Defending the New Aristocracy:


The purpose of VAWA was to place women in a superior legal position to men using “domestic battery” as a foil. Since the 19th century, women had always had this position, but the feminist movement – reaching its apogee here – sought to make it the law of the land. In order to do this, the bill had to be buried and simply lied about.

In January of 2000, John Leo wrote in the liberal US and News Report:

The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin’s word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill’s popularity in the Senate was the “senators don’t understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.”

Therefore, the law, while having legal force, has no moral force and, if the citizen can get away with ignoring it, he should. The Left admits its a fraud. The authors are the most extreme of the communist feminist movement, Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. Their ideology, through fraud, is now the law of the land. Both women are walking stereotypes: extremely privileged, pushed through their university classes and granted six-figure salaries to condemn the “patriarchal” society that oppresses them.

Today, only a handful can even see the irony of that statement. They are both obsessed with control according to their colleagues and silence all dissenting voices. They are both deluded largely because they’ve not heard the word “no” before. Being constantly granted money, praise and prestige, they’ve come to see themselves as goddesses with special powers.

The very fact that women are singled out as specially protected is obvious evidence of a special status. Most people are dimly aware that violence against anyone is illegal. Punching someone in the face for fun is not something that the state tolerates. Thus, there is no reason for VAWA. That is, if preventing and punishing violence is the purpose, then its only to raise the status of the new class of aristocrats. Its purpose is not to stop violence.

The bill itself states that it is to rectify the “inferior” position of women in society, a phrase that redefines the word “ironic.” If they were inferior, they couldn’t have pushed this law through. VAWA boils down to protecting the new matriarchs, the new aristocracy. Even mild irritation is punishable under the act.

Initially, Senator Joe Biden was the sponsor of the bill, which he admitted was written by feminist activists. He’s never read it and denies most of its contents. The most radical dykes are so overwhelmingly powerful that they merely had their agenda, written by them, forced into law via fraud and fear. Gone was the presumption of innocence. Gone was a man’s security in property. Gone was a fair trial. All to protect the matriarchy. Worst of all, very few know of its existence until they become victims of it.

The man under VAWA must prove his innocence in domestic violence cases. The assumption is that women are pure. They’ve banned all discussion of alcohol or drugs as the origin for violence, and only permit “sexist attitudes” as a cause. This is now the official ideology of the federal government.

Domestic battering, as its normally conceived, is very rare in married couples and, where it does exist, is almost exclusively fueled by drugs, alcohol or the recent discovery of adultery (Kay, 2011). Police and prosecutors are instructed that women do not lie in these cases, and her mere statement is as good as a conviction. Phyllis Schlafley of the Eagle Forum wrote in 2005:

Domestic violence has become whatever the woman wants to allege, with or without evidence. Examples of claims of domestic abuse include: name-calling, constant criticizing, insulting, belittling the victim, blaming the victim for everything, ignoring or ridiculing the victim’s needs, jealousy and possessiveness, insults, put-downs, gestures, facial expressions, looking in a certain way, body postures, and controlling the money. A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy stated a widely accepted definition of “violence” that includes such non-criminal acts as “degradation and humiliation” and “name-calling and constant criticizing.” The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening.

VAWA mandates arrest in all 50 states with an extremely low standard of probable cause. When a suspect is arrested based on scant evidence, prosecution of the case becomes tenuous. Therefore, most of the men are encouraged to plea to a lesser charge. Thus, even “conviction” statistics are unreliable. Only two percent of criminal cases ever go to trial, and in domestic violence cases, its even less. Most of the time, men have no idea what’s going on.

VAWA is the victory trophy of the new aristocracy and claims that the treatment of women must be on a very different foundation than the treatment of males. It is the feminist lodestone. It has made their ideology the law of the land (Patai, 2003). They rule without mercy or responsibility.

The worst aspect of the VAWA regime is that each county in the USA was mandated to have a legal center as a “victim advocacy” unit. These are feminist activist cells financed by local capital as well as federal, state and local governments. This means that the feminist movement now gets federal and state funding for its operations under the guise of “protecting women.” They are federal agencies.

They are mandated to have lawyers and counselors, all free of charge, specializing in domestic violence issues. In order to qualify for these benefits, one must refuse to go back to the alleged “abuser.” Joint counseling and reconciliation are officially rejected by these VAWA cells. Phyllis Schlafley wrote in 2006: “A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. VAWA ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation, and saving marriages.”

Accused – not convicted – men are sent to reeducation centers once a week. It’s colloquially termed “anger management” but the curriculum is about convincing powerless men who have just lost their homes how much privilege they have.

The contents of VAWA have largely been kept from the public and have certainly not been subject to public debate. Imran Khan writes in his “The Misandry Bubble:”

There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phone call. No due process is permitted, and the man’s Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods’ wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by ‘feminists’ in a ‘you go girl’ manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.

It also finances the “re-education” of judges and police to arrest only males and that “women never lie” about abuse. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a federally funded organization and feminist mobilization center, has regular seminars for judges concerning how they are to handle domestic violence cases. They state:

PCDV staff also provides training and technical assistance to judges and court personnel through the STOP Judicial Training Project. Judges and court personnel are invited to contact STOP Judicial Project Staff to receive confidential assistance on issues related to domestic violence law.

This is one of the few areas of law where ideological advocacy organizations get to lecture judges as to how to handle cases they are involved in. This used to be illegal. Being both state and federally funded makes the matter even more serious, since it violates the separation of powers. These seminars are a means to make sure judges do not listen to a man’s testimony. They are told that women cannot lie about abuse.

This “fact” has been refuted many times. VAWA encourages women to make false allegations as a means to petition for full child custody. It’s a means to destroy fathers and extract rents and subsidies in favor of “victims.” To take out a restraining order on a man is to gain an income without working. Most states permit child support orders to be appended to these without negotiation.

In 2016 the Police Executive Research Forum published Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: A Roundtable Discussion was published and centers around justifying what is today called the “victim-centered approach,” which is that “women never lie.” It states that “a victim may choose to have a sexual assault advocate report on their behalf” meaning that a feminist activist would be providing testimony to the police, not the woman making the complaint. This is largely de facto the case in many jurisdictions. In other words, it is the local activist cell that testifies to police and the judiciary, not the “victim.”

With no evidence needed, a woman can get a restraining order. She can force a man to give her a stipend. She’s now a “victim,” gains a free lawyer, weekly counseling for free, immediate access to all social programs without a waiting period, and importantly, can justify her divorce. A married woman having an affair has little choice but to fake abuse so as to divorce her husband. She can say that she “feared for her safety” and any indiscretions will be rapidly forgotten or even justified.

A restraining order forces the man to vacate the family home. It takes his children away. It costs the woman nothing to obtain and the male must pay all legal costs. The woman gets a free lawyer while the male must hire an attorney since these are civil cases, not criminal ones. Its a potent weapon to use in child custody cases and gains the woman the aristocratic status of “victim.” The man is “convicted” without a trial or defense.

The order is obtained ex parte, that is, without the defendant present. This is outrageously illegal in common law. The system claims that a “hearing” will be held within a brief time afterwards, but these are not trials. These are brief formalities where the male cannot prepare a defense because the woman can speak about anything that might have counted as “abuse” in the past. Many attorneys will not take such cases. This author, asking three Pennsylvania criminal attorneys, heard them say, in one form or another, “there is no law governing these. It is pure domination.”

VAWA promotes the unrestrained use of protective orders, which family and criminal courts issue without evidence. Mandated arrests are now federal law and probable cause is largely now based on a woman’s tears. Most counties under VAWA have “no drop” laws that forbid the DA to drop charges regardless of the lack of evidence or the woman’s refusal to testify. In no other area of law is this the case.


The VAWA system redefines abuse. This is one of the more obnoxious elements of the new regime. While most see it as physical violence by the stronger against the weaker, the feminists define it as male control over the female. In most states, the local “victim advocate” center asks questions like “Does your partner check your e-mail” or “Does your partner call you names?” These are listed along with more obvious forms of abuse such as beatings. Thus, the law, both in word and execution, sees abuse as anything that is slightly irritating to the female. Making a woman “feel uncomfortable” is seen as sufficient for “abuse” under the current legal system.

Since 1994, VAWA has used taxpayer funds to create a massive network of feminist groups called the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The following passage is now official ideology of criminal law and comes from VAWA itself:

As long as we as a culture accept the principle and privilege of male dominance, men will continue to be abusive. As long as we as a culture accept and tolerate violence against women, men will continue to be abusive. . . . All men benefit from the violence of batterers. There is no man who has not enjoyed the male privilege resulting from male domination reinforced by the use of physical violence. . . . All women suffer as a consequence of men’s violence. Battering by individual men keeps all women in line. While not every woman has experienced violence, there is no woman in this society who has not feared it, restricting her activities and her freedom to avoid it. Women are always watchful knowing that they may be the arbitrary victims of male violence.

This is not the deluded ranting of some tenured, isolated feminist. It is the law of the land and enforced by police. Today, over 70 percent of police time at the local level is enforcing domestic orders of one sort or another and most local departments have an entire DV unit which is mobilized by the advocacy cells and uses VAWA as its legal foundation.

According to the most comprehensive literature review to date, only 30.5% of persons arrested for domestic violence are actually convicted of the offense. “Convictions” can refer to the ritual plea down to a minor offense to avoid the agony of a trial. About 1 percent actually go to trial at all. Thus, actual provable guilt vanishes to nothing. Roughly 700,000 men are wrongfully detained each year (Garner, 2009).

Obviously, mandatory arrests and easy restraining orders massively increase the amount of domestic violence recorded by the system. Leaving a man with nothing left to lose is hardly a rational strategy. In New Jersey, there was a 35 percent spike in violence once these polices were enacted (Ciraco, 2001).

Former policeman G. Sperry wrote this:

They also removed arrest decisions from the responding officer and we repeatedly had to arrest the man, whose only crime was physically repelling the woman attacking him. In the hundreds of domestic violence phone calls, perhaps 90% to 95% were false, yet I saw children’s and men’s lives destroyed irrevocably due to vindictive, greedy, spoiled, mentally imbalanced, and/or drug-infested women perverting the judicial system (SAVE, 2010).

And in an academic work on the subject,

A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic restraining orders issued in that state. The study found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. In other words, the order was issued on the basis of alleged fear or emotional distress, not because of actual or imminent violence. A subsequent analysis examined the allegations listed in 298 abuse prevention orders that were requested by women and issued in the Massachusetts Gardner District Court in 1997. In 41% of these cases, fear was the sole allegation listed, and in 64% of the orders the woman indicated no harm had occurred. In a 2005 study of couples involved in custody disputes, domestic violence allegations were made in 55% of the cases. Of these allegations, 59% could not be substantiated by the courts as true. A more recent analysis of domestic violence restraining orders issued in 2006 in Campbell County, West Virginia concluded 81% were unnecessary or false. Based on these studies, it is estimated that about 60% of the 2-3 million restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. This translates into 1.2-1.8 million persons who are wrongfully accused of domestic violence each year (SAVE, 2011).

Lives are destroyed in the process. The restraining order has no purpose except to destroy families. The restraining order is meant to punish the man when there is not sufficient evidence to bring him to trial criminally. If he’s done something to earn a restraining order, then he certainly should also have been arrested, tried and convicted. This is rarely the case.

Other lesser known effects of the restraining order are almost always ignored. For a divorcing couple, the wife can use the restraining order to silence the husband whenever he irritates her. Since there’s no real legal standard for violation (or Indirect Criminal Contempt, ICC), the man walks on eggshells, not sure what’s going to land him in jail. The very fact that there are no real standards of ICC convictions means that those subject to the restraining order live under an arbitrary system. They live in fear. A defense against an ICC case is impossible for this reason.

Today, the woman is granted two attorneys. First, the DA, who is highly motivated since he can now show the powerful feminist groups how hard he is on “abusers.” Second, the free attorney granted from the “advocacy group.” Thus, she has a legal team, not just a lawyer. Her hapless ex-husband has nothing.

Now, a restraining order is not a criminal proceeding, but a civil one. Thus, the man is not guaranteed a lawyer. For an ICC hearing, public defenders are not on retainers nor are they paid by the service. They have no incentive to take ICC cases seriously and rarely do. They demand the man plea. They will not spend any time in any defense of a case that has no clear standards of guilt or innocence. Since there are no standards, a defense is impossible, so this is not a case they want.

Domestic violence is today an industry run by females and their “white knights,” but this doesn’t apply to female violence, which is rampant. Realizing there’s no penalty for hitting a man and that a man will be terrified to hit back, she will naturally let loose. If one is told that there is a class of people you can hurt physically without any possibility of retaliation, that class will be harmed constantly.

The National Survey on domestic violence from the CDC says “70% of the perpetrators of unilateral conjugal violence are female.” This also includes aggravated assault. “10% of married couples and 13% of cohabiting couples reported females using severe violence when the male partner was non-violent.” The reverse? Not over seven percent.

Finally, the most comprehensive study ever done on domestic violence concluded “Women are slightly more likely than men to use intimate violence.” This is even more prevalent in younger women. “On average, female partner violence had a 21% higher incidence than male partner violence.”

In 1985, another major study on rape and domestic violence accusations was done by the US National Family Violence Survey. Using older studies is better than newer ones because it is said “male power” existed in a far purer form back then. Here were the main conclusions:

When a woman called the police to report IPV (domestic violence), the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases. When a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of cases.
When a woman called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases. When a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases.
When a woman called, the man was threatened with arrest at a later date in 10.7% of cases. When a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest at a later date in 0% of cases.
When a woman called, the man was arrested in 15.2% of cases. When a man called, the woman was arrested in 0% of cases. In 12.1% of cases when the man called, the man himself was arrested. (1985 US National Family Violence Survey, carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles).

While the myth that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men is still widely accepted, even feminists recognize that women are its main perpetrators. Betty Friedan’s It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women’s Movement was forced to state,“Women are doing the battering, as much or more than men.”

Stephen Baskerville, in his The New Politics of Sex, writes:

Purdue University sociologist Eugene J. Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false. A follow-up study at a university found 50% of accusations were false, again purely by the recantation of the accuser. Unrecanted accusations certainly put the actual percentage of false allegations much higher. Kanin concluded that ‘these false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.”

Women lie about domestic violence all the time. The incentives are overwhelming. The 2010 report “Incentives to Make False Allegations of Domestic Violence” from the SAVE organization contains all of these incentives on a state by state basis. Incentives to lie or exaggerate are not a matter of opinion. Bakersfield continues at length:

These new and loosely-defined crimes have politicized law enforcement and criminal justice, rendered the law vague and subjective, by-passed and eroded due process protections for the accused, and criminalized and incarcerated vast numbers of men and some women who had no inkling that they were committing a crime. Seldom are these quasi-crimes adjudicated by trials or juries in standard courts. Instead guilt (but seldom innocence) is summarily pronounced by specialized judges or, increasingly, various pseudo-judges: “judges surrogate,” lawyers, social workers, school administrators, campus tribunals, and other petty bureaucrats, functionaries, and political operatives with a vested interest in accumulating offenders to administer. Accusers are identified as “victims” in officials documents, and the accused are publicly labeled not only by media but even by law enforcement officials themselves with terms that presume guilt – “perpetrators” “abusers,” “batterers,” “bullies,” “harassers,” “deadbeats,” “traffickers,” and more – even before they are tried (if they are tried). The distinction between crime and ordinary human conflict is blurred or eliminated by “the glorification of feeling,” with clear acts of criminal violence (for which existing criminal law has always provided) jumbled together with open-ended terms like “abuse” and “exploitation” to suggest that anything that might fall under these vague but opprobrious terms is also a crime for which someone must be arrested. The crime is often defined subjectively, according to the judgment or “feelings” of the one claiming to be a “victim,” and guilt is determined not by the objective act of the accused but by the subjective state-of-mind of the accuser – not only whether she gave “consent” but whether she felt “fear” or simply “offense.”

This is the purpose of VAWA, not an aberration from it. Its the legacy of women in politics, women using the natural fear of male rejection to ram their agenda through without debate. This is totalitarianism because every word or action of a male can be theoretically criminalized given the subjective demeanor of the female. It hasn’t created a new aristocracy, its only institutionalized its power.

The VAWA “counseling centers,” serve primarily to justify the actions of the accuser. Any moral qualms the woman might feel are professionally smoothed over by these “counselors” (SAVE, 2010b). Since her free lawyer comes from the same group that’s presently counseling her, it’s a conflict of interest, but this doesn’t seem to be a general problem with the courts. It amounts to the manipulation of witnesses. Since these centers are agencies of the federal government, it gets even dicier. This isn’t “counseling” in the sense of psychological improvement. Rather its both federally funded ideological indoctrination and a means whereby the woman’s “story” can be crafted and justified. It has subverted the legal system beyond recognition.


Most feminists will claim that, prior to the 1960s, women were beaten with impunity. Since the state did not make a specific concern for violence in the home, it went on unpunished. Of course, assault was always illegal, but according to the university myths, men engaged in wife beating without the slightest concern for punishment. Thus, modern laws against domestic violence are essential.

The truth is that domestic violence laws were never needed. They are not a means of getting power over men, but of keeping it. domestic violence laws have nothing to do with abuse. They have to do with destroying the family and thus, leaving men vulnerable and constantly off balance.

The historical record in American strongly suggests that domestic violence was punished in the most violent of ways, but, quite often, privately. Public flogging was a common punishment for wife beating and was enshrined in California law in 1876 and Baltimore, MD in 1885. In places like Upper Marlboro Maryland in 1945 and William, Delaware in 1952, these beatings were done unofficially.

In the Delaware case, one offender was given nine lashes with a whip in 1952. In 1877 Nevada, a man was forced to wear a sign “Wifebeater” and was paraded up and down the main street of Virginia City. They were slapped and punched by passers by. In Akron, OH in 1918, a man convicted of domestic violence was drafted into the army as punishment. In 1918, Malvern IA, such a man was beaten by neighbors and run out of town. In 1877 in West Virginia, domestic violence convicts were sentenced to “ducking,” an older version of Waterboarding.

Nevada passed the “Act to Prevent Cruelty to Women” in 1877. A whipping post just for wifebeaters was erected in the middle of the city. A news paper in Butte, MT wrote:

This post is not erected for the convenience of husbands who believe that to spare the rod is to spoil the woman, as it is not the wives who are tied to it during the process of flagellation, but their lords and masters, who upon conviction of the crime of wife beating are delivered into the gentle hands of the constable for their just deserts (UHM, 2013).

This was written at a time, so the professors will say, where America was largely an orgy of assaults on women for no reason. On more than one occasion, a wifebeater was beaten physically by the very judge who sentenced him. In 1894, a Florida judge sentenced a wifebeater to be beaten by a group of women. Thousands upon thousands of these cases exist that have surprisingly escaped the notice of gender studies “professors.”  (cf.  “19th Century Intolerance of Domestic Violence. “The Unknown History of Misandry. 2013 for the complete list of cases).

The US looked harshly on domestic violence and always has. The western martial tradition couldn’t countenance the notion of a stronger opponent beating a weaker one. There was no victory in that. It would be like a heavyweight boxer fighting a lightweight. Physical contests had to be equal. domestic violence was equated with cowardice.

The feminist intrusion into this field has been only to destroy males. Ending abuse is not the issue nor has it ever been. Generally speaking, the 19th century had far harsher punishments for wifebeating than modern times. Whipping, exile, beatings, the chain gang and all the rest were common. Every state had some form of hard punishment, usually physical, for domestic violence convicts. The worst, perhaps, was the hatred of the community that usually forced the man out if he couldn’t reform. The “women’s movement” did nothing but target men and the family in general.


The concept of a “battered woman’s” shelter feeds into the myth of the “battered women.” The options a woman has when faced with a violent partner are many. She has a kitchen full of knives and meat cleavers available. She has her Beta orbiters at the ready. They know a brother, male friend or really, anyone seeking to be a “white knight” to go and “speak” to the alleged perpetrator. Even stranger would love to teach a a real wife beater a lesson. To think she was – at any time – defenseless is laughable. Today, a woman has an army behind her at all times.

The “domestic violence shelter for women” exists only for the sake of creating drama; to create an emotional scene. To tell others that she “was forced into a shelter” earns automatic sympathy and a total absolution from anything she might have done in the past. If she’s an adulterer and goes to a shelter, her sins are forgotten, absolved and excused.

If a woman is harmed in any way visibly, the police must arrest the man, but even visible marks are not needed in a VAWA-world. Thus, a shelter seems superfluous. Referring to a similar situation in Germany, Dr. Gerhard Arnet writes:

They view a man as every woman’s enemy. For them, it is a foregone conclusion that women do not engage in violent acts. According to the ideology espoused in women’s shelters, this is always a given, and mutual talks between a woman and her partner are therefore superfluous. To this end, women are politically manipulated into a victim role and men are collectively denigrated. Consequently, the residents of women’s shelters are allowed to experience themselves only as victims and not as participants in a relationship that has turned violent. Women’s shelters represent a world where the joy of life is missing, and efforts to resolve relationship conflicts have been replaced by existential despondency or even self-hatred. Misandry appears to offer a way out. This oppressive atmosphere surely accounts for the high rate of employee turnover at women’s shelters and the dissension within work teams. It enables one to understand recent research conducted in the USA which found that women are increasingly steering clear of shelters despite the severity of their conflicts. They do not want to be forced into a world that despises men. Their own problems are burden enough.

Groups like Women in Need in Pennsylvania stress the need for their shelters in their fundraising letters, yet even a moment’s reflection shows the absurdity. Immediate arrest, restraining orders for nothing, female violence, weapons and male, Beta white knights show how absurd the “shelter” idea is. It exists solely for emotional impact. Yet, to criticize the waste of millions and millions in age of tight budgets can lead to social ostracism. Men stay silent. He continues,

The proponents of women’s shelters believe that their combative, anti-patriarchal rhetoric will have a greater impact than professionally trained counselors and therapists. Most of them seem unimpressed that they are not genuinely helping those who seek counseling, because they attribute their failure to a lack of political insight on the part of the women. Their sense of mission appears to provide greater narcissistic gratification than the tough, daunting task of working with violent families who have elevated physical expression to the language of everyday life and otherwise no longer have much to say about each other.

The domestic violence industry is a tool of political mobilization. The only victims are the men. Before feminism became dominant, domestic violence was punished in the harshest ways possible. Since their intrusion into the field, its been an excuse to destroy families. Outside of the rare psychopath who beats his wife because the casserole is cold, almost all domestic violence is minor, comes from the female or comes from alcohol and drugs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2006–2015 says that for simple assaults, 1.8 million have a female victim while almost 1.9 million have a male one (Reaves, 2017).

The origin of these absurd “women’s shelters?” In the November 1 2004 issue of The Oregonian, leftist activists Lisa Schroeder and Bonnie Tinker said, as concerning the inception of these “shelters:”

We knew that foundations were not going to fund a house for a bunch of homeless bar dykes. We realized the language that would be understood was the language of battered women. . . We had a house, but we really didn’t know what we were doing. . . We just declared ourselves a social-service agency because we needed an agency.

They needed an “agency” in order to gain government grants. The whole thing is a fraud. It was merely a cover story for their own lesbian brothels. Due to the sheer power of women, no one looked into this group or sought out its history. All laws were broken in order to give as much money as possible to these mentally unbalanced dykes.

Today, the “domestic violence shelter” is a growing and profitable business. It is guaranteed tons of corporate and government money no matter how tight budges get. Most, again believing they are goddesses, refuse to properly account for their money and charge for non-existent services. Dissenters are called “wifebeaters.”

The proof of this is the massive salaries of their CEOs. The fact that they have CEOs at all should give pause. At the Safe Horizon shelter in New York City, CEO Scott Millstein makes roughly $170,000. Beatrice Hanson, chief program officer rakes in $157,776 while Gordon Campbell, the COO, makes $145,952. The company brings in almost $60 million yearly tax free as of 2009. At the Family Place in Dallas, Paige Flink makes over $163,000 in salary and benefits (Roberts, 2010).

In 2009, Safe Horizon was involved in a scandal that was obvious to anyone who thought about their operation for more than 7 consecutive seconds. Since most states automatically grant assistance to “victims of domestic violence” without question or proof, actual needy people are pushed to the back of the line. As it turns out, this “shelter” was merely a scam to get their friends Section VIII immediately. Today, most of these scammers, including Women in Need, do this as a matter of course. They do so openly, aware that men will be too frightened to stop them. Its long been whispered that these groups keep tabs on their possible opponents, manufacturing compromising pictures – real or not – as incentive to stay in line.

One of the worst sins of these sects is the invention of abuse stories and imposing them on either mentally ill or otherwise highly suggestible women. In a period of extreme stress and uncertainty, skillful “counselors” can have a women convinced that anything inconvenient amounts to abuse. A slap in the face is nothing of note, but it is legally considered far worse than a lifetime of mental abuse, adultery and neglect by a woman.

Ligia Filler and her former husband Vladek are from Guatemala. They immigrated to Maine for some reason. At their divorce, Ligia, the mother of two children, lost them due to abuse. For a woman to lose her children in the court system is a guarantee of her guilt. It’s almost never done. As the couple was splitting up, Ligia went to the local abuse shelter, Next Step, where she was encouraged and coached to make fake allegations against her husband so as to regain the children. She accused him of rape, though she offered no evidence and refused an examination from doctors.

Despite several psychologists deeming her unfit as a mother, her fake allegations were taken as fact. The press then vilified Vladek, refusing to even ask for his side of things, since “women never lie.” The prosecutor, Mary Kellett, went wild, adding more and more detail to this alleged rape. The Bangor Daily News also added non-existent details to this nonexistent crime. Later, the courts sanctioned Kellett for suppressing exculpating evidence and a new trial was permitted. She erased part of a video where his ex-wife admitted to fabricating the charges (Trotter, 2016). In that trial, Vladek was convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery largely based on media hysteria in 2009 (Elam, 2015). Finally, a post-conviction hearing exonerated him. This hearing led to the removal of the prosecutor and her public humiliation since she deliberately railroaded this man. He was, after almost seven years, totally vindicated (State of Maine v Vladek Filler, 2010 ME 90 (ME Sup Ct, 9-9-2010)).

All news reports omitted that it was the Next Step shelter that contrived the rape charges for her. The worst element was that these fake charges were the foundation for three strict “anti abuse” laws singed by Gov. John Baldacci. The impetus for it was the nonexistent crime of Vladek Filler. As always, few read the bills, as they were buried in other sometimes unrelated packages of legislation, but they passed without comment due to fear of feminist attack. These false allegations were projections of the “shelter” staff onto a stressed, unhinged woman. This is not uncommon, since those times are obviously stressful ones. Women, impressionable at the best of times, are extremely amenable to suggestion then.


Concluding this depressing paper, its clear that “domestic violence” is its own industry with its own ideology and mythology. Its big business and benefits all women. Men are not safe in their own homes or property and can be removed from it at any time, thus nullifying all Fourth Amendment protections. VAWA has overridden all legal protections for men and is nothing more than the institutionalization of the gynocracy.

In 2018 America, there are two classes of citizen legally speaking. The first is the male, bereft of rights if he’s married or living with a woman, and the second, the female, the rulers of the household. If the woman is attractive, then her power is absolute because, in addition to the legal privileges, she’s also treated very, very well by men in society in general. The list of studies that have proven attractive women get treated far better than anyone else in society is a huge one, though most males don’t need a psychological study to tell them that.

Here is a brief bibliography of major works in this area:

Etcoff, N (2011) Cosmetics as a Feature of the Extended Human Phenotype: Modulation of the Perception of Biologically Important Facial Signals. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25656

Ma Q, Hu Y, Jiang S and Meng L (2015) The Undermining Effect of Facial Attractiveness on Brain Responses to Fairness in the Ultimatum Game: An ERP Study. Front. Neuroscience, 9:77

Zeng, J., Wang, Y., and Zhang, Q. (2012). An ERP study on Decisions between Attractive Females and Money. PLoS ONE 7:e45945

Van Hooff, JC, Crawford, H., and van Vugt, M. (2011). The Wandering Mind of Men: ERP Evidence for Gender Differences in Attention Bias Towards Attractive Opposite Sex Faces. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 6, 477–485

Solnick, SJ, and Schweitzer, ME (1999). The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79, 199–215

Mulford, M., Orbell, J., Shatto, C., and Stockard, J. (1998). Physical Attractiveness, Opportunity, and Success in Everyday Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 103, 1565–1592

Johnston, V and Oliver-Rodriguez, JC (1997). Facial Beauty and the Late Positive Component of Event-related Potentials. Journal of Sex Research 34, 188–198

Hamermesh, D. S., and Biddle, J. E. (1993). Beauty and the Labor Market (No. w4518). National Bureau on Economic Research 84, 1174–1194

Jaeger, MM (2011) “A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever?” Returns to Physical Attractiveness over the Life Course. Social Forces 89.3, 983-1003

Having been though them all, this author is terrified. Not a single study shows that attractive women are anything other than privileged. These blatantly show unchallenged evidence that attractive women rule society. They have few problems, are almost never poor and are served by men no differently than serfs. If they want, they don’t need to pay a single bill or debt in their lives.

These prove definitively that the entire western world is built around pleasing the attractive female. Those studies that stretch this to men don’t bother to compare the two groups. When they do, men are far less benefited by looks than women are. Even in the depression that’s gripped the western world since 2007, women are doing better than ever. The Hamermesh study and the Mulford paper are the most clear in this regard.

The Hamermesh study claims that men and women have the same premium for beauty and penalty for being fugly, but this disappears when other factors are included. In other worst, women are privileged solely on looks, while a man must have other factors to increase his earnings and gain social esteem.

The Mulford study is important because it shows that female attractiveness goes far beyond take home pay, prestige and poverty. It is a positive premium for all interactions. They are treated better in all walks of life and gain, when this accumulates over time, an aristocratic status. Of course, Mulford doesn’t use these terms, since his career will be cut short if he did. All of these studies use code language and virtue signaling to minimize the implications of their work to avoid the wrath of feminists. It’s no accident that so much of the research on the inferior logical mind of women comes from Chinese universities, since in the USA, one will be out of a job, tenure or not.

These works prove that the feminist movement exists not to gain power, only to institutionalize it. In addition, the feminist movement might well serve to bring this aristocratic status to ugly women too. Either way, this empirical evidence confirms the situation is far worse than most men realize. If this sort of work is being done in American and English universities, fully aware of the consequences, what has been left out?

In brief, VAWA is merely an institutionalization of matriarchy. The worst part is that men have helped bring this about. Men seek the attention of attractive women as a matter of nature. The result is that whatever they want, they tend to get – immediately. The fear of rejection in males runs deep and is a part of our DNA. Because of this, the possibility of change in the current system is close to zero.



Emal, B (2015) At long last, justice for Vladek Filler. A Voice for Men

Bakersville, S (2007) The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Governmental Power. Angelico Press

Trotter, B (2016) Former Maine prosecutor appeals federal court ruling against her. Bangor Daily News

Roberts, C (2010) Hungry for Profits? Diversify into Abuse Shelters! Renew America

Roberts, C (2009) Well-heeled Abuse Shelter Implicated in NYC Housing Scam. Renew America

Basile S. Comparison of abuse alleged by same- and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence Vol. 19, No. 1. 2004

Johnston J et al. Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2005

Ciraco VN. Fighting domestic violence with mandatory arrest, Are we winning?: An analysis in New Jersey. Women’s Rights Law Report Vol. 22, 2001

Sperry G. Domestic violence from an ex-cop’s perspective. San Diego Union-Tribune, April 15, 2006

Straus MA. Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review Vol. 30, No. 3. 2008

Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, pp. 651–680, 2000

Stith S, Smith DB, Penn CE, et al. Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization Risk Factors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Aggression and Violent Behavior Vol. 10, 2004. pp. 65-98

Garner JH, Maxwell CD. Prosecution and Conviction Rates for Intimate Partner Violence. Criminal Justice Review Vol. 34, No. 1, 2009

SAVE. Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence. Rockville, MD. 2010a

SAVE. Estimated National Expenditures For Domestic Violence Services and Programs Rockville, MD. 2011a

SAVE. The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders. Rockville, MD, 2011

SAVE. Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence . Rockville, MD 2010

SAVE. Incentives to Make False Allegations of Domestic Violence. Rockville, MD 2010b

Epstein E. Speaking the Unspeakable, Massachusetts Bar Association Newsletter, 1993

19th Century Intolerance of Domestic Violence. The Unknown History of Misandry. 2013

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2016) Expert Testimony: Expanding Its Role in Domestic Violence Civil Cases. The Jurist

Gelles RJ (1999) The Hidden side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims. Women’s Quarterly

Police Executive Research Forum, Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: A Roundtable Discussion (2016)

Kay, Barbara (2011) The Awkward Truth about Spousal Abuse. National Post, December 21

Patai, Daphne and Noretta Koertge (2003) Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies. Lexington Books.

Khan, I. (2010) The Misandry Bubble. The Futurist

Reaves, BA (2017) Police Response to Domestic Violence, 2006-2015. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics

Matthew Raphael Johnson

Matthew Raphael Johnson is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy. He completed his doctorate at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1999. He is a former professor of both history and political science at the University of Nebraska (as a graduate student), Penn State University and Mount St. Mary’s University. Since 1999, he was the editor (and is presently Senior Researcher) at The Barnes Review, a well-known renegade journal of European history. Dr. Johnson is the author of eight books. Six are from Hromada Books, "Sobornosti: Essays on the Old Faith;" "Heavenly Serbia and the Medieval Idea;" "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality: Lectures on Medieval Russia;" "The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature: "The Foreign Policy of Mass Society: The Failure of Western Engagement in the Middle East;" and "Officially Approved Dissent: Alasdair MacIntyre’s Strategic Ambiguity in His Critique of Modernity." And two published by The Barnes Review, "The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy;" and "Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin."