham said.  Latham is certainly aggressive and outspoken but he is the former leader of the federal ALP so is no fool and no blind traditionalist. He has in fact exceptionally good Leftist credentials.  Compare what he actually said below with her account of what he said.  She is not answering what he said at all.  She is just answering a fantasy in her own mind of what she thinks he meant

There is a very wide range of explanations for domestic violence and I take no position on any of them -- including Latham's. I think many such incidents are "sui generis". But Latham's is a "displacement" explanation -- a type of explanation most associated with Sigmund Freud that has long been familiar in psychology for a number of phenomena.  In popular parlance, it is sometimes called a "kick the cat" syndrome. So it is very dogmatic and bigoted by Rusciano to dismiss it without argument

She seems to think that something psychologists have discussed and argued about for generations can just be dismissed by her  with a wave of her hand.  I am glad that I don't have that sort of self-confidence.  But feminism generally is very dogmatic and unreasoned so I suppose that Ms Rusciano's hubris was to be expected.

And who can dispute Latham's comment that feminists demonize men?  Some even call men "the enemy".  More details of what Latham said here

ACCORDING to Mark Latham, domestic violence is a coping mechanism for men who have had their masculinity taken away by women.

WTF. No.

For some unexplainable reason, radio station Triple M have given him a platform for his podcast called “Lathamland”, and in the first episode this is what he says about why some men hit their intimate partners:

“I don’t think it’s about how men look at women, it’s about how men look at themselves. They’ve lost their self-esteem, they’ve lost their job, they’re welfare dependant, they’ve got other troubles, drugs, alcohol in their life. It’s that loss of self esteem where I think they use domestic violence as a coping mechanism to get over all the crap in their lives.”

Lathamland: A place where women are the reason men are hitting them.

I wonder how Triple M’s sponsors and advertisers (who currently include Dell computers — advertising back to school specials, and Fiji airways) feel about that.

You’ll never guess who the evil queen is driving the demonisation of men agenda. Yep, former Australian Of The Year and domestic violence survivor Rosie Batty.

“I’m worried that the domestic violence debate is being used as a Trojan horse to push the left wing feminist position, saying that we’re a patriarchy, there’s a demonisation of men here, if you listen to Rosie Batty. Every man is a potential wife basher. Every woman is potentially at risk.”

Yes Mark, Rosie Batty is using the horrific, violent and tragic death of her beloved son at the hands of a man who systematically abused her over many years, to push the left wing feminist man-hating agenda. I mean, that makes total sense, and by total sense I mean none at all.

His obsession with attacking Batty every time someone gives him an opening needs to stop. His use of mainstream media to publicly bully her needs to end, yesterday.

On the most basic level it appears that Latham has completely broken away from his humanity.

Even if there was an infinitesimal amount of truth to what he was saying, a shred of credibility to it (which there categorically is not) he is forgetting that this woman watched her child die at the hands of her former partner.

Do you not feel she is the last person who should be attacked in this way? Instead of locking herself away to try and reconcile her grief and loss she has tirelessly campaigned against domestic violence. She has unselfishly told her story time and time again, so that no other family need go through what hers did. Has Latham put himself in Rosie’s shoes once? He has children, how can he continue to tear her down time and time again?

Rosie Batty is not a man hater, she is not on an unspoken campaign to emasculate all men and she is not unfairly targeting them either. The statistics speak for themselves. One in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner. One in six.

Triple M needs to take Mark Latham off the air immediately. He is a dangerous person targeting a vulnerable section of the community. Domestic violence is at epidemic proportions in our country and we all need to come together to end it; men and women. What he is doing is counter productive and it almost feel as though he is trying to whip up a war between us. This situation isn’t men vs. women, it’s much bigger than that.

Yes, for those of you keeping score this will be the third time I have responded to his statements. Why do I keep returning serve? Because I’ll be f***ed if I am going to allow his words to float around in the ether like a corrosive, poisonous acid cloud, unchallenged. I also wanted to put up a protective shield for Rosie, who through all his tirades and attacks has stayed silent. She clearly has more class than Latham or I


1 comment:

  1. It is true that every relationship is unique, and any violence or abuse going on in it is unique too. There are often common types and patterns though. It is also true what Mark Latham says about violence being linked to the emasculation of men, and there being a kick the cat syndrome, or kinds of displacement aggression.

    There are all sorts of domination and cruelty that go on between people. Men don't do it all; men only do half of it. And women are not better or worse than men, just different. Women's hearts are just as dark as men's can be. But women's cruelty comes out in different ways. Generally, women are more manipulative that men, they are more cunning, more subtle, and they know how to keep looking good. A trained eye though, one that can see and understand subtle patterns, can see what is going on.

    I suspect that in Australia there is a greater prevalence of lies, deception and manipulation being spread about domestic violence than about any other subject. As examples of common malicious practices, aside from citing phoney statistics, telling lies and using irrational and misapplied definitions on the subject, are the fraudulent men's anger management courses which have next to nothing to do with teaching men how to control anger, just trying to emotionalise and emasculate men and make them ashamed of being men, especially ashamed of being men of western heritage, and psychologist's deliberate denial to women of how to de-escalate affective aggression in others and instead encouraging them to crudely assert their "rights".

    There is no one easier to manipulate than an angry man, and with a little know-how one can have him like a puppet on strings, controlling his every action, words, tones, expressions - everything about him comes under one's control to the finest degree. It is an easy skill to teach. I teach it. And I am good at it too. I have worked with angry men, drug addicts, alcoholics, incarcerated criminals of every sort, and in the roughest psych units, and I can make an angry person, man or woman, step forward or backward, stand up or sit back down, raise or lower their hands, change their tone, harden or soften expression, strike me or hit the table, or storm out, or cause their anger to melt away, sit down and spill their heart to me, and all by such subtle cues that an untrained observer cannot see. The basic principle of de-escalation is, make the other person feel heard. Upon that principle is built the craft. It requires a sincere heart though. Psychs who understand it or know of its existence deny to women the knowledge of escalation and de-escalation someone else's anger, and instead teach women to use crude assertiveness which they know escalates affective aggression (emotional relationship related aggression).

    An interesting fact about this skill, when rightly taught, is it works upon the practitioner too. When either one works it well, it works upon both parties. And it not only gets rid of anger, it changes lives. So I teach it to most of my male clients who have anger problems in their relationships, along with scenario training - two things which are not only not found in any anger management course I know of, but are also viciously opposed by every gov funded feminist controlled domestic violence organisation and its course designers that I know of - all run by psychologists who use de-escalation and scenario training themselves, but refuse to help others with those same skills and understandings, because if they did then the information and tactics they are teaching now would be seen for what they are - dangerous.

    Perhaps one day the lid will get blown off the subject and the lies spread, and cruel works done by feminist man-hating and wife-hating psychologists will become known to the general public. Perhaps we will see class actions taken and psychologists disgraced for betraying public trust and deliberately causing harm.


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them