Category Archives: Domestic Violence

Radical Feminism, the ‘Commentariat’ and Curriculum Transformation in the UK

Ivor Catt, January 2005

The Government has failed to offer families a (divorce) system that works. You have to start by bringing the judges, experts and stakeholders on board to agree what sort of orders the Courts should make. That way, you know what you’re trying to deliver. Then you build a legal system to deliver it. The Government never did its homework. It forgot the foundations.

It’s the same old gerry-building: “Anything goes”, Theresa May, Shadow Minister for the Family, said at the Conservative Party Conference, 2004.

Theresa May is wrong. She does not know that the attack on the traditional family has been built over many years after extensive homework. The attack is spearheaded by a large number of activists in the Cabinet, strongly supported by the Prime Minister’s wife Cherie Blair, inconsistently, because she is a staunch Catholic. In a crucial vote two years ago, it was reported that when the Cabinet was split 50/50, her husband laid his casting vote against the family.

Most of the reasons for and strategy for the attack on the family can be read in radical feminist literature, much of it published by members of the Cabinet, by their co-authors, and by Judge Cherie Blair. Some of it is readily available, but not understood by journalists.

Our sex equality envoy in Baghdad.
The government has sent a “gender equality” officer to Baghdad to help emancipate Iraqui women, writes Maurice Chittenden from the (Sunday) Times. Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary and minister for women, has seconded an expert from her equality unit in Whitehall to the new Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Iraq (Sunday Times, June 15, 2003, p9.)

This initiative follows the American plan to put an American female general in charge of Baghdad. A year later, nearly all the young American and British soldiers dying in Fallujah and elsewhere fighting to give equality to Iraqui women are male. Do our objectives in Iraq include encouraging Iraquis to appoint female mullahs, in line with our female Bishops in England and the USA?

On page vii in the forward to her 1993 book The Century Gap. 20th Century Man. 21st Century Woman., Cabinet Minister Harriet Harman wrote;

“Over the past twenty years Patricia Hewitt, Anna Coote and I have developed our ideas together.”

Both Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt are members of Tony Blair’s Cabinet, the small executive committee which governs Britain. On page 58, Harman writes;

“ …. Husband(s) …. must exercise within their homes the rules of common courtesy and respect which they practice at work.”

In 1982, in the middle of those twenty years, Anna Coote (1, 2) joined with lesbian Beatrix Campbell to publish their book “Sweet Freedom”. They wrote;

“Feminists have had to contend with some powerful myths. One is that sex is a purely natural phenomenon and therefore apolitical …. Another is that the natural expression of sexuality is what we know as heterosexuality. A third is that a woman’s sense of her own sexuality is natural, rather than something that has been constructed by social and economic factors. …. (p212) Conventional heterosexual practice – that bizarre mixture of myth and coercion – is defended more vigorously than any other precept on which our society is supposed to be founded. (p213)

Allegation that Domestic Violence inheres in the conventional family, and is always perpetuated by men, is the counterpoint to the belief that copulation is an unnatural social invention imposed by patriarchy on naïve and disempowered women. In Coote’s book we read;

“ …. Men regularly beat up women in the privacy of their homes …. The public had to face the fact that domestic violence was widespread and often severe. …. (p40) wife-battering is not the practice of a deviant few, but something which can emerge in the ‘normal’ course of marital relations. (p.41)”

Thus, the current campaign to drive fathers out of the family is to protect women from both violence and from copulation imposed on them by brainwashing and coercion.

Admittedly, I have not found a direct link with the High Priest of Radical Feminism, Catharine A MacKinnon, who helped to draft Canadian and also American laws. In her seminal book, “Towards a Feminist Theory of the State” (Harvard University Press, 1989, 1, 2), she writes;

“…. Rape, which by a conservative definition happens to almost half of all women at least once in their lives …. Over one-third of all women are sexually molested by older and trusted male family or authority figures …. (p142) About one third of all men say they would rape a woman if they knew they would not get caught. (p145), …. most women are raped by men they know …. (p146), a reality …. Women’s sex-based destitution and enforced dependency and permanent relegation to disrespected and starvation-level work …. The pervasive rape and attempted rape about which nothing is done, the systematic battery of women in homes, and prostitution – the fundamental condition of women ….(p242)”.

The first sixty pages of MacKinnon’s book are entitled “Feminism and Marxism”.

The important thing is not to decide on the truth of these assertions, but rather to think through what legislation and society such people would try to create.

The idea that women are oppressed, primarily by living within the married family, is at the heart of the dogma of what is now called the “Commentariat”, those who write and talk within the very narrow range of opinion that is allowed in the “free” media and politics in the UK.

Protest against it is what led the voting majority in the USA to re-elect a politician, President Bush, who showed recognition that western society is being dismantled at its core, the institution of marriage. Had he not done so, a rapidly escalating pro-family Fascist Party might have grown in the USA, as it is likely to do in Britain. Britain is vulnerable because libertarian and homosexual leadership blights the natural party of the Family, the Conservatives. It is noteworthy that in the confusion following Bush’s re-election, the Commentariat slipped into admitting that the voter linked Gay Marriage with the attack on the Family, a link they were successful in suppressing until now, although it would obviously influence voting.

The backlash against the political and media hegemony of a libertarian, intolerant, anti-family censoring Commentariat will be too late to save education from disaster. This can be seen by doing a “Google” search for “Curriculum Transformation”, which is by now very heavily funded. Primarily created and financed by a Radical Feminist-led Ford Foundation, “Curriculum Transformation” permeates academia in the USA. The content of every university syllabus is being replaced by radfem dogma. Study of “Curriculum Transformation” is very helpful if we want to study the roots of radical feminism, which controls the leadership of western societies, but does not control the voters, who will topple that leadership at some time in the future.

Erin Pizzey insists, and Catharine A MacKinnon seems to admit, that Radical Feminism is Marxist. Except for the original idea that normal copulation is unnatural, Radical Feminism is syncretic, stealing ideas from wherever it can. All that has been done with Marxism was to replace “Capitalism” with “Patriarchy”. On the other hand, there are strong indications that in Russia in the 1920s, Feminism was indistinguishable from Marxism.

(Britain and the USA are no longer democratic, but are controlled by tiny groups of extremist women. Democracy having been subverted, can it recovered?) The race is on to exploit outraged reaction between moderate Bush-style recapture for democracy, and a Fascist takeover when the “silent majority’ finally flexes its muscles. Continuing radfem censorship means that the choice between them will not be decided rationally by discussion and debate. Free discussion will be prevented by the libertarian Commentariat until well after the transfer of power.

Other reading on this subject:

Ivor Catt Bar


Family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence

Originally published on

We find that excluded fathers get muddled over various aspects of the family courts. I have a new point to make here.

More hangs on the issue of whether a criminal offence has been committed when it comes to allegations of domestic violence than in all other cases of criminal allegations, because in these other cases, the future of children is not directly involved. It follows that it is more important, not less, for the correct verdict to be made.

The English system is based on jury trial in open court by the defendant’s peers. It follows that anyone who colludes in supporting the family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence would not be able to explain why they supported the jury trial in any criminal case. They have to agree that they oppose jury trials in all cases. If, however, they are in favour of jury trials, they surely must demand that a jury be involved in open court before recourse is made to a Child Contact Centre.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

Both sexes equally likely to suffer domestic violence (Guardian) – Home Office Research Study 191 (1999)

Source: Guardian | UK news | By Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor | Friday January 22 1999

Men are increasingly the victims of domestic violence, and are just as likely as women to be assaulted by a partner, according to Home Office research published yesterday. The men most likely to be attacked are in their early 30s and unmarried, but living with a woman.

The findings, from the British Crime Survey, show there are some 6.6 million incidents of assault in the home each year, evenly split between men and women.

But the research also shows that women are twice as likely to be injured, and are much more likely to suffer repeated attacks. They are also less likely to be in a financial position to be able to leave a violent relationship.

It also shows that the rise in domestic attacks on men by women is a 1990s phenomenon. In 1995 just over 4 per cent of men and women said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner in the last year. But 23 per cent of women said they had been assaulted by a partner at some time – compared with 15 per cent of men.

Women are at greatest risk of attack after a relationship has broken up or they and their spouse have separated. The researchers say women have a different emotional reaction to separation, and are less likely to use violence to express their feelings: ”Women’s violence against men is, therefore, more likely to be within the context of an relationship.”

The research was published as the Home Office Minister, Paul Boateng and the Leader of the Lords, Baroness Jay, launched Break the Chain, a domestic violence leaflet giving practical advice and listing telephone helplines, including a men’s advice line.

”Domestic violence wrecks lives. Much of it is literally criminal,” said Mr Boateng. ”All of it is unacceptable. But a basic shift in attitudes is required. We must work towards the day when such conduct is universally recognised as reprehensible.”

The study by Home Office researchers Catriona Mirrlees-Black and Carole Byron found that in most cases the violence involved pushing and grabbing, but in 47 per cent of incidents the victim was also kicked, slapped or punched. About half the attacks resulted in injury, most commonly bruising, but one in 10 involved cuts and a small minority broken bones.

Throwing things at each other happens in one in five cases, and in about a third of cases children in the home either witnessed the attack or were aware of it.

Only half of victims of domestic assault told anyone about it – normally a friend, neighbour or relative. The police were only told about 12 per cent of incidents.

For men and women, East Anglia has the highest level of domestic assault, followed by the North and Yorkshire/ Humberside. Assaults are below average in London and the South-east, and women in the East Midlands and men in Wales are at the lowest risk.

Ivor Catt Bar

Domestic Violence. A third view.

To: Libby Brooks, Journalist, The Guardian
From: Ivor Catt 21jan99

I believe that I diverge the all of the Men’s Movements. I believe we are on our way out of the frying pan into the fire. You told me that a Home Office press release today “British Crime Survey” (which will be in the press tomorrow, including your report in the Guardian [in the event under the byeline of Alan Travis]), reported that violence in the family against men was larger than they had thought, and actually was about equal to violence against women. (Note in passing the dishonesty of the recent TV programme on the subject, (Dispatches ch4 7.1.99 9pm 50mins) where the woman pulled her punches by the give-away remark that although serious, violence against men was only 10% of violence against women. The producers of a previous programme were made under pressure from Whiston because they had done a programme on violence against women. The woman in charge then double-crossed him and blew it while appearing to give equal time. A dirty trick. It is not sufficient for her to reply that she did not have the statistics. The programme was three months in the making, and through Whiston she had access to the good statistics by George and Yarwood. (The programme had been postponed once already for the much more important subject of violence against animals!)) (Note in passing also the misbehaviour of Boateng, who recently did enormous damage by saying “Violence against men in the family does not exist.” Now look at what he seems to be quoted as saying in the 22jan99 report from his own department. The damage from his previous incompetent, anti-social behaviour remains, and is added to anti-social behaviour by so many other major figures. He cannot put it right now. He just bends with the breeze; slippery as an eel. The recent propaganda by Boateng and Jay implied that only men were violent, which the close reading of the 22jan99 report does not actually indicate they have retracted. They really are anti-social rogues.)

I made a breakthrough which is highly relevant. By chance, I was expertin the AIDS Industry (see my website), worth about $4 billions per year,and then came to the Global Warming Industry, also worth $4 billions peryear. Study of the build-up of racketeering vested interests (Jay took part in the AIDS racket) in each of these fields is called “Public Choice Theory”. The failure of the number of AIDS patients to increase threatens the job security of AIDS workers etc. so the clinical definition is ever expanded to increase the number of “patients” who can then carry the AIDS professionals and the drug companies. Exactly the same happens in the Global Warming Industry, where many jobs disappear if global warming is doubted. The scientific evidence is rigged. See p75 in the 1997 book “Climate Change” put out by IEA, tel. 0171 799 3745. The parallel between the AIDS industry and the Global Warming Industry is exact. The western world’s Domestic Violence Industry (DV) will presumably settle down to the same $4 billions per year. To do this, definition of DV has to be enlarged (and confused), as is being done. Thus, the anti-family lobby (radical feminists and homosexuals) will ally with the DV Professionals to inflate figures. Properly, UKMM should be in favour of the family, not of blackening women as much as men are being blackened. However, the innocent UKMM members did not go through my experience, of thoroughly studying the AIDS Industry and then turning to the Global Warming Industry, and seeing the common theme – Public Choice Theory (PCT). (For further analysis of PCT see the 1998 US book “Cancer Scam”. It analyses in depth the manipulation of public opinion in order to steer public money in particular directions. UKMM is totally ignorant of this theory.)

Ivor Catt 21jan99

Ivor Catt Bar