Theresa May, Friday 16th July 2010:
“We must give the police and the courts the tools they need to tackle violence against women……
…..But I’m sure we all agree that, fundamentally, it is not words that matter, it is action”
The Independent, Wednesday 4th August 2010:
May scraps power to ban domestic abusers from victims’ homes
“A scheme to protect women from domestic abuse by removing violent partners from the family home is being scrapped by the Government as part of its drive to cut public spending.
Under the so-called “go orders” planned for England and Wales, senior police would have been given the power to act instantly to safeguard families they considered at threat.
Violent men would have been banned from their homes for up two weeks, giving their victims the chance to seek help to escape abuse.
But Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has decided to halt the scheme, which was due to be piloted this autumn and be rolled out nationwide next year, The Independent has learnt.”
Too Much To Say For Myself 
It is true, actions matter more than words, I agree with that and so much.
But how Theresa May could have then changed her agenda if we compare with what she said, I suppose she has been placed under pressure to halt the scheme.
Violent partners are mostly men, I am sure about it and men don’t need to be partners to be violent anyway, moreover men thanks to the society and their nature easily access or abuse the power to abuse women, they harm and detabilize women in the deep of their intimacy and human identity by sexual pressure, heterosexual norm, sexual violence threat, objectification, invasion and industrial exploitation of women intimacy and genital parts, all that backed up by huge propaganda at TV and in every situation or discussion in everyday life.
So in this case of partner’s violence, women are held in hostage, it is anyway the norm in our society, I mean their society where we are forced to live, as if some kind of strange out-of-the space force wanted women to know that there will always be a threat for them coming from men, that absolute protection and freedom will never exist.. Point, fact, now move on and cope with it, yes cope, for the sake of men!
A women-only – deparasited from males and male culture – environment, a big environment of course not a sect, seems to have always been able to provide an absolute protection and freedom for women and I am sure that if you experienced a very rare of these women-only environment once you will agree with me (I am preaching for my church I know: separatism for women and especially lesbians who wish it).
But the out-of-space force wants us to agree with it that it really does not matter if the threat which is not negligible exists, it want us to totally forget that cheap and immediate escape could exist if we wanted to, as we are 50 % of human race concerned with the problem and could try to organize our protection instead of doing nothing.
It says protection does not matters so much as all the other things to enjoy or care for in our mixed society and there are so many other things to think of and caring for, like men first of all or money or fun or submissive state, that women organizing together are so ridiculous, dignity of women being to seek when they are sanctified by a male partner/penis and a male approval.
In fact it is obvious that we women are living under terrorism, when your next rapist is likely at 100% to be a man (and it is not so old when rape was not considered a crime if outside of any *depossession* of the man entitled to access legally the woman victim and rape her himself if he wished or outside of the church that possessed this woman sometimes) and just remember that rape will happen for one out of four of us, women, anyway in this life..
It is male terrorism when your next robber or assaulter is likely to be a man at 96%, and I am not even speaking about the male fantastically efficient teaching of submission directed towards females by mean of verbal and physical abuse or just overwhelming presence, that it be in the playground at a very early age where boys gang up against girls, or when you see all these straight couples and families dominated by males, all the time in all the world with stereotyped attributes of domination and submission and all the tacit disapproval and silent or not silent violence if you do not conform you to that norm, all this violence in tradition in spite of any law, all the economic and legislative power concentrated in men’s hands or only men-allies hands, when you consider the constant back-up of all these women as well who decide to comply and for that negate all the violence done to them or to other women, and to silence you, to threat you.
It can even be your own mother who threats you to throw you outside of the home, even if you are a child or unemployed, this if ever you complain and there are so much to complain about and so few hope and resistance.
Why so few resistance that we women could decide to build together in order to liberate us ?
It would already take a lot of geniuses females and maybe centuries to be able to have enough analysis and concrete organisation amongst us to resist efficiently, be really free and organize a different world, but still, what are women doing, procrastinating, treating resistants of feminist nazis??
Nowhere terrorism would be made such acceptable than directed towards women.
Even Blacks were able to unite much better than women, sure that they did not experience an oppression for so long and except for the worst hours of slavery, are not nowadays specifically targeted where it hurts most and where it can place women in slavery for long (rapes especially in childhood generating weakness and revictimisation, unwanted pregnancies generating home and children slavery). Blacks benefit of some places where they always had been and are the norm, places, states, continents without Whites, this even if they integrated internal racism from a never willing-to-end colonization, but still it made them able to consider themselves as ok without Whites and gave them some strength and a future to hope.
But there it is to be said that police and common laws will protect men from other men, accessorily women, in order that men do not destroy the entire society (police protect some big interests from equality and revolution as well but it is another topic)… Anyway in case it would be to protect women only, or mostly women from men’s violence, then it might be a very bad idea to engage a penny on that, because nothing has really changed you know, just appearances, some laws, just to try to impress and calm any revolt, and sure that most policemen would even not appreciate to be employed at that job if it made them realize that oups they behave the same themselves and if it made them feel weaker about their gender entitlement or more angry, not ready to give up, I think the out-of-space wisdom wants policemen who are still able to let their aggresivity show up when necessary and who won’t resign from their jobs.
Maybe if you propose them to employ mostly policewomen at this task, they might unblock the scheme ?
As a separatist who wants to find all she likes in a lesbian separatist community, if we the out and not complying lesbians were not made and on purpose made so poor, so divided, so fought against, so ridiculed, so rejected by this society and were able to make our dreams come true, then I don’t want to bid anymore for changes, reforms or even revolution brought up into the noxious men’s and men allies’s society (and personally I would not need or hold men anyway in my society), but who knows, any change is good to take.. I let you dream, I would vote or fight for changes but I won’t believe they are able to happen or last, time men are there and that no women/lesbians-only society exists not only as an opposing force but certainly as an ideal society..
Has this decision of Theresa May’s been equality impact assessed?
MsChin – i don’t know. maybe it will be brought up in fawcett’s case against the government?
@MsChin – Yes and it was easy to do given that it was cancelling something that didn’t yet exist so all statements about the impact were necessarily speculative.
I don’t know that the GED is widely understood – it isn’t a panacea. Even *if* it can be shown that an action will affect women disproportionately it doesn’t mean that the action cannot go ahead.