Blowing the Whistle on the Domestic Violence Research Paradigm

This paper may already have made its rounds through the manosphere, but I stumbled onto it a few months back and I think it is very much worth sharing here.  Dr. Dutton is the head of the University of British Columbia Forensic Psychology lab.  From the short bio at the end of the paper it is clear that Dr. Dutton has been involved in the domestic violence field since the early 1970s:

In 1974, while on faculty at the University of British Columbia, he began to investigate the criminal justice response to wife assault, preparing a government report that outlined the need for a more aggressive response, and subsequently training police in “domestic disturbance” intervention techniques. After receiving training as a group therapist at Cold Mountain Institute, he co-founded the Assaultive Husbands Project in 1979, a court mandated treatment program for men convicted of wife assault.

The full paper is titled Domestic Abuse Assessment in Child Custody Disputes: Beware the Domestic Violence Research Paradigm.  I’ll share some choice quotes but the full paper is really worth reading.

The focus of the paper is specific to how agents of the court are being taught to view domestic violence when considering child custody.  To explain the issue he delves into the research and literature which these agents of the court are using to understand domestic violence:

Two recent publications (Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson 2003; and Bancroft & Silverman 2002) have linked domestic violence and custody assessment. Both are written with professional audiences in mind, both cite research studies on domestic violence with a view to expanding the awareness of “professionals, therapists, child protective and court personnel, battered mothers and to anyone else who is in a personal or professional position to touch the lives of children of battered women”.(Bancroft & Silverman p. xiii). Both provide one-sided analyses of domestic violence based on self-selected and non representative samples. It is the purpose of this paper to alert custody assessors to a more accurate data set on domestic violence incidence with a view to improving protection from threats to child safety.

He describes in detail how the whole mindset is stacked against men (emphasis mine):

Jaffe et al. then go on to define abuse, using the “Duluth Power and Control Wheel” that includes “Using Male Privilege” as a part of an octant of abusive strategies used against women.  Jaffe et al. then list, under “whom to assess”: Victimized mothers (p.44), Battering fathers (p.46) and “war torn children” (p. 49). Jaffe et al suggest using an Abuse Observation Checklist (Dutton 1992) and asking the victimized woman to describe the “first, worst and last” incident, followed by allowing the “alleged perpetrator an opportunity to respond”. It is not clear what response, apart from denial might be expected from an accused male. Indeed, the authors warn an assessor that (p. 42) the male perpetrator may “minimize their abusive behavior by blaming their victims or proclaiming that the abuse was uncharacteristic”. It seems that, once accused, the male can only use responses that the evaluator is already primed to see as disingenuous.

Not only is this unfair to men, but it is dangerous to the very children the profession is ostensibly protecting:

In addition, this view blinds assessors to another source of threat to children; their mother.  As we will see below, severe physical child abuse is more likely to be perpetrated by mothers than fathers.

But abuse by mothers is something the profession all but ignores:

…there is a priming of assessors to look only at the male as the abuse perpetrator, and having done so to suspect his denial of abuse. Denial of abuse will not exonerate him because really abusive men deny abuse as well. Although Jaffe et al tell evaluators to ‘review allegations with each party and give each side an opportunity to explain what happened” (p. 47), or to “have the alleged perpetrator complete a standard inventory about the abuse, to engage him in a discussion about what transpired during the course of the relationship”, they provide this suggestion to a reader who has already been informed that males are the perpetrators and that perpetrators lie. No algorithm is provided through which the truth might mystically emerge. Essentially the authors develop skepticism about male accounts and then advise the evaluator to use a clinical judgment already primed to disbelieve the alleged perpetrator.

The “researchers” don’t even bother to hide their bias behind gender neutral terms:

Both Jaffe et al and Bancroft & Silverman use “he” to refer to perpetrators of abuse and both are convinced that male abuse is by far the more serious. Jaffe et al’s section (p. 46) on battering fathers has no counterpart called “battering mothers”.


Bancroft and Silverman express many of the same concerns about batterers as parents as do Jaffe et al. Both Jaffe and Bancroft are aware of the deleterious effects of a battering personality on vulnerable children, however, throughout both books, the terms “batterer” and “he” and “victim” and “mother” or “she” are used interchangeably. The eventual mindset is that abuse perpetrators are almost always male, and when they are not, the abuse is not serious. What Kahneman & Tversky (1982) call a “representative heuristic” is developed; batterers have the attributes of maleness and they alone pose a risk to the child.


McCloskey et al, despite their claim of examining “different forms of family violence”, go on to say “our study examines domestic violence and psychopathology from the child’s as well as the mothers’ perspective”.

This massive scholarly blind spot results in studies which use demonstrably biased samples:

Another example of the problem in applying the woman as victim paradigm based on shelter samples to the general public can be seen in a paper by Appel & Holden (1998). These authors found, in a review of 31 studies that wife assault and physical abuse of children occurred from 20% to 100% when the sample selection basis was either battered women or abused children (average of 40%). However, in “representative community samples” the overlap was only 6%. In other words, the assumptions drawn from a shelter sample or a male perpetrator sample do not apply to community samples.

Another methodological problem is the gratuitous expansion of the term “abuse”:

Overlap rates diminish when items like physically coerces (as the authors point out, a legal form of punishment) were dropped from the study. The item “pushed, grabbed or shoved” generated the highest overlap followed by “slapped and spanked”. While these actions too, are problematic (Douglas & Straus 2003), they do not constitute “battering” and they inflate overlap rates for apparent abuse. However, they do so by including corporal punishment of children in the equation even though this corporal punishment is not legally or technically abuse (so long as it does not injure the child as is done for correction). As the authors put it “some of the highest rates of overlap came from reports of children of battered women but these reports included slap/spank”. (p 585). This argument creates an erroneous impression that spouse assault is mainly husband to wife and that such assault has a high likelihood of being accompanied by physical child abuse.

The academic blind spot for female initiated violence comes despite solid studies proving they are equally likely to be violent as men (bold text italicized in the original):

The argument is also made by advocates that womens’ violence is self-defensive. However, Stets & Straus (1989, 1992) reporting the results of the 1975 national US incidence survey found a pattern of female severe violence –with a non violent male occurred in 11.8% of 5,768 couples (and 9.6% of married couples), the reverse pattern (male severe violence –female non-violent) occurred in only 4.4% of couples (and 2.4% of married couple).2 For all kinds of violence across relationship types, females were unilaterally more violent than males to nonviolent partners (32% vs. 18%).

He traces the path of the bias in the research as it influences the very system which the next round of academic studies will use as data:

Researchers who focus on women from shelters or batterers groups samples have, unfortunately, had influence on the laws and legal process. The Judicial Council of California has a policy document called Parenting in the Context of Domestic Violence which was written by Edelson (March 2003). This document is available on a government website and although it reads in fine print that the views “do not necessarily” represent the official position of the Judicial Council of California, it is presented as to the public without any contradictory information. It represents a source for the public of information on domestic violence…

In the California Judicial Council report, victims of domestic violence are “battered mothers”, perpetrators of domestic abuse are “controlling and authoritarian compared to that of nonviolent fathers” ( p.3, i.e. perpetrators of abuse are male)…
Edelson cites Bancroft & Silverman (p.5, another court mandated male sample) to support his checklist for continuing risk to the children (from the father ). Edelson does a literature review but raises none of the issues I raise here. Appel & Holden’s (1998) work is cited uncritically and “often the perpetrating male beats the woman, who then abuses the child, or that both parents abuse the child” (p.10). No possibility of female initiated abuse is raised. Victims (who are battered mothers) parenting skills are reviewed (p. 13) and a concern is raised that mothers’ skills may be devalued because of a lack of information about male perpetrators. The male perpetrator- female victim model is now enshrined at the policy level.

A study of police response in Detroit found that when men asked for police assistance in domestic disputes, the incident was trivialized and the men belittled by the officers ((Buzawa, Thomas, Bannon & Jackson 1992). This happened regardless of the degree of injury. “..for example, one male reported requiring hospitalization for being stabbed in the back, with a wound that just missed puncturing his lungs. Despite his request to have the offending woman removed (not even arrested), the officers simply called an ambulance and refused formal sanctions against that women, including her removal.” (p. 265). A similar result was found by Brown (2004). Brown found that women were only arrested and prosecuted on domestic calls when they inflicted high levels of injury on male victims. Women were more likely than men to use weapons, typically a knife. This finding was replicated by Henning & Renauer (in press). It is possible to trace the pathway of disinformation here: unwarranted generalizing from a non- representative sample creates the view that only females are abusers, this becomes enshrined in policy and eventually in practice. Female violence is simply not perceived nor treated comparably to male violence. Hence, basing conclusion on “police statistics” is itself misleading.

This entry was posted in Child Custody, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Feminists, Scientific Paper. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Blowing the Whistle on the Domestic Violence Research Paradigm

  1. RL says:

    If domestic violence comes up it is always useful to refer to Steve Moxon’s chapter 10, “Home Lies, Violence between partners is not mostly by men” in his book “The Woman Racket” which can be retrieved from

  2. RL says:

    “A study of police response in Detroit found that when men asked for police assistance in domestic disputes, the incident was trivialized and the men belittled by the officers” This is crazy because women in particular, use psychological, manipulative weapons within relationships which go beyond mere fitness tests.

    “Women were more likely than men to use weapons, typically a knife.” Indeed, women use weapons, start the attack when partner vulnerable as asleep or get a violent attack on the partner outsourced to a relative, male orbiter, etc.

    What is also interesting is that women are more likely to stay with a dominant, abusive guy than a guy who ranks less high on these characteristics.

  3. Rmaxd says:

    I always figured marriage was the ultimate domestic violence, a woman could enforce on a man …. lol

    Women get addicted to the dopamine & adrenaline rush, generated by a hot abusive thug … also their estrogen gives them a pre-disposition to addiction to biochemicals, ie for bonding … ask Dubious Woman about her ex-hubby who gives his own kids crap … she’s probably lurking around here somewhere …

  4. Rmaxd says:

    “These authors found, in a review of 31 studies that wife assault and physical abuse of children occurred from 20% to 100% when the sample selection basis was either battered women or abused children (average of 40%).”

    Wtf … lol … so studies about wives assaulting children produces a selection bias of 80% ? … thats not a selection bias … thats outright bullshitting in broad daylight …

  5. ray says:

    He traces the path of the bias in the research as it influences the very system which the next round of academic studies will use as data:

    the CA Judicial Council isnt an academic organization — if only it were! lol

    the Council establishes policy and rules of court for ALL CA state courts, appellate and trial (i.e., all CA courts except federal jurisdictions)

    each state has a Judicial Council, and they are an EXTREMELY powerful group, usually composed of various sitting justices/judges, a few lawyers, and usually a few members of the state legislature

    the Councils have large administrative bodies that do all the legal research and legwork (except voting) called “Administrative Office of the Courts,” and the Councils are composed of “important” people invested in maintaining and/or expanding the Sistem — so theyre almost always increasing the power of the feminist court system, making the Rules of Court more woman-friendly, etc

    the Council also runs the Judicial Education system for state judges, with many conferences held at v upscale resorts indeed, quite a cushy gig . . . at these “educational retreats” the judges are [further] indoctrinated with pro-feminist propaganda, especially in the area of family law and DV

    you can be sure nothing but the feminist Party LIne of both u.s. political “parties” is presented to the judges at their sessions, guided by the (also feminist) curricula approved by the Council

    it’s a complex system, and there is a lot of money, power, and pride on display, but be certain that no “contradictory information” (i.e., pro-male info) passes through the layers of the Administrative Office of the Courts, “down” to the Judicial Council, and thence to the “learning” judges . . . that is not in the interest of Team Woman

    i spent most of the Eighties working as associate information officer half-time for the CA Council, and half-time as media liaison for the CA supreme court

    the deck is rigged against boys and men, and the rabbit holes and pockets are deep

  6. tm says:

    This from a few days ago:

    ‘A US study says.’ May be in the same spirit with the famous superbowl abuse statistics, the one-in-four mantra, the new ‘accidental rape’ concept, and other similar tenets.

  7. Dalrock says:


    the CA Judicial Council isnt an academic organization — if only it were! lol

    I included that part because it showed the highly flawed academic work making its way into the judicial system.

  8. Paul says:

    I can testify from personal experience to the suffering meted out by my ex-wife to me and particularly our daughter, and the manifest indifference and denial of every state actor to this fact. In fact, although the police were forced to arrest her (three criminal charges and two civil against her), they were loathe to do so, and one even counselled her to leave me for having gone forward with testominy. On another occasion where they had to supervise her removing things from the house, one of them just assumed they were there because of me and gave me a lecture.

    None of them, not Children’s Aid (talk about a misleading name), the police, the judiciary, anyone, did anything about her, or anything to protect my son. I hold them all in contempt since that time, and would not piss on them if they were on fire. And you are not going to find someone who by nature is more a law and order type of guy than me.

  9. ray says:

    I included that part because it showed the highly flawed academic work making its way into the judicial system.

    ok must have i mis-interpreted a bit

    anyway, youre spot-on –the propaganda of the colleges (and media) are used to justify predatory policy-making at various state-administrative levels. . . as long as (other) guys are the target… everyone gets a cut, meanwhile fatherhood croaks and boys are separated from men

    a good piece, thx

  10. Opus says:

    What is to be done when men themselves just do not believe that women are physically, never mind mentally, abusive – recently I exchanged a couple of tweets with my local police and their tweeter was almost apopleptic when I maintained that inter-sex it is women who are the more violent, yet…

    …with some friends in the Bar a couple of weeks back, who would have previously agreed that men were violent, I asked them if they had ever hit a woman (not for one second doubting their answers) and of course they hadn’t and I added that neither had I. I then asked them whether they had ever been assaulted by a woman (and told them not to excuse the female on the ground that she is female) and they all admitted to having been assaulted. I, likewise – and by more than one woman.

    Women, unlike men, do not seem to have any impulse control (or remorse)when it comes to violence and although it is usually only their hands, they can just as easily be grasping a knife.

    I, too, commend Steve Moxon (available from Amazon if your local bookseller does not have it in stock).

  11. Feminist Hater says:

    Just another reason why I hate feminists, their distortion of statistics and facts to suit their paradigm. No thought to the consequences of their actions, nor the devastation that society has to go through to eventually fix it, if that is at all possible.

    We deal with the same nonsense here, with rape and domestic violence abuse statistics. All male abuse is dealt with harshly and mothers who abuse are given special treatment, like going to a therapist, to allow them to raise their children properly. But the husband, ah hell no, off to prison buddy, you’re lucky you didn’t get your balls chopped off! It’s a sick world, where right is wrong and wrong is right.

    The real problem is it is shown as a triumph against male bullies and abusers. It hasn’t dawned on them properly yet that women are just as capable of abuse as men, if not more so. In fact, women have abused their position to such an extent that they are abusing the entirety that is man! I’ve been able in my few years to see good men being in court over domestic violence claims. We are lucky enough, depending on your view point, to not have a jury but a judge who rules. And the prosecutor has to prove abuse, not just use the emotional tactic that a jury brings. They have to prove intent and that this was an on going constant theme of attacks/abuse. Physical mind you, not this emotional abuse crap, all though it’s making headway in our courts now. The good news is that many of these men do eventually get acquitted of the crime but it does still follow them around with respect to their reputation, never mind the cost of actually defending themselves which they are never able to get back. Unless they sue the wife or the state for false charges but that is an expense many, after going through the system, can no longer afford. Many have taken out loans and put their investments and houses on the market, just to afford the initial defense.

    Now, that’s the courts but the police also get involved, kicking men out of the home with nothing but the mention of the word abuse. This mostly happens in your poorer sections of society but it is troubling none the less. It’s very, very easy for a woman to obtain a court order to force her husband or partner to stay away from her and their children. With the minimum of proof required. They also make it relatively expensive to use our courts which itself leaves men with very little options to defend themselves against these accusations and court orders. To get an attorney to even look at your case could well set you back half your salary for the month. Never mind once they take the case. It could set you back hundreds of thousands of rands and boy do some lawyers love to keep the cases going between the spouses, just like divorce! It’s a money making racket.

  12. YaBoymatt says:

    That popping sound you heard was millions of women plugging their ears in unison.

  13. CL says:

    The questions are probably in the vein of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

  14. Höllenhund says:

    Hey guys, somewhat off-topic: some women seem to be spreading feminist BS about American divorce and alimony laws on Ms. Walsh’s site with her apparent consent. Check it out if you want to:

    [D: That is a good post from Susan. I haven’t read the comments but I wouldn’t assume Susan agrees with everything in the comments which she doesn’t call out. Most of the comments I disagree with on this site I don’t respond to.]

  15. CL says:

    Susan takes issue plenty with men with whom she disagrees – especially ones who juggle multiple women in their lives, which I’ve seen her get pretty worked up about. I find the pattern rather suspect, although I haven’t visited her site much in the past few months.

  16. Rmaxd says:

    @hollenhund . that article … is for women … walsh is basically telling women to marry early …

    The fancy stats is just for show …

    Walsh isnt replying, as she doesnt give a crap about alimony & american divorce, her aim is to see as many chicks get married ahead of the curve as possible

    But yea, go ahead & tell her marriage is a dead end for men, & she goes batshit lol …

    As many posters’ve posted before, walsh’s site is basically a whitewash for sluts forum

  17. Celeste says:

    Consider that the comments on that Walsh post are almost 800…I can’t imagine how she’d surf through them all…

  18. Rmaxd says:

    If anyones in doubt as to Walsh’s position on the manosphere ….

    Check out a comment by Walsh herself … to a PUA called Xcess who calls her out on her carousel riding .. says it all really doesnt it?

    Susan Walsh December 13, 2011 at 11:24 pm
    “Beware the manosphere, for it can impart Xcess bitterness and cynicism, rendering you unsuitable for any interaction with a person of the opposite sex.”

  19. Rmaxd says:

    meh, after reading the rest of her comments in that post, she comes across as a deranged loony tunes …

    ie. Classic batshit mode …

    “Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

  20. Joshua says:

    Props to PMAFT for calling her out so long ago.

  21. CL, ” The questions are probably in the vein of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” ”

    That is known in informal logic as the loaded question fallacy (plurium interrogationum), women I have noted love to ask loaded questions. Which is part of the reason I stopped interacting with them.

    It is deceitful, intellectually dishonest, and a no-win argument.

    And from the one relationship I was in, I did put up with a lot of threats and some physical violence. And this was a long distance relationship.

  22. CL says:

    Seamus, I am a woman and I don’t like interacting with women much. I don’t really trust them and that’s not without reason either. I do know some decent ones, but I can probably count them on one hand. Best to keep them at arm’s length for the most part. The other thing besides loaded questions they tend to do is ground shifting – you can’t win an argument because the ground is constantly shifting. Then of course there’s bringing up every little thing from the past – kitchen sink arguing. It’s most infuriating if you get sucked in. It seems some men raised by single mothers do this as well.

    That said, I suppose the trick is being able to hold the frame, to not get sucked into their frame, which changes every time they know they’ve lost a point (most of them won’t ever concede a point, they’ll just shift the ground to keep the argument going). It’s not hard to see how this can quickly devolve into violence. A man really has to be able to stand his ground and have ways of dealing with a woman who takes the whole thing too far – i,e. crosses the line into disrespect. People need to learn this and learn how to have an argument or discussion that isn’t disrespectful. Once insults are thrown around, you can’t take them back so easily.

  23. Retrenched says:

    I think Susan is like the female equivalent of Roissy, more or less. Just as Roissy gives red pill advice to men to help them get what they want from the SMP, without much concern for how women are affected, Susan gives (mostly) red pill advice to women to help them get what they want from the SMP, without much concern for how men are affected.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    Very useful posting, Dalrock. Far too many people do not bother to even examine the methodology used to obtain data. They just cut to the numbers, or the conclusion, and run on from there. But a flawed methodology means ultimately there is no viable conclusion. It’s like the old programmer slogan: GIGO. Any study that uses a methodology with a clear bias, cannot obtain unbiased data, therefore it stands on a false premise, therefore it cannot have any real, meaningful conclusion.

    Such a study isn’t even wrong. it’s merely a propaganda vehicle.

  25. Höllenhund says:

    “Most of the comments I disagree with on this site I don’t respond to.”

    But you don’t normally tolerate a steady stream of feminist agitprop, do you? Just look at that comment thread. Complaints about the “lies” and the “echo chamber” of the manosphere, claims that “husbands cheat more often than wives”, “husbands are financially better off than wives after divorce”? What kind of feminist BS is that? We know very well the latter is just an example of manipulating stats. I’m sure we can also agree that it’s impossible to prove or disprove that wives cheat more often than husbands because it’s common knowledge in our circles that women have evolved to be very adept at hiding their infidelity. There’s no way on Earth anyone can categorically state that husbands cheat more often than wives.

    Ms. Walsh claims she opposes feminism due to its harmful social engineering but may I ask just how credible that claim seems when she basically tolerates feminist agitprop on her site?


    “Walsh isnt replying, as she doesnt give a crap about alimony & american divorce, her aim is to see as many chicks get married ahead of the curve as possible

    But yea, go ahead & tell her marriage is a dead end for men, & she goes batshit lol”

    Yeah, it’s pretty obvious.

  26. tiredofitall says:

    “That popping sound you heard was millions of women plugging their ears in unison.” – YaBoymatt

    Funny, I’d have sworn it was all their asses puckering up in righteous indignation.

  27. empathologicalism says:

    The over defining of the word abuse has gone beyond the singularity, through the worm hole, and out the other end rolling down shit hill and resting against men’s houses, where we live, at the foot of shit hill, cause shit rolls down, and we live there, uh huh. Ah repetition….

    Anyway, There are very few divorces filed where the wife doesnt claim abuse, she doesnt necessarily claim it in the filing, in fact “These Boots Are Made For Walking” study shows they very rarely file divorce for abuse, which is a useful and relevant fact in and of itself. But in the discourse of their daily lives they do not fail to say “I was abused”. Its not enough that conventional wisdom already has other women and most male useful idiots asking themselves what did the guy do to end up divorced, nope, we gotta say “I couldnt live with more years of his abuse”
    That pisses me off…..a lot.
    I grew up in abuse, broken bone and blood type of abuse watching it, cowering from it, visiting the hospital to see my mother afterwards…all that….and that women can say the word abuse because someone yelled at them of dominated the remote control pisses me off, they exploit the battered victims that actually were beaten senseless, to garner more sympathy and empathy for them them them. They pull out the silly “non physical abuse is actually worse, the scars are invisible” (read in whiny voice)….BS

    I challenge them every time I hear that rot…..while someone is pummeling you, a rib is punctured into your lung, a voice appears and says, “would you rather he stopped hitting and just yelled?” OR I point out that when violence does occur there is ALSO yelling and insulting and all that, it proves the utterly shameless desire to piggy back on real victims, which many females seem to do across all categories of victimhood.

    Long ago I stopped feeling sympathy when the word abuse is used. I feel more anger than anything. In Texas family law there is a provision under divosion of assets that lists the things that can be considered. Among them is “the allegation of verbal abuse” (this was in the law in 2004, I cannot say for sure now), now give me a break….
    Verbal abuse goes like this, man and woman driving somewhere:

    She “best if you take the surface roads”

    He” nah highway is best bet, and we arent in a hurry anyway the place you want to go to dinner will be packed”

    She” me and my sister went the highway the other day and there was a big wreck, you need to go the surface roads” “Oh and 3 months ago Kirey and I went to that restaurant on Friday night and were seated in 15 minutes”

    He: “just relax, I will get us there in a good time, and, I called and they said the wait is 90 minutes anyway so why hurry”….”what are you doing over there?”

    She: “checking my phones GPS, gonna show you the roads are closer than the highway”

    He shuts down after this goes on for hours and doesnt talk much, they wait in line for nearly 2 hours, and she starts in that had he taken the surface roads they would have avoided the wait. That theme is repeated, and over desert he stews and she repeats over and over how can he be angry all she did was what she thought was best for them

    On the way home she asks?

    She :”whats wrong hate it when Im right?”

    He blows and yells something to which she cries and the whole subject is no longer anything to do about the evening….its that he yelled, and yelling is bad, and she needs an apology and she needs it now……..

    THAT friends is what women call verbal abuse, there are other scenarios you all likely know well, but the common thread is man backed into corner against irrational mental meanderings and an unsettled hyperactive urge to micromanage every move they make based on some data stored in her mind, but the data isnt filed under data…where it can be rationally compared, its filed under the emotion felt when her and Kirey went to dinner…..

    Men, NEVER let a woman claim abuse in a group setting without challenging her. You will end up disdained by women and some men, but this must be stopped.
    That and the existence of violence perpetrated by women as well are the cornerstones to sorting out the current lies about IPV/DV.

  28. CL says:

    But in the discourse of their daily lives they do not fail to say “I was abused”.

    It’s the same as all the stupid bints screaming rape over everything – it hurts the real victims and perpetuates the victim mentality in everyone else while holding up false claims and accusations. As with everything else, those who talk loudest about it are the ones who are most full of shit. Same goes for “I’m hot/ smart/ talented/ etc.”

  29. empathologicalism says:

    True CL, it is exactly the same, riding coat tails of an actual victim. Its just that the abuse word is orders of magnitude more common than the rape one, though in the formula Frequency times Gravity, they may get close to equal.
    Things that should not garner sympathy as knee jerk
    I was abused
    I was harassed
    I’m a single mother

    These are all sympathy triggers, let them fire duds

  30. MT459 says:

    Many women fail to realize that crying wolf (i.e. abuse, rape etc) when there isn’t really a “wolf” diminshes the severity of those who actually experience the real effects and horros of those who are victims of actual rape and physical abuse.

    I remember one time in college, an ex-gf of mine told me about how one of her friends had hooked up with a chubby/nerdy dude the previous weekend. She said that most of their inner circle was teasing her about it. I thought it was a funny story because the girl in questions was notorious for being a party skank. Anyway, I guess the weight of being teased about it was enough to make this girl self conscious and she strated claiming that the hook up might have been considered sexual assault/rape. Ironically, NONE of the girls actually believed her sob story and actually called her out for making stuff up. I was baffled by this story (as a wide eyed 19 year old) that somebody would claim to be raped even though they clearly weren’t. When telling my ex my concerns (about how reputation damaging/generally messed up it was to falsely just insinuate that a rape had occured when it didn’t) she just kind of shrugged it off. I realized then that women have a tough time comprehending the male condition and totally miss the ramifications of how horrid a false rape accusation actually is. Not only that, but it damaged this particular girls reputation in case of an instance if she was actually raped in the future…sometimes I’m perplexed at how women fail to recognize cause/effect and consequences of one’s actions.

  31. Paul says:

    I wonder how much of this percetual issue of women has to do with the apex fallacy. If I understand it correctly, women only really notice the 20% or so of men that are alphas, and big-time alphas generally have some unpleasant traits (dark triad IIRC). A lot of times these alphas are locked up for doing bad things, or perhaps sometimes doing bad things makes them look like alphas, and given that some of the worst of the bunch apparently get lots of marriage offers and fan mail forom women, this just goes to show that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Or logic in the female mind.

    So anyways, since almost what women notice alphas and disregard betas and omegas, and to the extent there is abuse, real or imagined, an alpha is a much more likely purveyor, the only men that count to women are much more likely to be abusers. And to make matters worse, since our misandrist legal system basically criminalizes maleness, being a criminal seems to have become an automatic sign of alphaness that gets a woman’s attention, which is another way that it becomes reinforced in women’s minds that indeed all men are like that. Not all men, you understand, just the 20% or so they actually are interested in, which is of course all that matters. What happens to the other 80% of men as a result of dealing with the alphas doesn’t matter because they don’t matter, they’re non-entities because they don’t make any ginas tingle.

  32. Höllenhund says:

    Paul nailed it.

  33. Father Marker says:

    Tiredofitall and yaboymatt. I actually saw a chick plug her ears not just once but twice on two different occasions. I thought it was just her but it seems that American women are all like that. She was in her mid forties, had divorced her wealthy jewish husband because she was “not haaappy” and looked a 7 for someone her age. I offered to walk down the street with her one time because she was heading in the same direction that I was going and she thought that I, a married man, was trying to hit on her. The fact that she was “christian” did the christian world no favours.

  34. Jon Badiali says:

    This article just reminded me of scenarios in my personal life and some that I have seen on television. In such scenarios, I have recieved the impression (and also experienced it) that it is okay for a woman to slap a man, but this is not so inversely. An accidental slap to a woman is evidence of abuse and victimization, but a slap to man must be because he deserves it and thus represents some sort of strange justice. Just a thought/observation.

  35. K_C says:

    Wow Paul; a most excellent observation. I think you’ve explained a lot of the whole source (or at least the fuel for the perpetuation) of egalitarian feminism.

  36. Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock

  37. Pingback: Debasing marriage | Dalrock

  38. Pingback: Is his wife abusive? | Dalrock

  39. Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Homelessness in Australia: Women in Need?

  40. Pingback: What is the domestic violence industry really about? | Dalrock

  41. Pingback: FotF and Dr. Hegstrom: Check your male privilege. | Dalrock

  42. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Dalrock

Comments are closed.