|Tuesday, July 23, 2019
You are here: Home » Highlight » Is one type of violence more important than the rest?

Is one type of violence more important than the rest? 


Gender inequality is largely blamed on men, on a “paternalistic society” and so is gender violence.

Spain is a country with levels of social toxicity rarely seen elsewhere. Social division runs rampant because of politicians, most of them socialists, who use mental games to balkanize the public to keep them getting at each other’s throats.

The latest example is that of Paz Lloria, co-director of the Master in Law and Gender Violence program at the University of Valencia.

According to her, all types of violence should not be seen as equally important, because it diminishes the value of the attention given to what she calls ‘gender-driven violence’.

For Lloria, gender violence and intrafamily violence are not the same. “Gender violence is what a man exerts against a woman because she is a woman.” Family violence, according to her, is that between family members, regardless of who is the actor or victim. It can be from children to mothers, from mothers to children, from grandmothers to grandchildren … It has a different nature.

What Lloria is saying is that when a man commits a violent act against a woman, suddenly, that type of violence takes a different level of relevance, but when it is committed by a woman against their children or by grandparents against their children, the woman or the grandparents stop being part of that family and their act of violence is not as relevant as that committed by a man against a woman.

Lloria proposes that we all, magically, remove family members from a home for the sake of highlighting so-called ‘gender violence’, while condemning other kinds of intrafamily violence to normalcy or insignificance.

Her dissatisfaction with highlighting all kinds of violence, as supposed to only ‘gender violence’ comes from a proposal presented by VOX, a right-wing political party in Spain.

Lloria believes that VOX introduces the term intrafamily violence “to obviate the cause of gender violence”, which according to her is rooted in inequality.

If they convince everyone that gender violence is like any other type of violence, Lloria says, it will blur what it has cost us to get it understood: “that the reason for the violence is inequality and the attribution of roles”.

Lloria is not alone in her crusade against ‘toxic masculinity’. According to María Ángeles Jaime de Pablo, president of the Association of Women Jurists Themis, if someone wanted to deny gender inequality and the gender component of violence “is because there are votes coming from “machismo” a term generally used by feminists to widely and indiscriminately condemn masculinity.

According to Isabel Muntané, co-director of the Master in Gender and Communication of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, she believes that most parties do talk about gender violence and put the focus there. She merits awareness of ‘gender violence’ to the feminist movement.

What feminists like Lloria, Jaime, and Muntané have achieved with their crusade is to drown society in an irrelevant war of semantics while forgetting that violence, independently of where it comes from, should be dealt with, swiftly.

Muntané is not shy to confess that hers is an ideological battle. “When we managed to show that ‘gender violence’ was not violence in the private sphere, that it should not be called domestic violence, but gender violence, we managed to establish the term gender and sexist violence. Through language, we managed to change society and the conception of this problem.”

In other words, feminists are out there changing language and its meaning to favor the way in which they see the world, and to force society to see the world through their eyes. As the idea of ‘gender violence’ advanced that this violence is a social problem and not only a private one, the language has also been changed and with it laws and penalties. Men now receive harsher punishments for committing violent acts against women while women, grandparents, and children receive lesser penalties just because of their gender or age.

How is that for equality?

The lie about the lack of gender awareness

According to the Penal Code of the Franco dictatorship and until 1989, there was no difference between the violence of men against women or of women against men, and correctly so. Violence is hideous, no matter who commits it or who receives it. Governments often justify mass murder with the ‘common good’, but it doesn’t stop being mass murder. Experts and the media regularly warn about the rise of terrorism, but they protect the terrorists themselves.

Any murder within a family, committed by a man or a woman is an example of violence and is a crime. It does not matter who executed who.

Husbands who mistreat their wives even when they are not injured were punished by five to fifteen days of minor arrest, provided that those injuries did not prevent the victim from engaging daily tasks such as jobs, and did not require medical assistance.

The penalty was the same if the aggressor was the woman to another member of the family: the gender factor was not taken into account, and rightfully so.

When a violent act is committed, against anyone, the focus should be on two aspects: The well-being of the victim and the punishment of the aggressor, assuming he or she is found to be guilty in a court of law.

Until the new wave of feminism took society by storm, light physical abuse was tolerated whether it was against a child or a woman. Now, there is a special distinction for the violence exercised by men against women, as if the life of a woman is more valuable than that of a child or an elderly person.

A term for violence against women was coined in 1995 as an adaptation to the term “gender violence”. It was popularized in the 1995 Congress on Women, which back then was driven by real feminists. In Spain, the Law on Comprehensive Protection Measures against Gender Violence was adopted in 2004.

Fake feminists often say that before the new law was passed there was no awareness of gender differences. I guess these feminists have ignored discoveries made by science over thousands of years.

What the new law approved in 2004 has achieved is to punish men more harshly, nothing else, as if murder, battery or rape were different when committed by a man against his wife than when it is committed by a woman, a grandparent or a teenager.

Since 2004, ‘gender violence’ is defined as violence directed against women for the very fact of being women, because they are considered by their aggressors, lacking the rights of freedom, respect and ability to decide.

Nothing can be less reasonable and illogical than this definition since the term MALE defines gender as much as FEMALE does. Also because neither feminists nor authorities have any clue about what men think when they commit violence against women as they also don’t have any idea about what women think about when they beat up their children.

Politicians and feminists simply made up a reason to justify their attack on masculinity and decided that any man who abuses a woman does it because he thinks she has no right to freedom. No proof, no reason, no evidence; only pure and simple ideology.

For the first time, violence against women had a category and a special penalty, but no one knows why.

Violence is a concept that is accepted on a social level, but that, until 2004 in Spain, was not recognized in the laws. The reason was, and still is, that violence, independent of who commits it, should be eradicated.

Instead of concentrating all efforts on doing so, there are feminists who are now pushing for the adoption of an even less reasonable term: “macho terrorism”. It is already being used. Women’s associations already use the term to draw attention to the seriousness of murders committed against women, as if only those murders are important.

Help create awareness about this issue. Share this article and add #Allviolencematters to your post.

Many people like you read and support The Real Agenda News’ independent, journalism than ever before. Different from other news organisations, we keep our journalism accessible to all.

The Real Agenda News is independent. Our journalism is free from commercial, religious or political bias. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. Editorial independence is what makes our journalism different at a time when factual, honest reporting is lacking elsewhere.

In exchange for this, we simply ask that you read, like and share all articles. This support enables us to keep working as we do.

About the author: Luis R. Miranda

Luis Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda News. His career spans over 20 years and almost every form of news media. He writes about environmentalism, geopolitics, globalisation, health, corporate control of government, immigration and banking cartels. Luis has worked as a news reporter, On-air personality for Live news programs, script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news.

Add a Comment