Can you explain what discipline means in your relationship?
Well it's [pause] well just respect and manners and that
y'now. A woman who's gonna put up when they shut up, so to speak.
For her to put up and shut up?
Yeah. (PA: Okay.) Um, so for her not to undermine [laughing]
authority and ohh I don't know.
Saying, you know, meaning 'what I say goes', you know 'no
not bloody going out tonight. We're staying at home.' 'Ohh I wanna
go out.' [laughing] 'No, we're not. I don't wanna go.' Y'know.
like Friday night she said, 'Ohh I don't really want you to go
'Well fuck, tough, I'm going.' Y'know. And I went out. That's
authority, my --
When, when a court has authority, or a judge has authority,
given to them from someone, somewhere. Authority comes from
somewhere, or it's based on something. I mean what, what is your
authority based on, do you think?
[sigh] Being the [pause] protector. Um, the breadearner,
provider, that's my authority. Like okay we're not physically
as in we've signed a piece of paper, but we're living as if we
physically married. And y'know, I'm the [laughing] breadearner,
um, I'm the protector of this household. Um, when it
comes down to it what I say goes.
So, so your authority's based on being the protector and-
Yeah, well um --
Women are at the moment moving out of the home and doing
different things, (Gavin: Oh yeah.) becoming breadwinners and
things like that. As well um they're shifting, feminism is trying
seek more power for women and all that sort of thing. How do you
Well, my missus at the moment. she's a draughtswoman and she
works five hours a day y'know. Um, she actually brings in good
[sniff] money and that for us, so I, I got no quells about that.
dunno, but I still think a man's home is his castle, y'know. King
the, gotta have a king of the castle, don't ya? That's why I reckon
some prick comes on to your property you got full rights to do
whatever you like to him. It's your property. He shouldn't even
there unless he's invited. (PA: Yeah, yeah.) A man's home is his
castle. That's it. Pure and simple.
What's that mean, a man's home is his castle?
[pause] Where else can you escape and be private, y'know
your little piece of privacy. That's where you can lock yourself
from the world if you want to. (PA: Yeah, yeah.) And it's your
So with women trying to seek equal rights, they would probably
seeking equal rights in the home too, wouldn't they? How would
see that? I mean they're challenging that view, I think.
What happens to you when you hear that, being said?
Well it, it takes away the whole thing of what I think, well
think it, the whole purpose of life was.
Yeah. Can you, can you explain that?
Well you got the male and you got the [laughing] female.
male earns the bread and the woman brings up the family and that.
And that's what we need to get back to, is more family morals
think. I think woman have gotta stop worrying about making
y'know. I think they got to put more emphasis on being a mother.
And it's a fact of life that only women can be a mother. There's
there's no other way around it. And the man's still gotta go and
the bread and the woman's still gotta have the children. (PA:
I mean it's just what, is part and parcel.
They go together?
Well they do.
Yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, in, in your relationships, um-
Do I sound like a male chauvinist or what? [laughter]
No, no. lt's, what's important is just what you're thinking.
what your views are and I'm, I'm not in judge, sitting in judgement,
really it's just-
I am a chauvinist, but I think that it's just (pause) what
life is about,
y'know. It's a fact that only women can have children. Sure if
wanna, if they wanna have a career, have a career. Don't, but
get these women that wanna have children and have a career. I
think they can balance the two. It's not right. It's not right
husband, it's not right on the children and it's not fair on her.
Because then they start moaning about how stressed out they are,
about how much work they're doing and they gotta do the kids and
that. Well they don't have to.
As the authors state in their Abstract, academic interest in the
application of rhetoric to social issues is undergoing a revival.
This is an outgrowth of the Feminist and Leftist domination of universities.
With typical deviousness, Feminists and Leftists have discovered that
they can pretend to study discourse, and use this transparent ruse
to write what are actually Feminist polemics. This happens because
they choose texts which they want to publicise because of the political
commentary they can make on them. Since they are pretending
to write about discourse, they interweave their Feminist critiques
between the stylistic comments about how the content of the texts
is communicated to the reader/listener. Feminist entitlement, resulting
from their domination of universities, allows them to do this and
get away with it.
Accordingly, the first thing they state about this passage is the
non-stylistic point that "Gavin discusses his understanding of
male authority and male superiority," and the first thing the
authors state after quoting the passage is that "Gavin's speech
here presents multiple and overlaying messages of male authority."
I agree with these two statements, obviously, but there is not much
else that they say which is true or undistorted.
There are two main, and particularly egregious lies which are perpetrated
by Adams et al. (1995):
That this article is about rhetoric;
That this article is about the rhetoric men use to discuss violence
Adams et al. (1995) make the most of the political possibilities
offered by their discussion of the difference between "the formal
aspects of language", on the one hand, and "the use of available
rhetorical devices", on the other:
For example, a woman describing an episode of abuse could portray
in accurate detail what happened, but it will be the extra features
of the communication, the emphasis placed on certain words, the
timing, the hints and the use of analogies which will convey the
full terror of the experience. (p. 391)
If this was really an article about rhetoric and discourse,
the above would be a very strange passage, because:
It is not an actual example of rhetoric or discourse, but a mere
description of an example;
It is not even a description of an actual example, but just a
description of a hypothetical, or even imaginary example;
This is an article about men's rhetoric, so we would expect an
example of men's rhetoric -- not of women's rhetoric;
The authors have plenty of texts of men's rhetoric available,
so why not choose an example from them?
Of all the topics in the universe, why did they choose a (so-called)
example of a woman talking about being abused?
Of course, this pseudo-example lifts the lid on what this article
is really about: the condemnation of men's violence towards women,
as depicted in the Feminist stereotype or myth. The discussion
of discourse and rhetoric is a total sham and confidence-trick.
That is the first lie. Obviously, any journal that publishes
rubbish of this sort is not in the slightest worthy of the description
The second lie is that this article is about the rhetoric men use
to discuss violence towards women. In fact, no words such as
"violence", "hit", "punch", "push"
etc. occur at all in the passage quoted above, which is by far the
longest of the texts quoted and analysed by Adams et al. (1985).
Indeed, there are few texts quoted in the article where such words
occur. What this article is really about is exposing and attacking
the non-Feminist, patriarchal world view according to which men are
entitled to dominate women.
If Adams et al. (1985) were a genuine academic article, it would
distinguish this world view from violence, discuss both the rhetoric
which related to the world view and also the rhetoric which related
to violence, and how this world view was connected through language
to violence -- if indeed it was. A competent academic journal
would have insisted on clarity on this issue before the article was
accepted for publication.
As with a lot of Feminist writing (see, for example, Feminist
Jurisprudence Proves that a Woman's Place is in the Home
), it is hard to know whether the lack of clarity is the result of
sheer stupidity or calculated tactics. There is a total lack
of transparency in the Domestic Violence industry, which is driven
by media hysteria putting pressure on politicians. Women's Refuges
do not allow men to enter and check up on what is really going on
there. Anti-violence courses probably focus at least as much
on teaching Feminism as on preventing violence (i.e. by men).
In Adams et al. (1985) (as in the Domestic Violence industry as
a whole, I believe), Feminism is treated as the only possible world
view, patriarchy is the enemy, women are expected to resist patriarchal
attitudes, and any violence which results from a clash of world views
between partners is the fault of the man, because he has the wrong
(i.e. patriarchal) attitudes. I am certain that Women's Refuges
teach Feminism, and then send women back home (in many cases) with
a determination to enforce Feminism in the household. That is
a recipe for violence, unless the man is taught Feminism at an anti-violence
course or the couple splits up peacefully.
This tactic of pretending to combat violence but actually enforcing
Feminism and inciting violence provides a context for concluding that
the lies perpetrated by Adams et al. (1995) are deliberate, and part
of an overall Feminist strategy to reform society along Feminist lines.
Now I will give a few examples of the kinds of textual analysis
and reasoning that Adams et al. use in this article. Neither
the authors nor the journal Discourse & Society have any
scholarly or academic standards at all, as will be seen. They
discuss what they call "reference ambiguity" in relation
to the above passage, and draw attention to the following extract:
And that's what we need to get back to, is more family morals,
which they misquote as:
And that's what we need to get back to, more family
morals.... (missing out the word "is").
However, the main point to make here is that their analysis of this
quote takes it ludicrously out of context -- to an exent which entitles
any intelligent reader immediately to disregard this article's claim
to scholarly status. The authors state:
The received meaning of his 'we' is likely to be 'we' --
our society.... Had his partner been present, her received
meaning could have been 'me and you' or 'us men'. Either way,
she could interpret it as saying 'we men have the authority and
know what is required...' But since his use of 'we' is ambiguous,
in the face of any challenge to his assumed authority, his meaning
could be taken in the former sense thereby covering up any any suggestion
of superiority (page 392).
This passage is patently misleading and contains a blatant lie.
Ambiguity is dependent on linguistic and non-linguistic context.
It is ludicrously elementary Linguistics to point out that the meaning
of "we" is dependent not just on the semantics of that English
pronoun, but also on the discourse context in which it is embedded,
as well as on the pragmatic, extra-linguistic context of the interview
in which the word is spoken.
Gavin's partner was in fact not present, so no potential meaning
is present in the word "we" which might have related to
the pragmatic relationship between those two people. It is a
blatant lie for Adams et al. (1995) to state that "we" is
ambiguous in the way they describe. They would need to produce
evidence that Gavin made such statements when talking to his wife
-- and, even then, it would not be clear that this word had anything
to do with male authority, since the authors would never accuse a
woman of implying "We women have the authority and know what
is required..." if she said "And that's what
we need to get back to, more family morals...."
Next the authors turn to what they call "Axiom Markers".
The first example they give is Gavin's statement that:
A man's home is his castle. That's it. Pure and simple
(emphasis by the authors).
They explain that expressions such as "That's it. Pure and
simple" are "global assertions about the nature of reality
as a whole or life in general" and "function as a means
of qualifying adjacent statements" (page 394). Again we
find that the authors ignore the importance of linguistic and extralinguistic
context in the determination of linguistic meaning. They conclude
this section of their article as follows:
They are statements which proclaim omniscience. When
used by a man in conversation with a woman he is violent towards,
possible rhetorical effects would be to terminate discussion, silence
the woman and signal danger. Interestingly, we found that
the personal experience of the listeners may determine whether or
not they are responsive to such effects (page 394).
That passage is pure imagination, fiction and handwaving.
It has no place in an academic journal. Gavin, in the excerpt
quoted, is responding to the interviewer's propaganda about "feminism"
(undefined). The (male) interviewer himself had proclaimed omniscience,
in that he mentioned "feminism" and "women moving out
of the home" in a manner that proclaimed that these phenomena
were both inevitable and good. Gavin did not agree with this
point of view, obviously, and merely stated his beliefs in an appropriate
manner. Gavin was not using these words in conversation with
a woman, and the authors produced no evidence that he had done so.
In a typical Feminist manner, the authors totally ignore what words,
spoken by a woman, would cause a man to use these words in response,
and what female violence a man might be subjected to.
Another topic that Adams et al. (1995) discuss is the so-called
"discourse of natural entitlement". Again, they distort
the meaning of what Gavin says in order to prop up a Feminist propaganda
line. They define"entitlement" as follows:
In its simplest form it advocates that men are entitled to
dominate women because they are designed to be that way. (p.
It is certainly true that the texts quoted by the authors support
the claim that some men feel that men are entitled to dominate women.
However, in the text quoted above, the authors claim that Gavin "called
on the discourse of natural entitlement" when he said:
It's a fact that only women can have children. Sure if they
wanna, if they wanna have a career, have a career. Don't, but it,
you get these women that wanna have children and have a career.
I don't think they can balance the two. It's not right. It's not
right on the husband, it's not right on the children and it's not
fair on her.
There is nothing about men's "entitlement" in this passage.
On the contrary, this passage is about women's "entitlement"
to "have it all", as they say in television advertisements.
Feminism tries to entitle women to have it all: relationships, children
and career. What Gavin is saying is that he has a full-time
job to support the entire family, and he feels that his wife/partner
cannot look after his children properly if she is having a career
as well. Gavin is doing his bit in the family economic system
by providing most of the income, and he relies on his wife to bring
up the children properly. That is the implicit bargain.
If Feminism entitles women to "have it all", that disentitles
men and children, and Gavin says that it is too hard on women as well.
Gavin is being interviewed about his preferred model of the family,
which is a non-Feminist one. Because it is non-Feminist, the
authors attack every aspect of it as having something to do with violence
or "male entitlement", when in fact it has nothing to do
with violence and relatively little to do with male entitlement.
However, coaching a woman to subvert her husband's societal model
(as Feminists no doubt do) would probably invite conflict and domestic
violence, which the Feminists can then claim to be combatting, when
they intervene on the side of the woman. It is clear from this
article that some Feminists do not make a conceptual distinction between
men having a non-Feminist point of view, on the one hand, and male
violence, on the other.
The education system in Western countries is a Feminist colony.
The Feminists conquered it some time ago. One example of Female
Academics' Power and Control over Male Academics is mentioned
by Professor Richard Gelles, who recounts that, because Professor
Murray Straus had mentioned female violence against males, Straus:
was unable to complete a presentation because the yells and shouts
from members of the audience drove him from the stage;
was, in his own words … “excommunicated” from
the mainstream Feminist community (he is a Feminist);
was rarely invited to speak at conferences on wife abuse;
found that many of the speeches he gave were boycotted; and
has received threats, including death threats.
I myself have been shouted down by Feminazi (totalitarian Feminist)
students at a Law School.
Note that law students, after they graduate, become the people who
run the legal system and are supposed to ensure the rule of law.
Feminism is an ideology which is enforced by
assaulting, shouting down, and otherwise intimidating and victimising
people who disagree openly with it.
This one-track mind flows on to every other aspect of society which
these pseudo-academics influence, such as the rest of the education
system, the law, the police, politics, the media, the bureaucracy
and random, over-rich businessmen who have more money than sense.
Consequently, in society as a whole, male violence is treated as a
serious problem and female violence is largely ignored.
In Feminist domestic violence theory, women are entitled to have
their point of view treated as being the sole point of view worthy
of consideration. Since domestic violence is a crime (in the
form of "assault", or even "assault
on a female"), it is particularly important to point out
that this one-sided approach violates the Natural Justice principle:
Alteram Partem. Men are disentitled -- deprived
of their rights.
Feminist pseudo-academics support female violence. They support
female violence by ignoring it altogether, and focussing on male violence
as if female violence just did not exist. In fact, women commit
just as much violence against men as men do towards women. See:
Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: an
Feminists only seem to see positive aspects of females and negative
aspects of males. It is as if one of their eyes was specialised
for positive female characteristics and negative male characteristics
and the other eye was specialised for positive male characteristics
and negative female characteristics, but the latter eye had suffered
a totally disabling traumatic injury at a Lesbian love-in.