So I'm waiting for the Toronto Transit Commission subway last night and what do I see among the usual advertising posters?





from their website:
Ernestine's unveils new ads

Ernestine's Women's Shelter launched a new ad campaign aimed at raising awareness about the realities of violence against women and children. The posters and motion ad will be in the TTC beginning April 16 and will run for four weeks. "The ads are not easy to look at - they are harsh and show the realities of abuse - something most people are uncomfortable with" said Sharlene Tygesen, director of community and staff relations at Ernestine's. "It's important that we address this issue in the public realm - if we can't address it in public, how can we end it in private?"


Can I assume the statistics quoted are distorted or fabricated?

This group is supported financially by the United Way Charities group

link: http://www.ernestines.ca/index.php?pid=32

This is highly misleading.

First, the 40% figure is irrelevant. What does it matter whether the abuse occurred at the beginning, the end or the middle of the pregnancy? It occurs. That's what's relevant.

Second, the 21% figure is not so strange. Mean duration of marriage in the UK is about 10 years at divorce. People marry first at about 30. Say 50% of marriages end in divorce, the rest stays together till they're 70. The average marriage lasts effectively 25 years then.

Suppose women have 2 children. 1.5 years of pregnancy. Assume a constant abuse rate throughout the marriage. Then 6% of abuse will automatically occur during a pregnancy. That's within a factor 3 of the stated figure. Creative use of statistics and asking leading questions can explain the rest. It won't be the first time feminists use inflated statistics.

It should also be noted that 6% is a ballpark estimate. If all women who were abused during pregnancy eventually file for divorce then the natural figure could easily be 15%.

Note: I couldn't quickly find the numbers for Canada, but the UK should not be that different.

Thanks SG I knew someone here could decode this

I liked this part:
The ads are not easy to look at - they are harsh and show the realities of abuse - something most people are uncomfortable with

I think most posters here would have a problem with their use of the phrase 'realities of abuse' as it has been pointed out that women abuse men almost as frequently, though perhaps not as violently

btw I like your Spike Milligan quote - did you know that producer George Martin worked with him before recording the Fab Four? apparently that was the deal-maker for Lennon [no I'm not one of those 'Beatles people' but I used to be]

er... shes been punched and bruised, which i assume would have happend several days ago, but yet she still had no problem putting on eye shadow, lipstick and mascara on?

yes, that picture is obviously fake, and the image it gives out symbalises the ridiculous contradictions with which modern women live.

even when you get battered you still look better with make up on.

bet the feminists missed that one.

and you must also think, why have they chosen a young attractive woman as the model?

to appeal to men, and to make them feel sorry for her.

coercing them into being chivalrous

No, I didn't. Interesting, thanks. I liked the music of the Beatles when I was growing up as a child. Maybe it was because I was young, but the world sounded lighter then.

Did you check out the site?

Ya there's help, but only if you're a woman.

Physical Abuse:

• hitting; pinching; pushing; punching; shooting; stabbing; cutting; choking; slapping; burning; shoving;
• use of a weapon;
• physical restraint;
• intentional interference with basic needs (e.g. food, medicine, sleep).

Men never, ever experience any of the above, though I've seen it happen to some, I clearly imagined the situations.

Isolation and Restricting Freedom:

• controlling contacts with friends and family, access to information and participation in groups or organizations;
• locking up in a room/ restricting mobility;
• monitoring telephone calls.

I have DEFINATELY had the first and third points happen to me.

Psychological and Emotional Abuse:

• frequently ignores feelings;
• ridiculing or insulting most valued beliefs, gender, sexuality, ability, age or sexual orientation;
• ridiculing or insulting religion, race, heritage, class or first language;
• withholding of approval, appreciation, and affection;
• continual criticism, name calling, shouting; public or private humiliation;
• refusing to socialize;
• preventing woman from working, controlling the finances, making all decisions;
• trying to prevent access to friends and family;
• regular threats to leave;
• telling woman to leave;
• manipulation with lies and contradictions;
• use of intimidating facial expressions and/or body posture;
• accusations of unfaithfullness;
• use of sexualized language;
• verbal abuse of the children and pets in household.

Frequently? Try having your feelings ignored (or mocked) on a permanent basis. Ridiculing beliefs & abilities, ticked... Withholding approval, appreciation, and affection - ticked... Continual critisism, name-calling, shouting (excessively), humiliation - ticked... Refusing to socialize (only when it was my friends in England, her friends were 'ok' though) - ticked...
I can't tick the 'preventing woman from working, etc.' as it was the woman doing the controlling of finances, making all the decisions, etc. and the above does state - only if it's a woman who is the victim, not the aggressor.
Preventing access to family & friends - ticked. (some family members refused to stop by due to the contstant screaming they could hear from down the path)... Regular threats leave - ticked.
Again, I can't tick the 'telling woman to leave' as it was me who got kicked out (and threatened with immigration interference).
Manipulation with lies & contradictions - oh yesssss that is the biggest tick I can put on this... body posture & expressions - that was a daily thing... I wasn't accused directly, but I was told I wasn't allowed to have a friendship with my ex 'just in case' anything happened...so, ticked. I dont' recall anything specifically sexualized in the language department, but verbal abuse of the kids wasn't uncommon.

Right, next lot...

Stalking/Harassing Behaviour:

• following;
• turning up at workplace or house;
• parking outside;
• repeated phone calls or mail to victim and/or family, friends, colleagues;
• sending unwanted gifts;
• stealing mail;
• threatening harm to family, friends, pets;
• harassing of employer, colleagues or family;
• vandalizing car or home;
• harming pets;
• assault (physical, sexual, emotional);
• kidnapping, holding hostage.

Threats and Intimidation:

• threatening to harm partner, self or others (children, family, friends, pets);
• threatening to make reports to authorities that jeopardize child custody, immigration or legal status;
• threatening to disclose HIV status, threatening to reveal sexual orientation to family, friends, neighbours and/or employers.

Had my access to my children adversely affected by my mothwhore outlaw so I could "focus on her grandchildren". Also had my immigration status threatened on at least a couple of occasions. My sex-life was frequently discussed within my "family" circle... I still can't understand why my brother & Mothwhore outlaw would want to talk about it though? Seems rather perverse if you ask me.

Economic Abuse:

• controlling or stealing money; taking pay cheque;
• withholding money from woman so that she has no food or cannot get necessary medical treatment;
• fostering dependency.

All our financial situations were controlled. After giving me $5 - the first time - I bought a battery charger, and got scolded for not spending it on her.

Sexual Abuse:

• sexual touching or sexual activity without consent.

Sexual Abuse Harassment:

• forcing sex or specific acts, pressuring into unwanted sexual behaviour, criticizing sexual performance.

Criticizing performance - ticked.

Property Destruction:

• destroying mementos, breaking furniture or windows, throwing or smashing objects, trashing clothes or other possessions.

My dying mom bought a dalek alarm clock - had the threat that if I used it, it would be broken. Had phones thrown at me, missing by inches.

If you are living in an abusive situation, there is help.

No, there isn't - because I'm a man.

Undoubtedly "some" abuse occurs amongst pregnant women, and is wholly reprehensible. But to blatantly inflate the figures, does no service at all to pregnant women who are genuine victims.

The figures stated are just ludicrously absurd.

I think if feminists hadn't applied such an lavish abundant serving of hyperbole to every study that they have ever commisioned, maybe their fraudulence wouldn't have been made so transparent!

Having a knowledge of anthropology, most men subconsciously have an inherently-bound necessity to protect a pregnant woman, be she the bearer of his child or not (born of millions of years of evolution).

The conniving authors of such studies and it's all-encompassing definitions of abuse have only but one ravenous agenda, and that is the continued proliferation of their feminist ideology by the demonization of half of this planets population. Truth is never a factor.

How about a more truthful advert. "The greatest threat to this mothers unborn child, is the mother herself."

Isn't that just nauseatingly ironic. Women, the biggest physical abusers and murderers of children, are put into the same preferential elevation of importance as a victim, as their own victims!!!!!!!!!!!!


PS: Such women only represent a minuscule amount of the general population, and thankfully are not representative of most mothers, nor fathers.

But, numerically they do account for more crimes against children. That said, to avoid this "reality" only serves an ideology at the detriment of children, and the justice they deserve, even if only posthumously.

Also embracing this "reality" would serve as a preventative measure in ensuring childrens safety, if only the powers that be would cast off their addictive affiliation with such a destructive ideology.

However, I believe any vestige of moral fortitude has been squeezed into submission by the python-like clamp of feminism, and rendered impotent by those obedient minions who blindly serve it regardless of "reality."