What is the domestic violence industry really about?

savewomen
The Daily Beast has an article by Philip W. Cook titled In Cases of Domestic Violence, Men Are Also Victims (H/T Dr. Helen).  Cook explains that despite the perception crafted by domestic violence advocacy groups, women commit domestic violence as often if not more often than men:

Straus and his colleagues found that in minor violence, the incident rates were equal for men and women. In cases of severe violence, more men were victimized than women, with 1.8 million women victims of severe violence and 2 million male victims of severe violence a year. Women suffer a greater amount of total injuries ranging from mild to serious, but when it comes to serious injuries where weapons and object use come into play, the injury rate may be about the same.

Hundreds of scientific studies support what every experienced law-enforcement officer knows: half the time, it is a case of mutual combat; a quarter of the time only the woman is violent; a quarter of the time only the man is.

While I applaud Mr. Cook for his efforts to make the true facts of the situation known, the problem is domestic violence advocacy is seldom about simply protecting actual victims of abuse, and almost always involves a naked attempt by feminists to cow men (especially husbands) into submission, just as feminists have done with divorce.

Feminists are getting away with this because almost no one notices the bait and switch.  As with the sign pictured above, domestic violence groups claim their focus is to “save a life”, using what at first glance are gender neutral terms.  But as with the billboard, once you look just a bit closer it is clear the only people they are focusing on protecting are women.  Moreover, while the headline advertises stopping violence and saving lives, if you go to the site listed on the sign another agenda becomes clear.   

Are you being abused?  Take the Dating Violence Quiz at the Women In Need website.  As the page explains, if you answer yes to even one of these questions, “you may be in an abusive dating relationship”.  As is standard for this kind of quiz, actual abuse is presented alongside scenarios where men aren’t doing what women want.  “Shove you, slap you, or hit you?” is presented along with:

Threaten to break up with you?

In a bit of truly amazing rationalization, one question manages to create a scenario where it is abusive if one partner takes the other’s money, makes the other ask before handing over money, or refuses to give the other money:

Take your money, make you ask for money, or refuse to give you money?

But if one partner taking the other partner’s money is abuse, then how can failing to turn your money over, or even failing to do so without being asked also be abuse?  The answer of course is it depends on which partner we are talking about.  A man who takes his girlfriend/wife’s earnings is implied to be an abuser, as is a man who doesn’t allow his wife/girlfriend to take his money (or only does so after being asked).  More importantly, how did we move from hit/slap/shove to he doesn’t give me money?

On the site’s advocacy page they explain that one sign of abuse is a man who believes in traditional sex roles, what they call “Rigid Sex Roles”.  I can only assume they make an allowance for traditional roles when it comes to which sex spends money earned by the other sex.  Either way, the conflation of traditional sex roles with abuse is getting to the heart of the matter.  

This issue is as I mentioned above far too often about the power dynamics of marriage (and other relationships) instead of being about real abuse.  Feminists object to men in the role of head of household, and domestic violence laws and advocacy are an incredibly effective club feminists are using to beat down traditional husbands.  The highly influential Duluth Power and Control Wheel is as upfront about this as one can imagine.  From the Duluth Model website:

Everyone can take steps to end violence.
Here are some key ways to stop violence in your community:

Don’t ignore violence or tactics of power and control you see in relationships of friends, family or neighbors.

Download a copy of our Power and Control Wheel to help identify common tactics used and spot abuse as it happens. Help victims and offenders get the help they need before it is too late.

One of the spokes in the Power and Control Wheel is:

Using Male Privilege

Treating her like a servant
making all the big decisions
acting like the “master of the castle”
being the one to define men’s and women’s roles

They offer their Equality Wheel as the antidote to domestic violence.  The Equality Wheel includes gems like:

Listening to her non-judgmentally
being emotionally affirming and understanding
valuing her opinions

On the same page they explain the need to indoctrinate law enforcement with their material:

Help your community start a “coordinated community response” to domestic violence.

When everyone from 911 operators to judges have a plan of agreement of how to appropriately respond, battered women and their children are safer and batterers are held accountable and given opportunities to change. Contact our National Training Project at 866-417-6111, option 1, or visit our training and resource materials pages to learn more about starting a coordinated community response in your community.

In their FAQ they explain why they don’t take a gender neutral approach (emphasis mine):

The battering of women by men continues to be a significant social problem–men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides. Not naming this gender disparity, and the continued underlying social, cultural and institutional structures that support it, keeps us from naming the social problem for what it is. While we do recognize there are cases of domestic violence other than male perpetrated violence against women, even in those cases the perpetrator’s sense of entitlement to control or dominate another remains the predominant cause of violence.

In the answer to another question they explain that women abusing men is different than men abusing women (emphasis mine):

When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence. Men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

See Also:  

About these ads
This entry was posted in Domestic Violence, Feminine Imperative, Feminists, Solipsism. Bookmark the permalink.

156 Responses to What is the domestic violence industry really about?

  1. Michael says:

    FIRST COMMENT ! ! :)

  2. Michael says:

    The domestic violence industry is a business.

  3. Casey says:

    Damn you Michael………….I’m a distant 2nd.

  4. Casey says:

    @ Michael

    Agreed, it is a business……no different than Divorce.

  5. TFH says:

    Once again :

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has actually exposed the full extent of female limitations (moral, intellectual, civic, economic, physical, spiritual) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

    Traditional customs benefited women the most, because it enabled society to package women into something much better than they would be without those customs, so that the majority of men could be sold on marriage.

  6. donalgraeme says:

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has actually exposed the full extent of female limitations (moral, intellectual, civic, economic, physical, spiritual) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

    Traditional customs benefited women the most, because it enabled society to package women into something much better than they would be without those customs, so that the majority of men could be sold on marriage.

    This needs to be etched into stone. The whole notion that “women civilize men” is ridiculous. The truth is that the opposite is the case: men civilize women. Without the rules of civilization, all created by men, which restrain female behavior, women will naturally revert to being feral. For proof, look all around you.

  7. oblivion says:

    The billboard should read ” easy divorce, get house and kids within 48 hours guarenteed”

  8. TFH says:

    donalgreame,

    This needs to be etched into stone.

    Yes. Note that women write love letters to serial killers, and not just a few women, but a lot of them.

    Almost everything that women say about men is projection in that light :

    “Women civilize men”
    “Women are more evolved than men”.

    In reality, the opposite is true in each case.

    Now, we know that the Y chromosome evolves faster than the X chromosome. But from what we see of female behavior, we can conclude that the brain of the male human differs from the male chimpanzee by a greater margin than by which the brain of the female human differs from the female chimpanzee.

  9. monster221 says:

    Yeah dude the entire thing is bullshit. the abuse men suffer is trivial eh. ok.

    i had to take a BIP because my ex said i slapped her. the sign up sheet asked me things like “date the abuse happened” and “name of the victim”. i didnt fill it out all the way and told them that i hadnt done anything, there was no abuse and there was no date that it happened. he said “well what was the girlfriends name?” i told him her name but that i didnt like the presumption that was made in she sheet. he put her name in the “victim” field and proceeded to tell me about how i needed to accept what i was (an abuser) before i could change my behavior and my life. i was like “or just pick my women with a little more restraint and examination”.

    even without being convicted, even while being innocent until proven guilty i was ordered to take it. they had that fucking wheel that said “refusal to give money, expecting women to give money, threatening to end the relationship if certain behaviors dont change” etc. i was like “but thats all normal behavior! a man can expect a woman to contribute monetarily if she would rather work than stay home! she cant expect my money as a given if she would rather earn her own! i will leave a woman if i am unhappy with her behavior!”

    of course they reminded me that i signed an agreement that my money would be forfeit and i would be kicked from the class if i refused to acknowledge my “wrongdoing” and wanted to be stubborn because the class is about “growth” and the first step is admittance… yeah ok. i was essentially being blackmailed for making waves and logically disagreeing. i decided i would shut up and just sit there and finish the class. they would say “dont you have anything to add? you are very quiet” i would say “im learning”.

    but we had one instructor who was a monk at one time and stuff. he wasnt supposed to but his usual stuff was about how the system is geared against us and that about 10% of us in the class had done nothing and are simply victims of a screwed up system. he would talk about how his ex wife used him, slandered him and stole his shit. the man spoke some truth and not that one sided shit. he was cool.

    thats actually about when i started snooping around here.

  10. JironGhrad says:

    MY ex-wife once tried to file an assault charge based on “he hit me with a pillow.” She asked them not to investigate and to give her an order of protection. Fortunately, the system is not always completely stupid. I found out about it when we went to divorce court and even though nothing had originally came of it, I’ve still been harassed and marginalized by the local police.

  11. lozozozozozozoz says:

    TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY Marry for Money

    Hey red pill guys…still think the ‘Christian red pill ladies’ are different from the feminazis in anything except (perhaps) less shrill and not as fat/tatted up?

    Da GBFM weighs in on “Marry for Money”

  12. DEN1 says:

    Three types of liars in the world: Liars, Damned Liars, and Feminist.

  13. “men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides”

    That’s a nice bait-and-switch. Who are the victims of the clear majority of those criminal assaults? Men, of course.

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0801.pdf

    The demographics of the offender is more important than those of the victim if you care more about scoring points against a group of people than helping people who have been victimized.

  14. Dan says:

    “men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults”

    Does this actually say anything about a gender disparity in domestic violence despite being used as a justification for treating DV as primarily committed by males? I read that statement as “85% of people arrested for criminal assault are male” which could just reflect disparities in reporting or charges being filed. Anyway, that’s a nice bit of sleight of hand in the response.

  15. Lyn87 says:

    Do they know they’re lying, or are they so deluded that they actually believe the %*&@ they’re shoveling?

    Their “statistics” are SO incredibly, wildly, incorrect – SO thoroughly disproved by SO many academic sources over SO many years… Clearly they are blind, but is it because they CHOOSE to be that way or are they so emotionally and ideologically invested in their crap that they are no longer capable of seeing the obvious truth that is right in front of them?

  16. LH says:

    That last quote at the end is pretty incriminating, dismissing the importance of men suffering violence from women. Their descriptions of violence present traditional type marriages as abusive, but couch it in terms that people in traditional marriages would see as negative.

  17. Leo G says:

    Don’t forget, that a large number of abused men will never admit to the abuse. Their friends would never let them live it down!

    Hmm, which I guess is kinda abusive isn’t it??!!!

  18. Carlos says:

    Let’s answer this question: who has the most to gain from the destruction of traditional religions and traditional families? I’ll give you a hint: they do not fit in with either. Still need another hint? They have no use for men and every major religion condemns their lifestyle. You will find them in the leadership of _every_ radical feminist organization and they were the pioneers and thought leaders of radfem doctrine.

  19. Pingback: In Cases of Domestic Violence, Men Are Also Victims | familyinnocence

  20. Drew says:

    Good stuff.
    Maintaining frame on this topic is very tricky.

  21. sunshinemary says:

    A mostly excellent article. I agree that feminists have taken over the domestic violence “industry” as a way to advance their agenda. This is bad for men because feminists both ignore male victims of DV and also use threats of false DV to cow men, as you say. This is also bad for women who are true victims of domestic violence because it means law enforcement might not take such women as seriously because so many DV reports are B.S.

    However, Dalrock, I am wondering about this comment in the OP:

    While I applaud Mr. Cook for his efforts to make the true facts of the situation known,

    Did you actually read Mr. Cook’s article? If so, it would be hard to conclude that he has presented any true facts at all. I checked every one of the sources he links to, and in each instance, what Mr. Cook reported in his article was false.

    For example, he reports 2 million males victims of severe violence per year. I was really interested in that because I wanted to know if women were the perpetrators, or other men, or what, so I clicked the hyperlink on the statistic – it goes to an advertisement for his book. No study is linked there, nor even a source for his statistic.

    So I read more of the article, and Mr. Cook writes:

    In May 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its latest study with about half of violent couples reporting mutual combat,

    I clicked that link, too. It leads to a study published in 2006 (not 2007) in the American Journal of Public Health, and in the article the authors specifically state:

    The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Mr. Cook makes it sound like this was a specific study done by the CDC on domestic violence, but that isn’t the case at all. Here is where the authors of that journal article got their data:

    We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

    This is CDC data from 12 years ago in a study about adolescent health.

    Furthermore, Mr. Cook writes:

    Three-quarters of the men who contact an abuse shelter or hotline report that the agency would provide services only to women, and nearly two-thirds were treated as the abuser rather than the victim.

    I was horrified by that. How could 75% of men be refused help? I clicked Mr. Cook’s link for that statistic, too, which led here:
    http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Factsheet%20Predictors_of_Helpseeking_final.pdf

    I read the entire fact sheet three times. Nowhere does it say that three-quarters of men who contact abuse shelters or hotlines report that the agency would only provide services to women. Here is what the fact sheet actually says:

    Men who had children were less likely, by about three-fourths, to report that this
    resource [domestic violence agency] was helpful;

    It is a fact sheet about how men rated their experiences in seeking help for DV, whether they found the sources helpful or unhelpful. There is also no information whatsoever in the factsheet about men being treated as the abuser when they sought help.

    Is it truly your contention that Mr. Cook is to be applauded for presenting facts? Because to me, it looks like he made up the whole article and just added some hyperlinks which he hoped no one would click on.

    Feminists lie about domestic violence. Shall we counter their lies with our own lies?

    [D: Thanks SSM. I agree that getting the facts right matters. I see that you posed these questions over at The Daily Beast. I'm looking forward to seeing his reply.]

  22. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    What is the domestic violence industry really about? Cash and prizes, destruction of reality, goodness, beauty and righteousness, in essence a sick, twisted power grab.

  23. 30words says:

    In the family courts of the US this truth is naked for all to see. A woman becomes abused when she wants the kids. Everyone knows it and goes right along with it. A woman who is truly abused will go to almost any length to hide this fact. The cases of real abuse are few, far between, and severe- I’ve seen ONE woman shake in real fear and dread of an obviously hostile man and I’ve sat in many a hearing. So women benefit by getting the kids in family court (via criminal court) and behavioral “specialists” (business owners) benefit by raking in huge profits teaching these men how to hand over their money for court ordered classes. What a joke. 52 weeks of once a week classes is ordered in every case here. Even a deferred conviction. As an ex wife that would sure show that bastard wouldn’t it!?! Maybe you won’t testify if he will agree to the divorce terms you want. We’ll see….

  24. Twenty says:

    Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support.

    True. For instance, women don’t have organizations preemptively excusing their violence as a righteous reaction to presumed attacks on them, and their violence is not declared de minimus. There are no laws/policies that trigger the arrest of men in situations of mutual aggression. Men are not shamed for coming forward when they are abused.

    That sort of thing would be unthinkable.

  25. Mark says:

    Great article Dalrock!

    The DV is an industry.Pure and Simple! I have never been involved in a DV dispute but,have a friend who was and witnessed it first hand…as well as witnessing the “low life mentality” of the Toronto Police….who are nothing but a bunch of scumbag losers with badges who suck the taxpayers dick and think they are “Somebody’s”…..when they are NOBODY’S!
    A friend of mine was seeing this idiot broad for about a month.She went over to his condo and started a fight with him(within 5 mins of being there).She began smashing glasses,breaking dishes etc..etc. The neighbors heard the racket and called the cops.The cops show up.Who do you think they arrested?……THE MAN! …….In his own home.He spent 3 days in jail,was charged with DV and was given a restraining order to stay away from the woman.I could not believe it.He came to see me and myself and friends send our attorneys after the cops(this guy doesn’t have alot of money and needed help).What did the cops do?….NOTHING! This guy has never been in trouble with the law in his life and they treated him like a scumbag loser.Our attorney’s advised him that the only thing that he could hope for is that she does not show up to court.And she did not! We went to see some friends of ours(muscle) in order for them to go have a talk with this loser cunt…..to let her know what would happen to her if she showed up in court! She took the threat and did not show up.This is what the laws here have come to.You cannot trust the Cops..PERIOD! You have to take things into your own hands.there is no other way! If my friend would have been convicted he would have a criminal record,he would be “blacklisted” and put on the DV list….just like the sexual predators list.He would be unable to enter the USA,he would be on probation for at least 1 year…..he might even lose his job……because of a loser cunt! And people wonder why men are AVOIDING women these days?….it is not hard to figure out!

  26. Mark says:

    ooops……….I forgot to mention that the arresting officers were wimmin cops…….lesbians with badges…..go figure!

  27. mikesinger says:

    I might be mistaken but if a marriage partner is actually convicted/found of DV during divorce- it is no longer the theoretical 50/50 split regarding assets.

  28. Opus says:

    At the inevitable risk of repeating what I have written elsewhere on the net (and possibly here) and more than once, I am utterly unimpressed by any DV figures, because:

    Although on a personal basis I can say that I have never physically assaulted a woman (or man for that matter – although I have more or less been accused of rape for looking at a woman for a micro-second too long – the shame – how will I ever live it down?) I have on a number of occasions been assaulted, by women, with whom I was romantically linked – one of course always acts as if the assaults are fly’s on the back of an elephant, even when that is not then case.

    On a professional basis and having represented more women than I can remember, in DV cases, I could not help but notice, that I never saw a bruise, never mind a cut, – or for that matter a Medical Certificate supporting the alleged injury, and came to the conclusion that either all the assaults were invented, or if they were not invented that they were of the most trivial nature and arose purely as a result of deliberate provocation (for the purpose of acquiring the injunction and thus to exclude the man from his home) by the woman.

    That a sculpture of a weeping woman on her knees outside a local DV sanctuary has thrice been vandalised does I think give an idea what men think about those crocodile-tear allegations.

  29. Dazzel says:

    You all are a bunch of chauvanistic cows.

  30. realguy1010 says:

    i was visited by 3 cops 2 days back.They went through my workplace like hurricane,threatening others in my absence.My divorce is finalized but the shithead of lawyer for opposition forgot to withdrew alimony case.So judge issued urgent warrant( for a civil case) to confiscate all my belongings.I went to station and told inspector ” The case is being closed and i will give you faxed letter from judge tomorrow.But if you want to confiscate my belongings,be my guest.I own nothing.No house,no car,no tv,no microwave,no gold,no savings.Just 3 pairs of cloths,a towel,2 water bottles,a mattress and 2 pillows.Everything was spent on cunt ,lawyers and judges.”
    So i gave the faxed letter from judge and got the warrant cancelled.

  31. Adsignatos D. says:

    women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

    …Because men can just ‘man up’ and keep their silly emotions and thoughts about being actual persons to themselves (oh, but they should also be more emotional and understanding and compassionate…to teh wimmenz [yay!]).

  32. Divorce_in_the_chirch@ says:

    To argue on the margins of the stats is folly, a useful distraction that “they” would have you stuck in for obvious reasons. Whether the article has the specific truth or not may be a reflection on that authors exacting (or not) nature, but does anyone really doubt that what passes for analysis is bunk? Having grown up around honest to goodness violent bloody broken bone abuse I take very specific umbrage at the entire issue as typically presented. My experience is anecdotal but would normally have created, in me, a DV industry sycophant. Quite the contrary. It magnified some truths that are unspeakable.

    These are that what is most often called DV is that the woman lost an argument she started, this is true whether its about verbal or physical abuse. Right here is where the debate goes sideways as this claim I’ve made is offensive and unspeakable. But we must add this to the double standards along the the direction of money wants and flows.

    A woman can demand, cajole, argue, scream even, and the response must be one of two. Acquiescence is best, silence is second best but may well also be considered abusive by the man. When the French, a couple years ago, considered psychological abuse a policeable action for couples, quickly something seemed amiss. Men were calling in about women, Gasp!

    On all the other forms of abuse in those lists, they are recruiting tools nothing more. Women who had high conflict marriages, verbal arguments, and divorced over it become activists in a way, trolling and looking for relational drama so they can inform other women “hey you know you are being abused right”. This is both a power play and an empathy play. The empathogasm that results from two allegedly verbal, spiritual, psychological, etc abuse women meeting experientially is a powerful shuddering thing.

    On Gregoires site recently I had this debate with yet another women claiming that she had been both “beaten” and verbally abused. She said the verbal was worse. This is gospel in DV circles because it paints broadly and inclusively. I asked, does it ever occur, physical violence to a wife where the man is not also being verbal? She missed the point.

    This is one of the last untouchable topics, and I would expect a broader reaction to this (broader but perhaps less visceral) than the notion of false rape claims. That is because every woman can credibly claim DV since it means she lost an argument once and cried. Texas law at one time, in the property division section of family law, among the reasons to skew from 50/50, the allegation of verbal abuse. Nuff said.

  33. Empathologism says:

    Divorce_in_the_chirch@ says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 25, 2013 at 6:53 am
    To argue on the margins of the stats is folly, a useful distraction that “they” would have you stuck in for obvious reasons. Whether the article has the specific truth or not may be a reflection on that authors exacting (or not) nature, but does anyone really doubt that what passes for analysis is bunk? Having grown up around honest to goodness violent bloody broken bone abuse I take very specific umbrage at the entire issue as typically presented. My experience is anecdotal but would normally have created, in me, a DV industry sycophant. Quite the contrary. It magnified some truths that are unspeakable.

    These are that what is most often called DV is that the woman lost an argument she started, this is true whether its about verbal or physical abuse. Right here is where the debate goes sideways as this claim I’ve made is offensive and unspeakable. But we must add this to the double standards along the the direction of money wants and flows.

    A woman can demand, cajole, argue, scream even, and the response must be one of two. Acquiescence is best, silence is second best but may well also be considered abusive by the man. When the French, a couple years ago, considered psychological abuse a policeable action for couples, quickly something seemed amiss. Men were calling in about women, Gasp!

    On all the other forms of abuse in those lists, they are recruiting tools nothing more. Women who had high conflict marriages, verbal arguments, and divorced over it become activists in a way, trolling and looking for relational drama so they can inform other women “hey you know you are being abused right”. This is both a power play and an empathy play. The empathogasm that results from two allegedly verbal, spiritual, psychological, etc abuse women meeting experientially is a powerful shuddering thing.

    On Gregoires site recently I had this debate with yet another women claiming that she had been both “beaten” and verbally abused. She said the verbal was worse. This is gospel in DV circles because it paints broadly and inclusively. I asked, does it ever occur, physical violence to a wife where the man is not also being verbal? She missed the point.

    This is one of the last untouchable topics, and I would expect a broader reaction to this (broader but perhaps less visceral) than the notion of false rape claims. That is because every woman can credibly claim DV since it means she lost an argument once and cried. Texas law at one time, in the property division section of family law, among the reasons to skew from 50/50, the allegation of verbal abuse. Nuff said.

  34. I have a long comment stuck in mod

  35. To argue on the margins of the stats is folly, a useful distraction that “they” would have you stuck in for obvious reasons. Whether the article has the specific truth or not may be a reflection on that authors exacting (or not) nature, but does anyone really doubt that what passes for analysis is bunk? Having grown up around honest to goodness violent bloody broken bone abuse I take very specific umbrage at the entire issue as typically presented. My experience is anecdotal but would normally have created, in me, a DV industry sycophant. Quite the contrary. It magnified some truths that are unspeakable.

    These are that what is most often called DV is that the woman lost an argument she started, this is true whether its about verbal or physical abuse. Right here is where the debate goes sideways as this claim I’ve made is offensive and unspeakable. But we must add this to the double standards along the the direction of money wants and flows.

    A woman can demand, cajole, argue, scream even, and the response must be one of two. Acquiescence is best, silence is second best but may well also be considered abusive by the man. When the French, a couple years ago, considered psychological abuse a policeable action for couples, quickly something seemed amiss. Men were calling in about women, Gasp!

    On all the other forms of abuse in those lists, they are recruiting tools nothing more. Women who had high conflict marriages, verbal arguments, and divorced over it become activists in a way, trolling and looking for relational drama so they can inform other women “hey you know you are being abused right”. This is both a power play and an empathy play. The empathogasm that results from two allegedly verbal, spiritual, psychological, etc abuse women meeting experientially is a powerful shuddering thing.

    On Gregoires site recently I had this debate with yet another women claiming that she had been both “beaten” and verbally abused. She said the verbal was worse. This is gospel in DV circles because it paints broadly and inclusively. I asked, does it ever occur, physical violence to a wife where the man is not also being verbal? She missed the point.

    This is one of the last untouchable topics, and I would expect a broader reaction to this (broader but perhaps less visceral) than the notion of false rape claims. That is because every woman can credibly claim DV since it means she lost an argument once and cried. Texas law at one time, in the property division section of family law, among the reasons to skew from 50/50, the allegation of verbal abuse. Nuff said.

  36. Dalrock, sorry….reposted it, so dump the mod.

  37. hurting says:

    Dalrock,

    The industry as you rightly acknowledge, has co-opted the entire lexicon such that words with previously commonly understood meanings. It is premised entirely on the faulty notion that men exercise privilege over women and therefore only men can be the malefactor.

    The most pernicious element of the whole thing (sorry if I did not catch where you pointed this out) is that simply defending oneself from accusations, pointing out the the ‘abuse’ was either mutual or instigated by the woman or otherwise challenging the definition creep or assummptions noted above is considered prima facie evidence the man (and man only) is a contemptible lout.

    The Duluth model is the gold standard in the helping professions. As you rightly note, there are elements of it that could readily be seen to be at odds with traditional Christian marriage. This is precisely why men should flee the idea of even putatively Christian marriage counseling. The rot is deep.

  38. MNL says:

    @monster221… Your description sounds vaguely familiar. It’s as if I’ve heard of your situation before. Oh yea… now I remember: I’ve read about those same re-education tactics described in a book about China under Mao’s regime (Alive in the Bitter Sea) and in another book about Cambodia’s attempt to re-educate the populace following the Khmer Rouge takeover (The Killing Fields).

    Amazing the similarities, really.

  39. greyghost says:

    This topic here is where we get to the take up arms civil war stuff. I avoid this one and is the number one reason for being an MRA. This is where the murder suicides live. All of the countries of the middle east with terrorist and the civil war have stories like monster221 described. On of the reasons for a male birth control pill and MGTOW. Nice beta male way of changing society too bad that approach is laughed at and dismissed as losers that can’t get laid.

  40. Cane Caldo says:

    Feminists object to men in the role of head of household

    And they (feminists) object so much that they will “waste” nearly any amount of resources to ensure the defeat of even one head of household. Nothing is beyond the pale for them to get what they desire. They love their sin more than most love their families.

  41. hurting says:

    Another way of looking at it (and to paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan)…

    The DV industry works feverishly to define deviancy up.

  42. James K says:

    Regrettably the criticisms of the “Domestic Violence Movement” are all valid.

    A lot of women are killed by their partners or ex-partners; I wondered what fraction of “domestic murder” victims are men and guessed 1%; the actual figure is 16%.

    If feminists confined their attention to serious violence, and admitted that one in six victims are male, most of us would share their concerns. Yet they extend the definition of “violence” and “battery” to include such things as emotional manipulation, or even silence. The problem with this is twofold:

    (1) they still use the phraseology and imagery of serious physical violence (for example in the photographs that accompany press stories or sales brochures).

    (2) they neglect the fact that, when it comes to emotional manipulation, silence, and the multitudinous other manifestations of male “violence”, perpetrators are at least as likely to be female as male.

    This is indeed an egregious example of “bait and switch”.

    They get away with it not only because we are fools; and not only because to some degree we all wish to protect women from violence; they get away with it because they plug into a deeply unpleasant aspect of human nature: if a man is violent to his wife, we despise the man; and if a woman is violent to her husband, we despise the man.

    A man who beats his wife will often try to do it so the marks do not show; a woman who beats her husband will usually go for the face, and will try to leave a mark, often a black eye. She knows that the mark declares “he’s mine, I can do what I want with him, and he is despicable”.

    What is it really about? It is about power. It is about tilting the playing field to favor women. It is about hurting men and having power over them.

    In the UK, two women a week are murdered by a partner or ex-partner. It is right to be concerned about this figure. Yet the decline in deaths by road traffic accidents in the last 30 years exceeds this figure, even if only women and girls are counted. If feminists’ concern was really about unnecessary and violent deaths of females, they would be campaigning for even greater levels of road safety.

    One can conclude that the focus of the DV industry is not really on the victim at all: the victim is merely a useful pawn in a bigger game. The focus is either the DV industry’s disgust for the perpetrator; or it is on the legislation that can be introduced to control all men.

  43. Elspeth says:

    they get away with it because they plug into a deeply unpleasant aspect of human nature: if a man is violent to his wife, we despise the man; and if a woman is violent to her husband, we despise the man.

    True, and shameful.

  44. greyghost says:

    The Majority of DV is by women. And that is by their definition. Where the hell do you think the term the sword of damocles comes from in the manosphere? Men are regularly threatened all on the time with losing their kids in divorce. Just because it is government enforced doesn’t mean it isn’t so. We just had a topic on how men married men just have this need to work so hard for their loving dutiful wifes. I wonder where that comes from? It’s the government through laws of misandry that is the biggest perps of DV with the little dearies as usual pretending to be helpless victims. She voted for it. Every man that is even in the same room as a woman is subject to state violence at any time on a woman’s whim. And they wouldn’t have it any other way.

  45. M3 says:

    “In the answer to another question they explain that women abusing men is different than men abusing women (emphasis mine):

    When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence.”

    Isn’t that the same as Men Rape.. but men can’t rape because.. they’re sex animals that just love fucking so they can’t be raped.

  46. greyghost says:

    M3
    The same thing as a black man cannot commit a hate crime. Even If he says he killed him because he hates white people. All politics

  47. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    Did you actually read Mr. Cook’s article? If so, it would be hard to conclude that he has presented any true facts at all. I checked every one of the sources he links to, and in each instance, what Mr. Cook reported in his article was false.

    I did read the article, but I did not chase down the sources. But having done some digging after reading your concerns, I think you are being too quick to reject all of his stats out of hand.

    I clicked that link, too. It leads to a study published in 2006 (not 2007) in the American Journal of Public Health, and in the article the authors specifically state:

    The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Mr. Cook makes it sound like this was a specific study done by the CDC on domestic violence, but that isn’t the case at all.

    His wording in citing the paper could have been better, but the paper is the real deal. It was submitted in 2006 and then published by the American Journal of Public Health after peer review in May 2007. So his publication date isn’t wrong, and it is a serious paper peer reviewed by a real journal. Also, the note you quote is from the paper as submitted. It doesn’t preclude the CDC from publishing the paper, as the NIH did here. I don’t know if he got National Institute of Health mixed up with Center for Disease Control, or if both of them published the paper he is citing. But either way the paper is legit and the quote he attributed to the paper is there.

    Here is where the authors of that journal article got their data:

    We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

    This is CDC data from 12 years ago in a study about adolescent health.

    Longitudinal studies collect data on the same people over time, and when the paper was submitted the most recent wave would have been Wave III collected in 2001-2002 (the paper notes using Wave III data in the “Methods” section). So the individuals would have been adolescents (high schoolers) in 1994-1995 when wave one was conducted, but by 2001 when interviewed for wave III they were 7 years older. The use of a longitudinal survey for something other than the original study is fairly common. The study on divorce spreading through social networks used the Framingham Heart Study data. The authors of the Bell Curve used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY).

    A reader offered links to other sources in response to your comment at The Daily Beast, but I don’t see a link to data on men being refused help by shelters. However, I don’t think this fact is something in contention. The vast majority of DV shelters are “Women’s shelters” and don’t take men in. Do a search in your local area to see what I mean. I just did a quick web search for DFW and while there are numerous shelters just for women, I only found one shelter (The Family Place) which says it houses men (off-site since their primary facility is for women), but that same shelter includes the very same frame I was referring to in the post. Their signs of abuse quiz includes traditional sex roles, and they recently held a “Training Camp” to get men involved in the issue, with the standard perspective of men as abusers:

    A former abuser who has graduated from a batterer’s intervention program will also speak about his journey toward change.

    In hearing the former abuser speak, Flink said “some men are going to see some behaviors they may have. They’ll certainly see behaviors that their friends have or their coworkers.”

  48. Ghost of 503 says:

    Look at DV the same way you look at an ADT home security system commercial. Do you think ADT wants the public to know that the crime rate in America has been cut in half over the last twenty years? Course not. It would ruin the meal ticket.

    Feminists continue to carp on rape using bogus statistics. Legitimate statistics show that rape has been cut in half over twenty years. Do you think feminists want the public to know that the rape rate in America is the lowest its been since the Bureau of Justice Statistics started counting? (http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/02/video-gamers-take-on-a-cable-n)

    Seriously, State of Fear should be mandated reading for all Americans.

  49. sunshinemary says:

    @ Dalrock

    Thank you for checking into the paper. I didn’t have access to anything but the abstract. I still contend that Mr. Cook’s sourcing of his article is verypoorly done, but I appreciate you confirming that those particular CDC statistics are accurate.

    I volunteered at the local DV shelter when I was a college student. They will house women and children but not men on campus, but they refer men to off-site housing. I have no problem with this, so long as they actually provide services for men. AT the time that i was there, the majority of men (and there weren’t many) seeking assistance were from homosexual relationships, but this is undoubtedly because hetersexual men felt ashamed to seek assistance. However, it seemed to me even then that the shelter was more of a homeless shelter for mentally ill women (and often, their poor children).

    Also, in rereading my comment from yesterday, I felt that my wording sounded somewhat bitchy, so my apologies for that.

    @ Empath

    Having grown up around honest to goodness violent bloody broken bone abuse I take very specific umbrage at the entire issue as typically presented. My experience is anecdotal but would normally have created, in me, a DV industry sycophant. Quite the contrary. It magnified some truths that are unspeakable.

    The same for me. When you have been a child who has observed significant physical violence directed from one parent to another, you are quite naturally offended when feminists say that refusing to give the other spouse money = domestic violence. Um no. Black eyes are domestic violence. Budgetary complaints are not.

    Having said all that, I implore everyone to do their best to stay rational and fact-based on this issue, and don’t believe statistics without investigating them. We will do far better that way in arguing against feminist insanity. Some domestic violence is real and it is a good thing that law enforcement intervenes now. They didn’t use to, even when they were called to the scene. When I was a child, they simply calmed my father down and encouraged my mother to put some ice on it. I used to watch the police drive away later (without my father in tow) and want to run after their car and beg them to stay. This is not a scenario that we should desire to return to; we need to stay evidence-based if we hope to retain legal protection for true victims while also showing that the feminist DV industry is about promoting feminism, not helping victims.

    Thanks for letting me have my say. I won’t comment further, since I’m fairly emotionally involved with this issue and it clouds my ability to engage in productive debate.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    The reason why the very flawed Duluth model prevails and is accepted to prevail is that society in general really doesn’t care about female violence against men. This is deeper than feminism. It’s deep culture, here. As was written above, male victims of DV are despised pretty much as much as male perpetrators of DV are. The reason is that in disputes between men and women the society will side with the women almost all of the time, even if she has the proverbial smoking gun in her hands (after all “he must have done something really bad for her to do that, so it’s really his fault”). I strongly suspect that this deep wiring relates to egg-bearers vs. sperm-bearers and the tilt towards favoring, individually, egg-bearers due to reproductive pressures deep in human history. Duluth is an egregious example of it, to be sure, but the reason it’s broadly accepted is not due to feminism, but due to deeper wiring when it comes to male/female conflict, and the resulting tendency to overwhelmingly favor women in such conflicts (even men themselves do so). This will take a lot more than politics to overcome, if it can indeed ever be overcome (it may not be capable of being overcome).

  51. donalgraeme says:

    @ Novaseeker

    What you are saying is that the FI is to blame. Makes sense. Given human nature, and especially if you take a Ev Bio point of view, female-to-male violence is a sign of weakness which garners no sympathy. And why should it? The man is not acting as a man should, and therefore represents a threat to the species because of his weak genes. But male-to-female violence, if excessive, threatens the future of the species as it could impair the overall fertility of the social group.

  52. donalgraeme says:

    @ SSM

    While I normally agree that using a fact-based approach is right, I don’t think it will help much in this instance. Feminists and their allies are emotion-driven, not fact or logic driven. Using logic won’t work on them, because they are operating in an entirely different conceptual framework.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    I still contend that Mr. Cook’s sourcing of his article is very poorly done

    I don’t know what restrictions he was under from The Daily Beast (he indicates something along those lines in his response to your comment), but I agree that it was at least misleading re the CDC and other links don’t lead to where he suggests they will. The basic stats fit with what I’ve read elsewhere, but I haven’t ever really done my own analysis of DV data.

    Having said all that, I implore everyone to do their best to stay rational and fact-based on this issue, and don’t believe statistics without investigating them.

    I think we are in agreement that as is so often true when arguing with the left, our data has to be impeccable no matter how poor theirs is. Given the nature of this I’m surprised Mr. Cook didn’t have his sources better squared away. The Daily Beast isn’t exactly a friendly venu for his argument.

    I might do some more digging on this, but I am reassured that the main study he quoted is the real deal, even though he was so confusing in his citation of it.

  54. Novaseeker says:

    especially if you take a Ev Bio point of view, female-to-male violence is a sign of weakness which garners no sympathy. And why should it? The man is not acting as a man should, and therefore represents a threat to the species because of his weak genes. But male-to-female violence, if excessive, threatens the future of the species as it could impair the overall fertility of the social group.

    Right, which is why I don’t think people are ever going to care very much about DV directed at men. It’s not feminism — it’s biology here.

  55. Opus says:

    I set out my own experience of DV above at 02.44am but I omitted the one example I had professionally experienced of Female on Male DV: the man had somehow married a Lesbian, who had then moved her female lover into his house beaten him up and thrown him out. He went to see the police, who told him to grow a pair! (I forget what I then did). Men on the receiving end are (as donalgraeme says) always perceived as somehow failing the woman, and perhaps when our species was young and survival difficult this was a sensible view, for who would overturn her provider and risk penury. This, of course, is no longer the case as every woman can be her own Marie-Antoinette, or Princess with the pea, and D.V. is used to gain cash and prizes, for from her point of view the man has no absolutely necessary function, once he has sired a number of children – the DV allegations nearly always occur then, when the children are very young.

    Ultimately, Society will have to face the fact that women (feminists) have pulled the wool over their eyes. As with the story of the boy who cried wolf, I increasingly find that men are growing sceptical of female shenanigans, and where once they would have swallowed whatever they are told, by reason of the fact that almost every man has some personal horror story at the hands of a woman to tell, are beginning to have a much more sceptical attitude. For some men, of course, hell will freeze over before they cease to swallow whole and uncooked the emotional-Suchi that women serve up for them. Of course, if, as TFH predicts the Misandry Bubble pops around 2020, older attitudes of survival may kick-in.

  56. an observer says:
  57. Casey says:

    @ Dazzel

    Dazzel said: July 25, 2013 at 2:47 am

    “You all are a bunch of chauvanistic cows.”

    Dazzel, I assume you are just fine with Domestic Violence being perpetrated by women on men? If not, then what is your bitch?

    The current D.V. environment is nothing but a kangaroo court; and men are right to point that out & debunk this myth that DV against men by women is OK.

    What exactly is a chauvantistic cow?
    Wouldn’t you be better off calling us bulls?
    What exactly is a chauvanistic bull?

    You are so unbelievably closed-minded, and a RADICAL feminist as well.

  58. Casey, it would seem most people are okay with female on male violence. It’s just a process to weed out weak genes.

  59. Casey says:

    @ Dazzel

    I tried to take the high road……….but I just can’t. I find you too repugnant.

    I’ll thank you to call the men on this site “Masculinists”
    So, I believe “Masculinistic cows” is the proper phrase you were searching.

    Wait………a masculine cow is a BULL.
    WOW, thanks……yes, we are all BULLS.

    In any event, I would rather be a ‘chauvanistic cow’ than a stupid, dumb, dumpy, FAT cow.

  60. Asher says:

    The modern welfare state is, among other things, is a massive transfer of social resources from men to women. Almost every instance of “women’s issues” is about distracting the populace, many of them women, from that reality. The fact is that this transfer of resources is, in large part, from married men to single women and it diminishes the well-being of married women and their children.

  61. Asher says:

    I think that what’s being lost in this discussion is that the DV industry is not about protecting women or, even, reducing the status of men. No, it’s about further entrenching the power of The Cathedral.

  62. donalgraeme says:

    FH,

    Casey, it would seem most people are okay with female on male violence. It’s just a process to weed out weak genes.

    The latter is certainly the reason behind their subconscious assumptions, although I don’t think most people consciously believe this. The sad truth is the biology, especially in the Reptile part of our brain, trumps reason and ethics for most people.

    Female on Male violence is morally wrong, but because of biology most people just don’t or won’t care enough about it.

  63. Michael says:

    I don’t condone domestic violence and believe men should be held accountable for it. In spite of the fact some women frequently (and repeatedly) choose men who are physically abusive; those men still don’t have any moral or legal right to inflict physical harm. Violence is wrong.

    However, I want to see statistics on FALSE domestic violence claims. It seems unfair that in the worst of verbal arguments, all a women has to do is say you manhandled, pushed or hit her, even when it’s a flat out lie. Your case should (might) ultimately be dismissed. However in the meantime the man is:

    1) Compulsory Arrest(sometimes manhandled) by the police
    2) Processing. Which includes “bending over” and “spreading em” to prove there is no contraband. A degrading experience.
    3) Mugshots. Mugshots are public record and in many states is now posted online for everyone, including potential employers and clients to see. This becomes “permanent” in cyberspace because the mugshot is pulled and distributed to an unlimited number of sites for public entertainment. I must admit. It’s quite entertaining. Be careful or you might stay up all night laughing.
    4) The man is jailed until he can see the judge and/or post bail. This may cause him to (possibly) lose his job.
    5) High attorney costs
    6) Follow up court appearances affecting his job.
    7) Potential Plea bargaining, drivers license suspension, and state sanctioned (a side business) domestic violence classes, all affecting his job.
    8) Probation

    All of this because he was ACCUSED of domestic violence by a WOMEN.

    And assuming accuser retracts her story (even though she may face charges) what does the man receive in return for all the of above? NOTHING. At most the women, who is very sorry, gets a slap on the wrist.

  64. TFH says:

    I will also add to those who point out that the human brain, the obsolete thing that it is, does not care about female violence against men (or male violence against other men)…

    Remember that for biological reasons, that makes sense. The number of babies born does not go down even if a large number of men die, but it does go down if even one young woman dies (and humans did not live far past the age of female fertility in the past, so post-fertile women were few in number until the modern age).

    Now, this is obsolete, of course, in the modern technological age.

    The fact that no one cares about female-on-male violence is also the same reason that all human societies (even ones seen as oppressive to women) are oriented around funneling all resources to women, and all costs onto men. That made sense at one time (as women bore their full capacity of children), but is an obsolete practice nowadays.

  65. Asher says:

    There are no “sad truths”, nor is the human brain obsolete. The concept of a “sad truth” is a product of magical thinking and for the human brain to be “obsoletely” would require an external standard from which to measure it and assess its functionality. The most obvious description of the human brain is that it is good enough to accomplish the functions for which it exists.

  66. Asher says:

    It’s like saying that human legs are inadequate/obsolete. because we can’t outrun lions, tigers and bears – completely insensate. This is the sort of nonsense I expect from feminists.

  67. feeriker says:

    lozozozozozozoz says: Hey red pill guys…still think the ‘Christian red pill ladies’ are different from the feminazis in anything except (perhaps) less shrill and not as fat/tatted up?

    Yeah, I saw that article. It never ceases to amaze me how, despite bountiful examples all around them and oceans full of in-your-face evidence, so many men out there who should freaking know better think that “Christian” (this should actually read “churchian,” as it should be obvious to all by now that “Christians” of either sex are as rare as realred-pill women) women are any different from their worldly gynosphere sestren.

    I wonder how long it will take for these guys to finally WAKE UP?

  68. TFH says:

    Asher,

    No.

    It is correct to point out that the human brain is obsolete in some ways, as humans still exhibit behaviors that are highly incompatible with furthering human prosperity (as measured by life expectancy, disease reduction, etc.).

    Women writing love letters to serial killers is one example of this. The biological reason for this is well understood given the realities of the world in 10,000 BC (a man with a proven capacity for violence is a better bet for a woman to be with, in that world). But it is evidence of obsolete psychology in accordance with today’s realities.

    This is where evolution happens.

    I said just yesterday (upthread) that the psychology of the male human differs from that of the male chimpanzee, by a greater margin than that of a female human differs from that of a female chimpanzee, as evidenced by their behavior. The Y chromosome is faster evolving, but that is just one component of this.

  69. slwerner says:

    Asher – “There are no “sad truths”, nor is the human brain obsolete.”

    I assume your responding to TFH’s July 25, 2013 at 3:33 pm comment?

    If so, you might wish to re-read. He suggests that the inclination to protect women (as baby producers) is what has become obsolete (thinking, or merely subconscious gut reaction), not the human brain itself. I fully agree with his assessment that such human reactions are obsolete in htis day and age.

    Also, on that same vein, donalgraeme suggests that the “sad truth” is that people, in general, have failed to rise above such residual primitive thinking (or, lack thereof) to instead employ reason and ethical analysis. I fully agree with this as well.

    I don’t think either of them was meaning to denigrate the human brain nor the truth (the truth can be that people miss the obvious, which is in fact, sad).

  70. zlozozozozozo

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-the-churchians-replaced-jesus-and-christianitys-higher-ideals-with-gina-tingzlzlzolzoz-butt-tnzizgzlzozlz-mammonz-moneyz-buttehctxtxt-and-debtz-zlzllzozoz/

    How the Churchians replaced the MANLY Jesus and Christianity’s Higher Ideals with Gina Tingzlzlzolzoz Butt tnzizgzlzozlz Mammonz moneyz buttehctxtxt and debtz zlzllzozoz

    One of the remarkable things of the “Christian” (Churchian) manopshere is how much they hate the MANLY Jesus, Moses, and the prophets and saints.

    They also hate the MANLY Homer, Virgil, Dante, Einstein, Newton, and Paul. Basically, they hate the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN as the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN don’t give a crap about the butt and gina tingelzoozoz that chruchian men and women are slaves to. And because the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN don’t care about butt and gina tiznzgzlzlolozozlz they are the ultimate form of game as they rise far, far above fallen, earthly game and mere material pursuits that the churchians so love and swear by.

    It is really quite remarkable how there is post after post after post about marriage, and never once do they turn towards Jesus nor Moses nor Genesis.

    Were Jesus to arise today, they would crucify him during the typical sermon and resume thei rbutthetxxinzgz and gianattstetxingz and serving tinzgzlzozozozooz over God, Law, Reason, Homer, Honor, Moses, and Jesus.

    Long story short, Jesus came to Fulfill the Law of Moses and Genesis, and that really pissed off the churchians:

    3: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
    14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
    15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
    16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    There is no mention of how much mammon a husband has to make, nor how much he must neg his wife to keep her butt and gina going tinzgzlzlzloozlzlzozzlzozol. There is no economic analyses of how Genesis was penned so that men would be more productive and sell more subrime loans or porn subscriptions once they got married. This is why the churchians have rejected Moses and Jesus.

    Jesus teaches that one cannot serve two masters: King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

    Again we can see why all the churchians hate and detest Christ, as Christ sees marriage on a spiritual level, while the base churchians recreate marriage in their own fallen image replacing the soul with butt/ginatingzlzozozl and mammon.

    Regarding marriage, Jesus teaches: (read da rest here: http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/how-the-churchians-replaced-jesus-and-christianitys-higher-ideals-with-gina-tingzlzlzolzoz-butt-tnzizgzlzozlz-mammonz-moneyz-buttehctxtxt-and-debtz-zlzllzozoz/ lozozozozozozozozo)

    lzozozozozozozo

  71. feeriker says:

    Opus said For some men, of course, hell will freeze over before they cease to swallow whole and uncooked the emotional-Suchi that women serve up for them.

    I think that’s true of far more men than we are comfortable admitting. Despite all of the overt misandry emanating from modern women like a radiation cloud, too many men’s actions are still governed by the little head below their wastes rather than the big one atop their shoulders. I’m tempted to believe, based on years of observation, that in many men there is no psychological mechanism in place that enables them to separate their innate biological urges from an awareness of the danger triggered by a particular stimulator of those urges. Stated in plain English, too many men are drawn to women who are obviously (or become obviously over time) violent and abusive, just as too many women are drawn to abusive and violent men. While I would never be so presumptuous as to try to explain why this happens in women (more than enough has been written about this by “experts” and is no doubt readily available without much searching needed), I would say that many men appear to be wired to seek women’s acceptance and approval no matter how hazardous to their own well-being a particular woman is. Again, I could be completely wrong about all of this, but my own observations lead me to this conclusion.

    Unless or until a greater awareness of this takes root, a significant number of men will continue to swallow the “emotional sushi” (LOVE that, BTW) to their own often lethal detriment. Sadly, I’m not sure that even a wider awareness of the problem will do anything to override what appear to be biological imperatives.

  72. feeriker says:

    Casey, why waste energy or bits responding to Dazzel’s juvenile graffiti? It confers dignity upon something completely unworthy of such.

  73. feeriker says:

    Michael said: Violence is wrong.

    That’s it, in a simple sentence everyone –even feminists– can understand.

    While I usually never dare to claim to speak for anyone other than myself, I will go out on a limb here and say that this is the essence of the manosphere’s position on DV – that all AGGRESSIVE violence (i.e., any act of violence committed other than in self-defense against unprovoked aggression) is WRONG. This stands as immutable truth regardless of which sex perpetrates it.

  74. Opus says:

    @feeriker

    As to violence, I am not so sure. Suppose your wife is taunting you that she is about to go off and cuckold you, and with a man who knows who you are and that you are married.

    Do you,

    1. Give your wife a turn on the ducking stool
    2. Knock six bells out of your rival
    3. Both

    I rather suspect that the man who does the second (if not the third) will have a very obedient wife. As we know, women like violent men (consider the recent case in England of Mick Philpott, who not withstanding that he has a mistress and that foolishly he contrived in a stunt gone wrong to kill half of his and his wife’s children – there were about ten children originally, she the wife sticks by her now imprisoned husband. Women like tough guys and do not care for wimps.

    If chastising a child is not wrong then why would it be wrong to moderately chastise a wife – Taming of the Shrew style, I mean. Can Shakespeare have been so wrong – of course one should not be like Othello and strangle the bitch.

  75. RedPillPaul says:

    I disagree that “violence” is wrong because that word can be abused just like the word “abuse”. Is withholding money from your partner “abuse”?

    Is disciplining/spanking your children “violence” or “abuse”?

  76. TFH says:

    slwerner,

    Yes. And well said.

    The purpose of every species was to reproduce. Humans were no different until recently. Since women are the much scarcer reproductive resource, all human societies orient towards the transfer of resources to women, and costs onto men. Transferring resources to women correlated to the survival of more children, which was, understandably, the most important goal of all.

    Human societies tend to oppose anything that interferes with this allocation of resources and costs, hence the original topic of why domestic violence by women against men is not just unopposed, but even seen as humorous (if men knew how many women think castration is actually funny, they would be distressed).

    BUT, the woman’s obligation was to spend her life producing and raising children. In the old days, women produced their full capacity of children. But now, women produce only 10-20% of their full capacity, with many producing 0%.

    Yet, resources are still transferred to women as though all of it was enabling the survival of children. The number of things we see money spent on today by women (shoes, purses, needlessly big houses, etc.) are evidence of this misallocaiton, as women are pocketing resources that were meant for children.

    By contrast, the men who build civilization (whether the tech nerds or the infrastructure-building blue-collar men) currently have the lowest status. When those who do the most useful work have the lowest status and are always seeing resources taken from them, a correction looms.

    The Androsphere represents the very first awakening in the process of correcting this obsolete practice, and rediverting this misallocation of resources.

    Childen used to be the only important thing humans produced. And while they are still important, they are a) not being produced at anywhere near full capacity, and b) civilization is now the second important thing humans produce. And it is produced by different humans than the ones who produced children. Resource-flow correction will thus ensue to adjust for this change.

  77. TFH says:

    More simply, if ‘child support’ where either :

    a) Paid as a fixed dollar amount, rather than a percentage of the man’s income, OR
    b) Paid in vouchers that can only be used on the child, rather than cash that the mother can use on herself…

    …. we would see single motherhood plummet, and 90% of children would grow up in two-parent families again.

    As Novaseeker can tell us, the current ‘child support’ regime is just about the most perverse incentive structure ever devised for anything, ever.

  78. TFH says:

    *if ‘child support’ WERE either….

  79. When I was a child, they simply calmed my father down and encouraged my mother to put some ice on it. I used to watch the police drive away later (without my father in tow) and want to run after their car and beg them to stay. This is not a scenario that we should desire to return to; we need to stay evidence-based if we hope to retain legal protection for true victims while also showing that the feminist DV industry is about promoting feminism, not helping victims.

    Right. SAme here, went through the window Nd chased them indeed. Stories for another time. But only as an adult experiencing the incessant yammering Nd controlling behavior of women did I have at least some perspective on this besides the simple one of beauty and the beast. It takes a lot to say that regarding one’s own mother so do take it seriously.

    There are some f-d up people in the world, with sufficient provocation they snap. In fact it seemed that reaching sufficient provocation was the aim, thinking back. How does one deal with both sides of that issue without being labeled victim blamer?

    What this means is that the well Adjusted man will either win life’s lottery and marry a woman who is not contentious, marry one and work her out of it through being leader, or he will suffer mental torture the days of his life. The second choice itself is seen as abusive.

    Other than the maladjusted men who by nature are violent no matter what, this is a bilateral issue even in some cases when the man has been violent and that is unspeakable

  80. Novaseeker says:

    As Novaseeker can tell us, the current ‘child support’ regime is just about the most perverse incentive structure ever devised for anything, ever.

    Of course. Dalrock has written about this a lot as well.

    The idea that you can divorce your husband for no reason and inflict a fixed rate tax on his income, payable to you until your kids are 22, is certainly a perverse incentive scheme if there ever was one.

  81. lozozozozozozoz says:

    I wonder how long it will take for these guys to finally WAKE UP?

    If the actions of these women’s husbands, and the way most of the manosphere’s denizens race to defend even the slightest criticism of them (white-knighting at its’ finest), i would say the answer is never for just about everyone, sad to say.

  82. The comment by Opus about spanking your kids but not your wife reminded me of something.

    In the feminist revision of history, just substitute the word “children” for the word “woman”.

    Examples:
    Children are second class citizens because they can’t vote.

    Children are slaves because they can’t have jobs outside the home and are “forced” to do chores.

    Children are treated like property because they are under the authority of their parents.

  83. Tom says:

    If a man and a woman can both commit the same violent act against their spouse, and the man is arrested and charged with a crime but the woman is not, then there will probably be more “male-perpetrated criminal asaults” because it is technically not a crime when the woman does it.

  84. Violence (force) is the basis of Authority. Without violence there is no authority. People obey the government because of violence. When authority exercises violence it’s not called abuse. Thus men have no authority.

  85. Johnycomelately says:

    I wonder what percentage of domestic violence involves a woman baiting a husband until he flips?
    95%?

    If I see a bull terrier on the street and just up an decide that I will poke it with a stick until it reacts then I must assume some responsibility if it turns and bites.

    The utter disrespect women have towards masculine power is the root of domestic violence.

  86. Caydius says:

    Well I ran across another gem:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/24/judge-no-rights-violated-for-suspended-michigan-college-student-who-was-hot-for/?intcmp=obnetwork

    Teacher gives writing assignment to students that they are to write honestly and no topic is off-limits. Guy writes paper that his teacher is attractive. Guy gets suspended. Guy sues, case dismissed. Guy is suspended indefinitely until he attends sensitivity training.

    According to guy, they were told to write “raw things, a personal diary that maybe we wouldn’t want anyone to read.” Also – he was removed from the class by two security officers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/oakland-university-joseph-corlett_n_2885978.html

  87. Violence (force) is the basis of Authority. Without violence there is no authority. People obey the government because of violence. When authority exercises violence it’s not called abuse. Thus men have no authority. Even when authority uses violence for immoral means, it’s not the violence itself that is bad, just the reason it was done. No one ever asks what reason men are using violence. Just them using it is bad, because they are exercising their God given authority and antichrist doesn’t like that.

    Also remember. Police don’t have too use violence to get people to comply, because people know that police can use violence too get people to comply.

  88. Shameful says:

    The solution is painfully obvious. Now in virtually all cases there is a history of violence by the women if it will happen. The wise man will look at state laws and set an internal surveillance system publicly in case of breal ins. Now if such a man were to catch a crime on camera and not retaliate one would have a powerful tool in the courts. Bonus points to rig for sound and be stoic and downright beta sweet while accepting a beating, turn the other cheek as it where.

  89. Höllenhund says:

    Re: TFH

    “Traditional customs benefited women the most, because it enabled society to package women into something much better than they would be without those customs, so that the majority of men could be sold on marriage.”

    I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: the old patriarchal system was based on the lie that women are men’s moral equals. The current system is based on the equally big lie that women are men’s intellectual equals. That shouldn’t be surprising though – all political systems are based on lies (and theft, I might add).

  90. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Novaseeker

    “I strongly suspect that this deep wiring relates to egg-bearers vs. sperm-bearers and the tilt towards favoring, individually, egg-bearers due to reproductive pressures deep in human history.”

    Come on, people. How severely do you have to beat a woman so as to render her infertile? That’s pretty much Cheka-style torture.

  91. Höllenhund says:

    Re: donal

    “Given human nature, and especially if you take a Ev Bio point of view, female-to-male violence is a sign of weakness which garners no sympathy.”

    You’re comparing apples and oranges. Female-to-male aggression is rarely physical. Women prefer manipulation and indirect methods: “let’s you and him fight”, backstabbing, nagging, spreading false rumors, shaming, psychological torment, poisoning etc. One of the great unmentioned atrocities of world history is that probably hundreds of millions of men were killed by women (mostly their wives) with these methods.

    Let’s be honest: women who physically attack their men are mostly ugly, low-status. Beautiful women never have to resort to force to get what they want. So if you’re living with such a woman, it’s an immense DLV.

  92. Höllenhund says:

    The men who physically abuse their wives/partners have traditionally fallen into two categories:

    1) Sadists and men with anger management issues. They have always existed and represent a small minority.

    2) Lower betas and gammas. These are the men currently viewed as unmarriageable. In the old days though, they also had to marry, and they didn’t like it one bit. They lead hellish lives in dysfunctional marriages where mutual sexual attraction was nonexistent. So many of them reacted by violence, out of desperation and resentment.

  93. lavazza1891 says:

    TFH: originally everyone lived in patrilocal tribes were all the men were relatives, so male weakness would harm his relatives and the female reproductivity would benefit his relatives, so he would reproduce by proxy, so to speak.

    Male weakness should not be considered a problem, since it’s not a problem for your close group of male relatives. And you should not protect women, since their reproductivity does not belong to your close group.

  94. slwerner says:

    Höllenhund – ”Let’s be honest: women who physically attack their men are mostly ugly, low-status.”

    Yup. Like Elin Nordegren with a 9-iron.

    Okay, sorry for the snark, but I think your putting too much stock in the notion that it is only ugly low-status who become physical. Just recently the issue of female-on-male DV has been thrust into public due to the young actress Emma Roberts (quite beautiful, and who enjoyed the high status of being the daughter of actor Eric Roberts, and niece of Julia Roberts) physically attacked her boyfriend.

    In general, what you say is true. Most IPV is seen amongst the lower class, be it male-on-female or female-on-male. Just as is the case with physical violence over-all. Lower SEC/lower status individuals simply tend to be more prone to physical aggression and physical violence.
    But, IMHO, the over-arching social atmosphere of female entitlement and female privilege has opened the door to more and more woman of higher SEC and status to feel that they can (and, perhaps should) act out physically against their men. I see it as merely part of the greater trend of the masses of people to “ape” the degenerate behaviors of the lower class.

    Not meaning this as a slight against you, I just don’t feel it is advisable to view the issue of female-on-male DV as something that dumb, ugly, poor people do. In fact, one of the most noticeable efforts of the DV industry has been to make the point that male-on-female DV is not relegated to trailer parks, etc. (and therefore can touch anyone, and thus everyone should be concerned).

    Plenty of good, solid husbands and fathers in nice neighborhoods suffer under the shame of physically violent wives, struggling to hide the truth from neighbors friends and families – as they know that their plights will likely be ignored, and they themselves ridiculed. In fact, it may be much easier for a lower SEC man to report his wife or girls friends DV, simply because most people understand that poor women can be violent and out of control.

  95. Buck says:

    There is a sea change going on in LE right now, believe me. The Gay marriage thing is part of it. There are lots of cops who have been through or are going through the frivorce/family law meat grinder and they are well aware of the stacked deck.
    Most cops are aware of the fast-finger 911 dialing women who seek to use us as their relationship muscle and we are not playing along…this is why feminists keep demanding more ridiculous laws that MANDATE enforcement action. They have cried wolf too often, no one is listening anymore.
    I can tell you, I routinely arrest the woman when the facts make it clear that she is the assailant. Most of my peers do the same.
    Men, if she threatens you, hits you, abuses the children, takes medication and neglects the kids….report it!!!!!
    Use “their” laws against them!
    DO NOT MARRY, DO NOT SHACK UP !!!
    Ask a prospective date what she thinks about Tiger’s wife and the golf club, Elana Bobbitt and the knife, Hulk Hogan’s ex-now-cougar banging the pool boy… if she agrees or even snickers…PASS!!!!

  96. lzozozozooz

    My Dearest Elspeth,

    In extracting the pure principles which Jesus Christ taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests and churchians, who have travestied them into various forms of Game, as instruments of riches and power and pussyyssyzyzzlozoz and buttholzozzizlo to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I am performing this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines guranteed to be HATED by the churchiansz when they sense that the Pure, Exalted Words of Christ fail to make their butthzozlzizlzo and ginas go tinzgzlzozlzozzlzlozolzlzozo. lzozozlzlzo

    lzozozolzolzozoz

  97. slwerner says:

    Off-topic:

    Dalrock, have you seen this?

    http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdf

    “A new study from Bowling Green State University suggests that less women are getting married and when they do they are waiting longer.”

    Actually, calling it a study seems an overstatement. It’s really just a factsheet based on a review of data.

    And, I didn’t take the time to do more than read through it, so it might be nothing more than a re-presentation of data you’ve already been through. Just linking it in case it might be something new and useful.

    [D: Thanks! I hadn't seen that. The best part of that data is the long historical view. Otherwise I think the way I broke out the data here is much more helpful to understand what is going on. You would think they would do something similar, because the % of the population which is currently married is a hard stat to understand if you aren't considering timing of marriages (in addition to divorce & remarriage rates).]

  98. The whole notion that “women civilize men” is ridiculous. The truth is that the opposite is the case: men civilize women.

    Yep. To be specific, men create civilization to have a place to keep women. So some people looked at that and said, “Well, if you leave a bunch of men to themselves, they’ll be happy just wandering around, finding enough food and shelter to get by, hoping to run across a football. Throw women into the mix and suddenly you get cities, vacuum cleaners, and operas. Therefore women civilize men.” But that makes it sound like women actively cause it, which isn’t the case at all. What happens is, a guy gets a woman and doesn’t want the other guys in the pack to see her naked, so he needs a private place for her to bathe and change clothes, and presto: you’ve got houses and bathrooms. It’s the men who create it, for the selfish (and valid) reason that they don’t want to share their women with the other guys around the campfire.

  99. tacomaster says:

    Deti, thanks for posting the idiotic power/abuse wheel. Don’t forget its cousin, the TEEN POWER AND CONTROL WHEEL. I had to sit through an excruciatingly day long bs “men are all abusers” class at my college for my Psychiatric Nursing class a few years ago that was taught by the women shelter feminazis. I seriously had to bite my tongue all day long. I, like several of the posts above, had a bad run-in with an exgirlfriend back in college who came into my apartment, destroyed my belongings and then assaulted me. She was high at the time. The cops showed up and took pictures of my bleeding wounds and bruises (I just blocked her) and had my roommate even write up a statement. Long story short the DA decided not to prosecute because my ex told the cops I got her pregnant and gave her AIDS, both of which were false.

    So I asked the feminazi teaching the class if women ever assault men and she told me “no, they are incapable of hurting men”. I asked her if they did in fact did assault a man where should he go and what about his children because abuse shelters don’t exist for men. Her reply was that he could go to a homeless shelter with his kids. My raging man-hater professor suggested he be thrown in jail for saying a woman hit him and falsely accusing her (in my ‘hypothetical situation” that they didnt believe could happen). So this whole day was geared around men “abusing” men and doing role playing situations where every scenario leads to a woman being killed by her husband or boyfriend after he buys her flowers. Yes, the situation/formula was typically along the lines of: women doesnt make dinner for husband, husband beats wife, wife stays because she doesn’t have a degree or money, husband feels guilty, wife talks to friend who convinces her to leave, husband buys flowers, wife forgives him, husband beats her again and then kills her.

    Other fun “abuse” definitions included from the power wheel: making her feel crazy (LOL!!!), playing mind games (WTF?), threatening to take the children away (do guys really do that?), and displaying weapons (guess I’d better put my gun collection away). The reason abuse stats are skyrocketing is because all these things are now defined as abuse. It’s just beyond idiotic. Real abuse does occur and it is a travesty but these people have water downed the impact and true meaning of it.

    Thanks for the awesome post Deti.

    Oh, one more thing, I forgot the age, I think it’s like 14 or so, but if you are a male you can’t get into the women shelter with your mom because you are a potential abuser according to what I heard from the class. Sad.

  100. Right, which is why I don’t think people are ever going to care very much about DV directed at men. It’s not feminism — it’s biology here.

    Right. I read somewhere that the average boy surpasses his mother in raw strength at the age of six. Men are just way stronger than women, and our tendency to laugh off female-on-male violence, and even think less of a man who has been injured by a woman, reflects that. Guns and knives even things up quite a bit, but deep down at the instinctual level we don’t know that — we just know women are no match for men physically, and a man who needs help defending himself against a woman is a wuss.

  101. Opus says:

    @Cail Corbishev

    I am intrigued to learn that it is now being claimed that it is thanks to women that Opera was invented. Previously Opera had in its origins been traced back to the Florentine Camerata, a group of like minded men who met at the home of Count Bardi, with a view to discussing the latest trends in the arts and with a view to reviving Greek Drama, which together with the ‘stile recitativo’ led to the first opera, Peri’s Eurydice of 1597. Amongst the group were Vincenzo Galileo, father of the great astronomer. No woman has previously recorded as having been present at the meetings of the Florentine Camerata.

    I wish women would make up their minds as to whether they were being deliberately excluded (for otherwise it would not have been Opera that was invented but probably more curtains that were sewn together with the 16th century equivalent of the Ada Initiative and a non-event probably known as StairsGate, where an unnamed Camerataist invited a sceptical-woman who had read too much Montaigne and Sanchez to his Ducal home to imbibe the new-fangled drink Coffee); or whether on the contrary they did everything (Galileo was a woman!!!).

  102. >>So I asked the feminazi teaching the class if women ever assault men and she told me “no, they are incapable of hurting men”. <<

    Yes, women are incapable of hurting men–but we have to let women serve in combat roles, because they would make such great soldiers!

  103. greyghost says:

    Civilized societies are not based on feral biology. Biology is only incorporated in civilized society based on the results. In the DV case biology has no place. When it does we have the madness we are discussing here.

  104. Casey says:

    @ The Real Peterman

    Roger that.

    “I am a weak & defenseless woman, so I need all these domestic violence rules that & laws that favour me & punish men, because I cannot defend myself against a man.”

    Next sentence:

    “I am a strong & capable woman, so I need all these affirmative action rules & laws that favour me & punish men, because I can do anything a man can do.”

    (Sound of hamster running furiously in wheel)

  105. Hopeful says:

    @Casey

    Absolutely hilarious.

  106. The Real Peterman says:

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm

    “The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men.”

  107. The Real Peterman says:

    “Civilized societies are not based on feral biology. Biology is only incorporated in civilized society based on the results. In the DV case biology has no place. When it does we have the madness we are discussing here.”

    Too true Greyghost.

  108. freebird says:

    “If a man and a woman can both commit the same violent act against their spouse, and the man is arrested and charged with a crime but the woman is not, then there will probably be more “male-perpetrated criminal asaults” because it is technically not a crime when the woman does it.”

    Thanks Tom.
    That is what I wanted to say,all I could think was “The stats are cooked.”

    Hispanics are identified as white when *accused* of an offense(counted as an offense)
    But counted as Hispanic by the FBI when a victim.

    That and the Federal grants are contingent upon sheer number of MEN ran through the system.

    Women are not run through the system if it can be avoided at all,as it results in negative income and also bucks the prevailing power of the shelter advocates.

    Hence the system is self feeding,a circular feedback loop.

  109. feeriker says:

    we just know women are no match for men physically, and a man who needs help defending himself against a woman is a wuss.

    I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating, ad nauseum: when men are assaulted by women, it is NOT because they are incapable of fighting back; it’s because they are hardwired to restrain themselves from fighting back.

    A man physically assaulted by a woman who responds in kind in self-defense is liable to cripple or kill her. Even if he has no qualms whatsoever about doing so in his own well-justified defense, he realizes that “the law” will NEVER acknowledge this right of self-defense and that he almost certainly will be arrested and charged with murder, no matter what evidence clearly supports his self-defense claim. It is therefore less risky for him to simply absorb the abuse than to see his life destroyed. Abusive and manipulative women know this to be the case and they capitalize on it accordingly.

  110. Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  111. @tacomaster actually abuse statistics arent skyrocketing … even with the new definitions dv & abuse by men is ridiculously low

    Rape is virtually none-existent, theres plenty of articles complaining about poliice having only a conviction rate of 6% … & 95% of rapes going unreported … according to a survey … lol

    Its all a scam

  112. Some men, probably more than just a few, are emotionally abused by their wives. Some of these men try and try to help their wives overcome their pathological need to verbally hurt their husbands, but to no avail. The therapy industry is just as biased against men as the rest of society. These men know that if they lose control and get angry there is the potential for the wife to call law enforcement and turn the tables, which of course will go against the man. Some of these men remain in their marriages and just acquiesce, and swallow the crap due to loving their children and not wanting to risk losing their relationship with their children due to the unfair family courts. In reality emotional abuse by wives is DV, but I am sure this type of DV does not enter into any of the statistical data.

    Young men need for us older men to explain these facts to them.

  113. Alogon says:

    Sure, when women are violent it’s because “they are being battered”. If you stretch the definition of abuse – http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/10/18/an-immodest-proposal-domestic-violence-groups-claim-the-use-of-logic-by-men-is-abuse/.

    “Your Honour, I had to kill him, he was being rational.”
    “You poor dear. Case dismissed!”

  114. Martian Bachelor says:

    Western civilization is currently obsessed with the well-being of women to the point of a mass neurosis.

    This is dysfunctional because the future does not depend on the traditional female function (reproduction – which can be more of a liability than an asset these days) nearly so much as it does on the traditional male function – problem solving.

    With the mass neurosis in place, male problem solving itself is part of the dysfunction.

  115. Alogon says:

    Here in Ontario, from the gubimint –
    Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers who are aware or who ought reasonably to be aware that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace must take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect a worker.

    The Occupational Health and Safety Act defines workplace violence. Domestic violence is interpreted in a manner consistent with the workplace violence definition when it may occur in the workplace.

    It is in your best interests to be able to recognize the signs of domestic violence in order to keep your workers safe. While there are numerous signs of domestic violence, the most common one in the workplace is harassment, over the phone or in person.

    If warning signs of domestic violence are noticed, or if a worker discloses abuse, here are some things you can do:

    -Talk to the victim privately about what you or others have seen. Express concern for the worker’s safety.
    -Provide information on help that is available (for example, Employee Assistance Plan, community counselling) and offer referrals to appropriate agencies (for example, shelters, Assaulted Women’s Helpline).
    -Provide a copy of the booklet Domestic Violence Doesn’t Stop When You go to Work: How to get Help or Support a Colleague who may Need Help and any other resources you may have.
    -Offer to assist with calling the police. When violence has occurred in the workplace, or if you are concerned for the immediate safety of a worker, call the police.
    -Help the victim develop a safety plan that takes into consideration safety at the workplace.
    -Implement security measures and explore alternative work arrangements to increase safety.
    -Consider permitting temporary leave that would allow the worker to deal with legal issues, find housing and childcare, or cope with any other issues.

    Note: If you are aware that domestic violence is occurring at a worker’s home and a child has been assaulted, or if you are afraid for the child’s safety due to violence in the home, you have a legal obligation to report your concerns under the Child and Family Services Act. This is true whether or not domestic violence occurs in the workplace. This legal obligation to report applies to all persons in Ontario, including professionals who work with children. Call your local children’s aid society for more information.
    -Implement accountability measures if the abuser also works for you.

    I get speaking up when someone needs help but, in my view, this is the legal system’s responsibility not an employer’s duty. There are legal consequences if you as an employer screw up here or miss something. When DV is noticed by an employer then that employer should call police and that’s it. Allowing it to be an ongoing thing whereby action plans need to be drawn up should the crazed spouse show up is nuts. Even if a person is in need of help there is a limit in my eyes that an employer should not asked to go beyond. This sort of thing can be majorly disruptive to your workplace and other employees may quit in fear or frustration.

    Just my 2-discontinued cents

  116. feeriker says:

    Alogon posted Here in Ontario, from the gubimint –
    Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, employers who are aware or who ought reasonably to be aware that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace must take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect a worker.

    So, in other words, if I understand the intent of this correctly: If an employer “suspects” that acts of DV against one of their employees is taking place, either in the workplace or at the employee’s home, they are required by law to report it to the “property authoritehs” or face legal sanctions?

    PLEASE tell me that I’m misreading this…

  117. SDH says:

    In order to fix or at least start to change this seems almost impossible. My son took his son out of 2nd grade in a PRIVATE SCHOOL and started home schooling because the teachers, the curriculum, the READING LIST devalued males. This indoctrination is starting early.

  118. Pingback: Dr. Helen » Domestic Violence Industry: Cowing Men into Sumission?

  119. Dan Mclain says:

    Everyone loves to give after they have plenty but the bottom line is people work for themselves. Nine out of ten spouses work. I can’t do anything about “no fault” and 50/50 split divorce laws. I just wanted to go my separate way. Her divorce lawyer told my ex to be as uncoporative as possible. I had the police called on me because my ex lied. The police would not look at the evidence. The “retribution of wealth” system is a rip off. The war on woman is a war on men. When the third party no nothing state gets involved it feels like being cold cocked. Talk about creating hatred when disgust was the only emotion.

  120. geek49203 says:

    Guy here. Done work for DV agencies. And yes, it’s all about 1970′s feminism for sure. Which is why my local abused women’s shelter did “Vagina Monologues” in a fairly conservative town as their annual fundraiser. And it explains their “Real Men Don’t Hit” annual campaign, even though they privately acknowledge that 1/3 of the abuse cases in the local court involve a female defendant.

  121. Anonymous says:

    Women, good; men, bad! (And we thought Phil Hartman was just being silly on SNL.)

  122. geek49203 says:

    I mean — seriously, I kept asking them if they knew that lesbians sometimes beat each other up, and gay guys normally live w/o violence, And that the local DV court judge told me that 1/3 of the defendants were female. I did work for a place that did supervised parental visitation, and since many of the social workers (all female) were trained by the women’s shelter, they were always talking about “male batterers.” I had to remind them that 3/4 of all of our local abuse/neglect cases had female defendants, and if they had anti-male bias while evaluating, they were not being fair — or legal — in their work. They hated me….

  123. 8oxer says:

    The answer to all this angst is not to get married. Ever. To anyone. For that matter: don’t invite a woman over for more than an hour, unless you know her well. No marriage. No living together. Keep your freedom, sanity and money.

    There is a wonderful life to be had with just doing your own thing and going your own way. Sad that so many men don’t realize this.

  124. Michael says:

    “The answer to all this angst is not to get married. Ever. To anyone. For that matter: don’t invite a woman over for more than an hour, unless you know her well. No marriage. No living together. Keep your freedom, sanity and money.

    There is a wonderful life to be had with just doing your own thing and going your own way. Sad that so many men don’t realize this”

    -Then how are we supposed to get sex? Let alone trust loyalty and companionship.I’ve been doing my own thing. It’s no fun going to Vegas or the Bahamas alone. Sure, it’s nice to get away but it’s not any fun alone.

  125. Mark says:

    @Buck

    “”There are lots of cops who have been through or are going through the frivorce/family law meat grinder and they are well aware of the stacked deck.””

    Here in Toronto I heard a rumor that 75% of the Police force are divorced!

    “”There is a sea change going on in LE right now, believe me. The Gay marriage thing is part of it.””

    That is good to hear.How does “Gay Marriage” play into this?….just curious.

    Being a cop you get to work with a lot of the Femi-Nazi’s……I really feel for you pal!!!!!

  126. Mark says:

    @feeriker

    “”So, in other words, if I understand the intent of this correctly: If an employer “suspects” that acts of DV against one of their employees is taking place, either in the workplace or at the employee’s home, they are required by law to report it to the “property authoritehs” or face legal sanctions?

    PLEASE tell me that I’m misreading this…””

    As a fellow Ontarian I believe that Alogon is correct in his assessment of the OHSA.

  127. Mark says:

    @Michael

    “”Then how are we supposed to get sex? Let alone trust loyalty and companionship.I’ve been doing my own thing””

    Sex is quite easy to get…….as for the “”trust loyalty and companionship””….that is another story.If I were you I would work at getting a “friends with benefits” relationship with some woman that you know.It is not that difficult.Men have a tendency to forget that women like sex also….and most of them are NOT getting enough! Just make sure that the first few times that you “shag” her that you do it in a Hotel.Pretty hard to cry “sexual assault” or “rape” when she willingly goes into a Hotel with you…is on video with you renting the room….and you have the desk clerk as a witness!

  128. They Call Me Tom says:

    @Mark- In California, anyone who is in any kind of supervisory position has to watch about four hours of video… part of which says, if you see something than men do at the office that could constitute sexual harassment as the state defines it, you have to report it.

    The problem lies in the what the state perceives as crossing the line, and what the average man or woman considers to be crossing the line. A lot of female former coworkers have given me hugs and (gasp) even kisses on the cheek once were not working together and say, ‘Now that there’s no sexual harassment to worry about’. Which is to say, even most women find the state of California’s definition of sexual harassment to be a little overdone.

  129. Mark says:

    Here is an excellent article that I got over at http://rmaxgenactivepua.wordpress.com/…………Here is the article…please read this guys…a real eye opener!

    http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.ca/2013/07/amanda-marcotte-meets-judgybitch-bigot.html

  130. Buck says:

    Mark says:
    @That is good to hear.How does “Gay Marriage” play into this?….just curious.

    Gay marriage destroys the paradigm Men bad-woman good…now with gay marriage the courts must actually seek to find the REAL bad partner, facts suddenly become relevant again!

  131. Pingback: Domestic Violence- A Grievance Agenda Geared Toward Feminism? | I'm a Man! I'm 41!

  132. James K says:

    @SSM:

    However, it seemed to me even then that the shelter was more of a homeless shelter for mentally ill women (and often, their poor children).

    There are many overlapping services for women who identify as DV victims, and in practice these services can be accessed by “thick file” individuals who may have multiple problems with mental health, substance abuse, or their own violent tendencies. The corresponding services for men are limited or non-existent. Yet, when we see someone who has these problems and is literally in the gutter (or sitting on the sidewalk), that person is nearly always male. A significant number are military veterans. Somehow women’s shelters succeed in pulling at our heartstrings (and pursestrings) by painting a picture of women at risk, but it literally ignores the evidence of its eyes.

    The first women’s shelter in the world was opened by Erin Pizzey in London in the early 1970s. You’d think that she would be a feminist folk heroine, but unfortunately this is not the case. The reason is that her purpose was genuinely to help women victims of violence, and to report what she saw. She found that about two thirds of the women passing through her shelter wanted help to escape from their violent partner and start a new life; but one third were as violent as the men they were “escaping” from, would often return to them or to someone equally bad, and led lives of drama in which Pizzey and her staff, and social workers, had walk-on parts.

    Feminists hated these observations, because they wanted to use the DV issue to demonize men and attract funding for themselves. From the very beginning they tried to get Pizzey’s refuge closed down. Her book “Prone to Violence” is out of print because of pressure from feminists. In fact, feminists were so determined to suppress Pizzey’s work that they systematically stole her book from libraries. Nowadays you can find a scanned copy on the internet – and it is required reading for anyone with an interest in DV.

    Some domestic violence is real and it is a good thing that law enforcement intervenes now.

    Yes, I hope we can all agree on that.

    @empathologism

    There are some f-d up people in the world, with sufficient provocation they snap. In fact it seemed that reaching sufficient provocation was the aim, thinking back.

    “Prone to Violence” makes precisely this point. Some damaged women will ratchet up the provocation until the man snaps, because that what they want to achieve.

    How does one deal with both sides of that issue without being labeled victim blamer?

    It’s a really tough one – the phrase “explains but does not excuse” comes to mind, but is barely adequate.

    It is vital however to insist on addressing this issue, and refuse to be labeled a “victim blamer”. And remember that of course many DV cases do not have “provocation” as an “explanation”.

  133. James K says:

    @Opus

    For some men, of course, hell will freeze over before they cease to swallow whole and uncooked the emotional-Suchi that women serve up for them.

    The “delicate flower” view of womanhood has been the standard view of both men and women, even before first-wave feminism.

    Thomas Hardy’s portayal of female hypergamy in his novels was considered so shocking by Victorians that, in the face of relentless criticism, Hardy gave up writing novels and turned to poetry instead.

    J. M. Synge’s play “The Playboy of the Western World” has a similar theme, and caused riots when in was first staged in Dublin in the early 20th Century because of its supposed disrespect for Irish womanhood.

    We often blame second-wave feminists for the distorted world-view that is prevalent today; but often this outlook builds on foundations that are much older, and possibly even biological. Second-wave feminism has scored its biggest successes when it could take an existing social or biological attitude, and make only a small adaptation in order to achieve its goals. We could be more effective by adopting the same tactics.

    @TFH:

    Yet, resources are still transferred to women as though all of it was enabling the survival of children. The number of things we see money spent on today by women (shoes, purses, needlessly big houses, etc.) are evidence of this misallocaiton, as women are pocketing resources that were meant for children.

    A good example of a modern practice that has ancient foundations.

    @Alogon:

    Domestic Violence Groups Claim the Use of Logic by Men is Abuse

    Truly amazing. Too bad about Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and the entirety of the Western Church.

    Of course, when asking why so few women are Professors of Mathematics, they will tell you that a women and men are equally capable of logical thought.

    I am speechless.

  134. Opus says:

    @James K

    You clearly know a lot about DV, and so (long thread) you may be interested to read the brief summary of my experience of it at 2.44 am on the 25th July – or perhaps you already have done so. As you will see I clearly think it a racket, yet I also find that when one points this out to police officers and other people entrusted with the smooth running of the country I am met with disbelief, and as if I have committed some social faux pas.

    I also find that if you ask men to consider whether they have ever been assaulted (and not making excuses for their own behaviour) they will all confess to female violence against themselves albeit of a trivial nature. On one occasion drawing a false assault allegation to an acquaintance of mine his response was simply that one should never say such things about women. That is: he knew it to be true but chose to pretend otherwise. This defeats me especially as I would say women overall are just getting worse and worse in their behaviour and their false allegations, which in turns leads to men walking away from women and lead to the marriage strike (written about elsewhere on this blog).

    I have not read Hardy (save Madding Crowd, so long ago I cannot recall it) or Synge. Perhaps I should do so. Never been very interested in the west country.

  135. I get a good laugh now and again.

    As with divorce, as with the violence industry, as with the victim industry. It’s merely a way to make money. This is why I dislike statements that say it is good to have the state involved. It is plainly not. Once the state gets involved, the amount of monies that can get funneled to shysters’ pockets, is huge. An industry then gets built around some apparent injustice and then becomes so reliant upon the state, that more and more ‘infractions’ need to become possible crimes to prop it up. The feminists cook the numbers because it acts like a fundraiser for their pockets. The more their stats shock, the more the moola comes rolling in. The race baiters do the same.

    Violence against men doesn’t count because it isn’t a good money maker. No one wants to take up that ’cause’ because the money flows in the opposite direction and taking up the ’causes’ with the losers of society is a sure fire way to end up as one of them.

    Until you get government out of divorce, out of the violence industry out of the victim industry and out of people’s lives. This will merely continue. Until the money stops flowing from the coffers, nothing changes.

    The only way to stop this is, is for communities to police their own without state backing and without tax payer funded initiatives.

  136. James K says:

    @Opus

    Yes, that’s an interesting post. Also, the “social faux pas” is a measure of how much people have internalized their indoctrination. First they tell us “women are incapable of making false allegations”. When that position becomes untenable, they tell us that we must not publicize false allegations, and under no circumstances punish the accuser, because it would deter genuine victims from coming forward. This represents a basic misunderstanding of the human condition: if a person is free to gain revenge over someone by committing a crime without fear of penalty, many people will do so.

  137. James K says:

    @Opus

    There is an excellent film of Madding Crowd (1967, dir John Schlesinger)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061648/

  138. Hannah says:

    I read some of Thomas Hardy in my childhood and Tess of the d’Urbervilles left a deep impression on me.

    Feminist Hater – I’m glad to see you here – hope you’re doing ok.

    rmaxgenactivepua – I’ve tried several times to comment at yours but am unable for some reason? – great post on how hypergamy isn’t hardwired btw :)

  139. Ryan says:

    Lots of bitter men on here..yikes..

  140. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    This could be an article on its own.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377539/Temper-tantrum-wife-Whitney-Mongiat-says-husband-tricked-car-video-shes-filing-divorce.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    In true chick fashion, she hasn’t accepted any responsibility for her actions……it’s all her husbands fault. The comments in the media are similar.

    If some of the softer points in the list you quote are ‘abuse’; then certainly this woman’s actions should be considered same. A spoiled little girl, throwing a temper tantrum for not getting her own way.

    Also in true chick fashion……..she has thrown down a divorce gauntlet.

    While posting this type of video is certainly a vitriolic act; I rather suspect this man has been subjected to this woman’s abusive behaviour since DAY 1.

  141. Opus says:

    @James K

    I am grateful for the recommendations and will usually walk over hot coals to view Julie Christie, which reminds me that surely Frederick Raphael’s Darling (for which the Academy granted her an Oscar) is the ultimate in Hypergamy – where {spoiler alert} she goes from decent young man to TV Reporter (Bogarde), to wealthy businessman (Harvey) to Italian Prince – and she is always the victim!!! – and gets away with it.

  142. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Within the article link I posted is this little ‘gem’.

    “Whitney Mongiat is filing for divorce after claiming her soon-to-be ex-husband provoked her into the tantrum he filmed and loaded onto YouTube”

    “PROVOKED HER INTO A TANTRUM”……..I guess what is sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the gander.

    When is the last time that argument worked for a man describing his wife’s actions?

  143. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Oh, and the White Knight’s over at YouTube have taken down the clip, as it is against their policy of prohibiting any content that is designed to ‘harass, bully or threaten’.

    If anyone’s actions are harassing, bullying, or threatening……it’s that poor bastard’s crazy wife.

  144. They Call Me Tom says:

    Time and again it seems, that feminists only argument is name-calling. Have we had even one feminist or white knight post an actual opposing argument ever on these threads? Or is name-calling the entirety of the repertoire?

  145. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/31 | Free Northerner

  146. feeriker says:

    TCMT asked: Have we had even one feminist or white knight post an actual opposing argument ever on these threads? Or is name-calling the entirety of the repertoire?

    No, never, and yes, and nothing more, respectively, in answer to your two questions.

  147. Kristen inDallas says:

    some nice bait and switch going on both sides of the fence. Offering a statistic about assaults in general (much of which is male on male and occurs outside the family unit) and implying its the same as inter-relational assaults is deceptive. But then again, so is citing a stat about the number of male victims and implying that those are cases of a female aggressor. To be honest, many of the victims of domestic abuse are children (male and female) and those children might be abused by either parent, a step-parent or older sibling. Any honest discussion about abuse needs to be clear right up front that “victim” is NOT the same thing as “spouse/partner of the abuser.” We should also be pretty quick to distinguish the numbers of adult male consenting partner victims, vs minor male children victims.

  148. @Kristen

    Wrong most of the victims of domestic abuse arent children, the majority of victims are men

    As 90% of the time men are jailed, jail is the ultimate abuse, jail is the REAL abuse

    Domestic violence is just the excuse for the abuse of jailing men

  149. Mark says:

    @rmax

    “”As 90% of the time men are jailed, jail is the ultimate abuse, jail is the REAL abuse
    Domestic violence is just the excuse for the abuse of jailing men””

    Exactly!……^5′s

  150. Pike says:

    Having been the recipient of an Order of Protection at the beginning of my divorce, I can say with all authority that the DV / VAWA industry is there as a means to promote and maintain the the State’s role as surrogate father, while getting the money to raise them from me.

    All one has to do is follow the money……..from federal grants to state grants to the regional non-profits that create and perpetuate the propaganda.

    Look guys, we need to stop worrying about trying to find parity in the law around DV, because the point was never to protect women from the ‘epidemic’ of DV. The point has always been to create the legal framework to strip men of their assets and redistribute them with impunity.

  151. Pingback: No room for headship here. | Dalrock

  152. Moses says:

    Follow the money.

    The Domestic Violence complex is an industry. It pushes its black tendrils into the crevices of private life not only because fems get power from it, but because they get easy money and cushy jobs from it.

    Most “charity”, oops I mean “non-profit” organizations exaggerate the problem they purport to solve in order to attract more donations. Those donations go to pay nice salaries, benefits and conference travel expenses for the administrators of the non-profit, who usually are the primary beneficiaries of the charity. They don’t have to sell a product or make a profit, so there is no accountability for how they spend their money or their time. They just play on emotion.

    Even if they start for the right reasons, the law of incentives dictates that they devolve into a scam which creates and/or exaggerates a social problem in order to make money. Where do you think the money came from to pay for that expensive billboard in Texas?

  153. Pike says:

    @Moses – Exactly.

    The organization that paid for that billboard is a non-profit. The people (women) who run that non-profit are getting government grants to create the propaganda. Part of that money (most of that money) goes to pay for their salaries. It is just a business.

    A couple of years ago I did a small amount of research for the state that I live in, to find and follow the VAWA grants from the DOJ (the agency that doles out VAWA funding) down through the state AG office (which disperses the funding) and the non-profits that received the funding. This is available, since it is a matter of public record. A few hundred thousand here, a million there….it was pretty incredible.

    I’ve come to believe that we’re going about this the wrong way. We don’t need to spend time concerning ourselves with parity under the law, since the law was never really designed to protect anyone; it was designed to redistribute power and wealth. We need to push this over the top, advertise the absurdities so publicly and loudly that everyone will begin to understand.

    I’ve been thinking that perhaps the best way to expose this racket is to form a non-profit myself, turn the spare bedroom of my apartment into a federally-subsidized shelter, and use some of the money to create billboards too:

    “Did he tell you couldn’t buy that dress? YOU’RE BEING ABUSED! GET AN ORDER OF PROTECTION!”

    “Did he ask you to help with the utilities bills from your job? YOU’RE BEING ABUSED! GET AN ORDER OF PROTECTION!”

    “Are you just not haaaapy in your marriage? YOU’RE BEING ABUSED! GET AN ORDER OF PROTECTION!”

    Any other suggestions?

  154. lzoozozozoz

    as everyone can witness here, the jealous fanboyz routinely attack, castigate, and impugn da GBFM for quoting Jesus, Socrates, Moses, Homer, Aristotle, Mises, and Genesis. Every time I quote Christ, they wail and gnash their teeth.

    and their parents did the same thing to jesus:

    29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[c]”

    for some time i have been curious. “why was it so easy to seize the church and the university from men? why was it so easy to replace the noble, exalted GRETA BOOKS FOR MENZ with butt and gina tingzlzozozo and jealous little fanboy h8rs who found the highest good not in following Jesus nor Moses nor Aritsotle nor Socrates nor Homer nor Honor, but in getting their tiny peckerz wet in pre-bernanakifed bunglzlzo butthzozlzolzozoz and learning the butthole-centric art of game instead of the Gospels?”

    Well, as time goes on, it beocmes more and more clear that is because the churchiansz fanboysz hate Christ and his teachings as much, if not more, than they hate Aristotle, Moses, Homer, and Socrates, whiel they love buttcockingz and giana coakksosiznz and fmeinsist lit clit clit lit lzozozozozo.

    IN THE MIDST OF ZEUS’ LIGHTNING & MOSES’ THUNDER
    A LOST GENERATION OF MEN BEHLD DA GBFM IN WONDER.
    AS HE CAME DOWN FROM HIGH OFF THE MOUNTAIN PEAK
    TO DELIVER DA TRUTH & HONOR ALL YOUNG MEN SEEK.
    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/zeuss-lightning-moses-thunder-da-reason-dey-banned-da-great-books-4-menz-is-dat-da-great-bookz-teach-of-the-true-nature-of-womenz-and-da-honor-of-men/

    Here’s a list of books the PUAS hate and detest and regularly attack, excoriate, and vote down so as to please the central banking feminsista fanboyz who rule over them via butt tingzlzozoz:

    0. THE BIBLE
    1. Homer’s Iliad
    2. Homer’s Odyssey
    3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
    4. Virgil’s Aeneid
    5. Socrates’ Apology
    6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
    7. Plato’s Repulic
    8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
    9. Aristotle’s Poetics
    10. Dante’s Inferno
    11. The Declaration of Independence
    12. The Constitution
    13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
    14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    15. Newton’s Principia
    16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
    17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
    18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
    19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
    21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
    22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
    23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
    24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
    25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
    26. THE BIBLE

    :LZOZOZOZZOL HONOR YOUR FATHERS: HONOR THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN! READ THE GREAT BOOKS! LZOZOZLOZOLZOLZOZ (TM) zlozozolzolzlzo

    The renaissance hath begun.

    As Athena called Telemachus to adventure–to sail forth and learn the news of His True Father Odysseus, so too does GBFM call upon ye to man up, sail forth, and learn the news of your true Fathers.

    Like Hamlet you came of age in a world where your father–THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–had been murdered. Where they had been debauched, debased, bernenekfified out of the fiat-debt curriculum. And just as Hamlet’s Father called upon Him to Avenge his Death and Set the World Right, so too do I call upon all of ye buton-mashing gamersz and manboob betasz churchians to Man Up and Honor Your True Fathers.

    Like Odysseus’s son Telemachus you came of age in a house occupied by false suitors trying to buttehxt your mom Penelope alongside your future wife, deosuling her faster than Bill Bennett can gamble away a million dollars in Vegas. You came of age in a home absent of your true Father–Odysseus and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Like Telemachus and Hamlet, you were born to know of your Fathers and do the work of your Fathers, as did Jesus. And like Jesus, you were born into a fallen world occupied by arrogant neeoconth Scribes and Pharisees, lorded over by intellectually-indifferent Pontius Pilates, ruled by mobs (and female prison wardensz lzozlz) who vote to set the murderer free, while sending Jesus to die upon the Cross.

    But all of that was then, and This is Now.

    Do not fail to Honor your Fathers by neglecting to live for the Classical, Epic Honor that so many of them not only Lived for, but Died For.

    Do not turn away from the vast Gifts they bequeathed you with–THE GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS.

    Begin today, begin today, all ye fanboyz mashing buttonz in your single-mom’s basements, all you PUA artsitsz trying to get your occkas wet in sterile bungholez and sterilized ginaholez made sterile by the fed’s before and morning after pillz. Begin today, all my fatherless, ritalin-addicted, gold-farming sons and READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Learn of the HONOR of your FATHERS form Achilles and Moses on down. The tiny-cckcoaaks white-knighting Churchians will scowl and stamp their feet and scream at you that Jesus cam to Abolish the Law, while Jesus himself stated that He came to Fulfill it.

    When you were a child ye partook in childish things–in mashing buttons in your meaningless videogamez.

    But now that you are a Man, it is time to Man Up, which does not mean marrying a babebrnekified beenrnakified butethxted, desouled, single monz, but reading THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Begin today my firendz. BEGIINZ TODAYZ.

    I propose that a renaissance in the Great Books and Classics is needed so as to re-instill a more traditional Code of Honor which will enrich the lives of men, women, and children, and liberate us all from the debt-financed debauchery, deconstruction, and debasement.

    All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:

    0. THE BIBLE
    1. Homer’s Iliad
    2. Homer’s Odyssey
    3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
    4. Virgil’s Aeneid
    5. Socrates’ Apology
    6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
    7. Plato’s Repulic
    8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
    9. Aristotle’s Poetics
    10. Dante’s Inferno
    11. The Declaration of Independence
    12. The Constitution
    13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
    14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    15. Newton’s Principia
    16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
    17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
    18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
    19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
    21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
    22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
    23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
    24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
    25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
    26. THE BIBLE

    And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.

  155. Pingback: Power of 51% men's vote in 2014 Lok Sabha elections - Men Rights India

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s