Rosie Batty, Australian Women and Children Advocate on Domestic Violence Shows How The Family Court Is Both Flawed and Ruled By Feminist

Rosie Batty is an Australian women and children’s advocate speaking out about domestic violence and family violence and how the family courts are flawed and hurt single mothers. Not surprisingly, she also speaks and writes and uses social media top talk about how family violence hurts women and children and has quite an impressive social media following. For a lot of readers of this article, what we have written thus far will likely garner a great deal of support for Rosie Batty and her efforts on domestic and family violence. Furthermore, we suspect that most women and even some men will champion her efforts and that most feminist will applaud her attention to women’s and children’s issues in the areas of violence. In our research on Ms. Batty, we found nothing to indicate that she is a practicing feminist, but we do see an awful lot of narratives that professional feminist organizations use when talking about the family courts and domestic violence.

So what is the problem and why are we drawing attention to her and her efforts to end violence?

First, in looking at a recent article written about her at the Huffington Post (A far left wing feminist organization who gains millions of dollars a year in writing articles on social issues with a social justice warrior slant to gain high traffic for advertising revenue) entitled “Rosie Batty Says Men Who Have Never Hit Women Can Still Be Dangerous“, we noted that Ms. Batty is attempting to say that all men are dangerous, even if they do not hit.

Within the article, there is an extreme amount of sexist narrative that unfolds that reads right out of the radical feminist playbook which seeks to stigmatize all men and boys so that professional feminist can then have an issue to talk about, write books on, get money from governments on to do research, deliver $20,000 speeches on, start non-profits that profit employees, and to build lobby groups for political clout.

Let’s take a look at a few examples from the article about Rosie Batty:

“But on Wednesday, domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty used the opportunity to address all men instead of just politicians.

She did this before even speaking, sharing the stage with Men’s Behavior Change counselor Danny Blay.”

In any research, article, or report when you see the words “All men” or “All women” you should realize that you are dealing with someone who has an agenda, be it political, financial, or attention”

And here we start to see the political and financial efforts being realized:

“The Coalition has promised $30 million for family violence legal centers while the New South Wales government announced $300 million to tackle the problem, putting GPS detectors on perpetrators and investing $8 million in men’s behavior change programs.”

“This debate should be above politics. It’s about putting the safety, well-being and essential needs of children above all else. It is about keeping our kids safe from violence and terror,” Batty said.

According to this article, we are asked to believe the following:

• That all men are dangerous even if they do not hit, that men who are mentally and psychologically abusive are MORE dangerous.
• That men are the only domestic batterers, and that men are the only mental and psychological abusers because of toxic masculinity (a new feminist buzzword).
• That the Australian government should recognize Rosie Batty as the most revered women and children’s advocate in the county and start spending millions of dollars per year on changing men’s behaviors.
• That the family courts should have a mandate that follows this narrative when dealing with families withing the family law system.
• That female batterers and women who commit mental and psychological abuse are always operating within an environment where a male is actually controlling her and thus her abuse is a symptom of toxic masculinity.

Basically, what we have here is a feminist’s dream family law system with Rosie Batty at the helm demanding that judges view domestic violence and family violence as a all male perpetrator/woman victim system, that to keep children safe, children should have little interaction with their fathers if any, that government should funnel money from government programs to support women and children only, and when we do see female family violence and domestic violence we are likely see a symptom of male control and oppression.

There was no word in the articles at the Huffington Post on how Rosie Batty explains female domestic violence on children when the father isn’t even known, or when domestic violence occurs in lesbian marriages or intimate partnership situations. We suspect that the feminist tried and true declaration that the invisible patriarchy is involved when two women commit violence, or when a mother commits violence on her child when a toxic male isn’t in the picture.

With modern feminism, it is always going to boil down to it being a man’s fault. Feminism and women and children’s advocates within the family law system and courts have done a great job over 80 years of framing all violence as a men’s issues and that after divorce systems setup to only benefit women and children.

As with most articles we write on this issue, this is where we usually link to millions upon millions of Internet articles of women killing husbands and boyfriends, their own children, other women, and whatnot. The problem here is that the professional feminist lobby has an interest in this only being defined as a male problem and will use buzzwords like “The patriarchy”, “toxic masculinity” and “male privilege” so that we can assign female violence as a symptom of the male problems.

What is the bottom line?

If you are a male not ingrained in the new modern radical feminist movement, or use this issue for political reasons, you are probably calling bullshit. But calling this bullshit isn’t going to cut it since the radical feminist movement and advocates for women and children like Rosie Batty have successfully lobbied governments, lawyers associations, judicial associations, and the domestic violence industry to implement these policies.

And quit frankly men deserve the raw deal they are getting in the family courts not because of toxic masculinity or that they are nature born abusers, but because for going on 80 years men have had their thumb up their asses not forming their own advocacy groups and affecting politics in the same way as the angry feminist.

But there is another groups that I think Rosie Batty is highly disrespectful to, and that is women who have sons. Essentially, what this advocate is saying is that the little child you hold in your hands today is going to become toxic and will abuse, and from that he and YOU should have little contact with that child should a divorce happen.

So much for equality with feminist huh?

As a feminist who is truly about equality among the genders and has no interest in gender warfare and has interest in actually stopping all domestic violence and family violence in Australia or here in the United States, what are your thoughts on Rosie Batty and her advocate status?

As a everyday women with sons, what are your thoughts on radical feminist attempting to stigmatize your sons as future domestic batters and psychological abusers who should have little access to their children (and you by proxy)? Using the comment section below, what do you have to say to Rosie Batty?

Learn more about Fathers rights in Australia or visit the author on Twitter.

Tags: Rosie Batty, Domestic Violence, Australian Family Courts