The Duluth model is working as designed; you won’t smart mouth her again.

In the spirit of getting ready for the big game, my wife noticed that the Daily Mail has a piece up today quoting from a group of women on Facebook bragging about abusing men:

Threw a chair at him through a glass door. Door smashed and cut him the f*** up. Needless to say he didn’t smart mouth me again…

The disgraceful Facebook page was outed by Black Ribbon Australia, a group dedicated to fighting the current domestic violence paradigm that is powerfully biased to see all men as abusers and ignore violence by women against men.  The system is so biased that when men are abused by women they face a high risk of being arrested for abuse.

…Black Ribbon’s chief executive John Paul Hirst says attitudes are changing. But the law isn’t.

“They still can only remove the male from the house, not the female,” Mr Hirst told news.com.au.

“The male has to be moved and arrested and charged at the police station and only gets legal counsel when he stands before a magistrate.

“All she has to say is, ‘He slapped me and I was only defending myself’.”

This legal response of arresting men who are assaulted by women is not limited to Australia.  At The Good Men Project Joseph Kerr wrote about being arrested after his wife kicked him in the head, rendering him unconscious.

I ended up on the ground next to the stairs. She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

It was over. We were over. I headed out the door to the police and then the hospital. My daughter stopped me. “Daddy, you need to go to a doctor, here take this,” she handed me a bandage. “I love you” was the last thing I said to her. It’s been almost a month.

When Kerr foolishly went to the police and reported the assault, the police reflexively arrested him:

“Is she hurt? Did you hit her…?” No. Never. I waited.

“We’re sending a car over there to talk to her.” I waited some more.

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

Eventually Kerr was able to see a lawyer, and asked him what a man should do if his wife assaults him.  The lawyer replied “Run and don’t go to the police”:

I sat across from my lawyer and talked about the other time. She grabbed me and ripped my shirt. Her nails cut my face. I bled. I tried to walk out the door. She blocked the door. I was a gym-every-day, active duty Marine, fearing someone a fraction of my size. If she had a penis I’d have a dozen ways to put her on the ground. Instead, I was left to sneak out a bedroom window and spend the night in a parking lot.

I tried the police and now in front of a guy practicing law for nearly as long as I’ve been alive I tried again.

“What do you do when a woman hits you?”

“Run. Run and don’t go to the police.”

His lawyer should have added not smart mouthing the wife to make her angry in the first place.  Other advice comes from the Web MD article Help for Battered Men, which advises battered men to always have an escape plan when their wife is in a mood, so she can’t trap him in a room and then have him arrested when he tries to get away:

“We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”

As the Web MD article explains, the domestic violence legal system and the family courts are designed to empower women who abuse men:

…perhaps the most important difference is that women who batter may have a greater ability to use the “system” to their advantage.

“Systemic abuse can occur when a woman who is abusing her husband or boyfriend threatens that he will never see his children again if he leaves or reports the abuse,” says Philip Cook, program director of Stop Abuse for Everyone. “A man caught in this situation believes that no matter what his wife or girlfriend does, the court is going to give her custody, and this greatly limits his ability to leave. While this can occur when a woman is being abused, it is more likely to happen when a woman is abusing.”

Women, explains Cook, who is author of Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, may also be able to use the system to their advantage in that they are less likely to be arrested if police are called as a result of a domestic dispute.

The important thing to understand is this isn’t the result of a well intentioned system behaving unexpectedly.  Nearly all modern domestic violence legal frameworks in the west are based off of what is called the Duluth model.  Dr. Don Dutton, head of the University of British Columbia Forensic Psychology lab explains how the Duluth model has been used to train police and other officers of the court to automatically identify the man as the abuser:

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.

This is the very nature of the Duluth model, something its founders openly admit to.  The Duluth founders are not interested in ending or reducing domestic violence in itself;  instead they are interested in using domestic violence policy as a mechanism to change the dynamics of power and control in heterosexual relationships.  Specifically, they want to empower women and dis-empower men.  In Countering Confusion about the Duluth Model, the founders explain (emphasis mine):

The Duluth curriculum is designed for male perpetrators. In Duluth, a separate court-deferral program called Crossroads was designed for women who use illegal violence against the men who batter them (Asmus 2004). Most women arrested in Duluth have been able to document to the court a history of abuse against them by the person they have assaulted (past calls to 911 for help, protection orders, previous assaults, etc.). Those women who use violence against a partner with no history of that partner abusing them are not eligible for the Crossroads diversion program, but face the same consequences as male offenders after a conviction, i.e., a jail sentence or counseling in lieu of jail. The vast majority of women arrested in Duluth for domestic assaults are being battered by the person they assault. Most, but not all, are retaliating against an abusive spouse or are using violence in self-defense. The notion that battered women share responsibility for the violence used against them  because of provocative words or actions is a dangerous form of collusion with men who batter (Mills 2003). We do not accept that these women should complete a batterers’  program. We do agree that there are a small number of women who use violence resulting in police action against their partners without themselves being abused. This is not a social problem requiring institutional organizing in the way that men’s violence against women is. For these women, a separate gender-specific counseling program may be appropriate.

Note that they acknowledge that women use the legal framework they created to abuse men and then have the men arrested, and they don’t see this as an important social problem. Perhaps someone (but not them), should come up with a counseling program for these women.  More specifically, they are against any policy that doesn’t automatically arrest the man while not arresting the woman:

From a public policy perspective, not arresting batterers essentially decriminalizes domestic violence and condemns a victim to either live with the violence or (as in the “bad old days”) be forced to press charges against an abusive spouse. Doing away with pro-arrest policies targeting the predominant aggressor (a core component of the Duluth Model) reduces the total number of arrests but increases the proportion of dual arrests. Dual arrests have proven ineffective in stopping violence, and they also have the unfortunate consequence of making victims more reluctant to call the police when further acts of violence occur.

Some may be mislead in the above by the seemingly gender neutral terms of “batterers”, “predominant aggressors”, and “victims”.  If you assumed these terms were neutral, the quote above might seem to contradict the previous quote where they explain that women using the Duluth framework to make men afraid to report being abused is not an important problem.  However, under the Duluth model, batterers are men and victims are women:

…not every person who has used physical force against a partner is what we would describe as a batterer. A person who batters is one who uses a pattern of intimidation, coercion, and violence against a partner. It is unusual for men to be arrested for assault in cases where there has been no such history. Women call the police because they are afraid. Neighbors call because the violence is alarming. Children call because they are trying to help their mothers.

Under the Duluth model, domestic violence by women is seen as wholly different than violence by men.  Violence by men is a tool of the patriarchy, while violence by women is a tool to fight against the patriarchy (emphasis mine):

When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the context of that violence tends to differ from men. First, men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional avenues, while women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Secondly, many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is primarily used to respond to and resist the controlling violence being 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.

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model. Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to The Duluth model is working as designed; you won’t smart mouth her again.

  1. White Guy says:

    Glad to see I’m not the only one dealing with this. The comment about having two exits is spot on as well. More than once mine has blocked the exit. It is insane.

  2. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Not only should you run, but you should be mindful of the female spirits with whom you interact, and take zero chances.

    I’ve said, in mixed company: “if your woman (speaking to the men) raises her voice at even ONCE, consider it a Red Flag….and if she cusses at you or shows ANY signs of aggression, you need to kick her ass to the curb. You have no advocates in society, the legal system, in the church…no fucking where, and any due process you are given is done so GRUDGINGLY. Make no mistake…you think your girl is crazy about you…she’s gonna choose herself every time and will lie to you, on you, and about you. You are NOT special.”

  3. Pingback: The Duluth model is working as designed; you won’t smart mouth her again. | @the_arv

  4. White Guy says:

    Amen Pedat, too bad I started figuring this all about 15 years too late!

  5. Novaseeker says:

    The two exits rule is a good one. Also never go to the cops — never ever go to the cops, they will arrest you most of the time.

    I’d also advise never to touch a woman when you are having a domestic and never to raise your voice. You may want to record it, but that can get tricky depending on where you live (in some states, if you do that without her consent, that’s also a crime and they will arrest you for that, too). Basically no touching, no raised voices, and if she touches you, you get out of there, go someplace safe, document where you are (tell friends, family etc., what is happening in real time), and do not call the cops.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    A person who batters is one who uses a pattern of intimidation, coercion, and violence against a partner. It is unusual for men to be arrested for assault in cases where there has been no such history. Women call the police because they are afraid.

    Of course, calling the police to end an argument, or to “teach him a lesson”, etc. enough times will build up a record that can then be used to eject him from the house.

    The feminists who created the Duluth Wheel claim to be all about equality, but in actual reality they are all about Affirmative Violent Action, where armed agents of the state can always be used to put a man “in his place”. Why? Because he doesn’t induce tingles any more?

    Reordering an entire society just to cater to the sexual wants, and anxious fears, of women hasn’t produced the results we were promised.

  7. Swanny River says:

    This was a great post for helping me understand the Duluth model better. Thank you. I would like to hear from Police chiefs (or pastors) defending this, or from any, if they exist, who tried to run their PD differently. Its not like its constitutionally mandated to use it so a small outfit run on local taxes could choose to ignore the model. I know many towns in Michigan that are one or two men shows, seems like a cop could just lock up the woman in those cases. Yet they follow the same model, why such cowardice and ignorance from them?

  8. Novaseeker says:

    Yet they follow the same model, why such cowardice and ignorance from them?

    It isn’t required under the federal constitution, but quite a few states have mandatory arrest rules where the “person most likely to inflict harm” must be arrested — a wording that sounds neutral but which pretty much always means the guy gets arrested. In other states that don’t have that rule, most PDs follow it anyway to avoid liability (don’t want to be in the position of not arresting a guy, and then he goes and beats his wife after they leave).

  9. Max says:

    As someone who was once arrested because my ex girlfriend lied to the police, I can attest to this policy being very much the case in Quebec.

    Here’s a quick synopsis. I break up with my mentally unstable ex girlfriend over the phone, only to forget she possessed a key to my apartment. She storms in uninvited about 25 minutes later, hysterical, grabbing things in my kitchen and hurling them across my apartment.

    In her hysteria she catches her shirt on a counter corner and it rips a little, so she tears it off completely a la hulk hogan.

    I call the cops because she has gone total psycho. They show up, she says I tried to strangle her so they arrest me. As they drag me to the door she says wait wait stop…can we just forget the whole thing? Like her lying has gone a little too far…I’ll never forget it, a child throws a tantrum and games the system in her favor, and when she realizes what she has done she hopes she can talk her way out of it.

    20 minutes later I’m in the back of a police car listening to two cops argue over what to do with me, suggesting I might be dangerous since I tore off her shirt….

    I was released from the jail cell and not charged with anything thank god…because she admitted it was all a lie.

    And here’s the kicker, why did I want to break up with her? Because she was mentally unstable and abusive, and society kept giving her the benefit of the doubt and kept suggesting to me that I wasn’t an understanding enough boyfriend.

    Our culture has given women too much liberty and too much power. The narrative of the left is TOTALLY divorced from reality in a way that has severely damaged north american culture.

  10. Well at least we have laws like VAWA to ensure justice and constitutionality prevails.
    Oh, wait a minute….

  11. thedeti says:

    “Of course, calling the police to end an argument, or to “teach him a lesson”, etc. enough times will build up a record that can then be used to eject him from the house.”

    This hasn’t happened to me. But it makes sense to me that the very first time a wife calls the police on her husband because of a domestic, that should be the only time. At that point, the marriage and relationship has become so adversarial that it cannot survive. At that point, the man should simply file for divorce and do the best he can in the subsequent litigation and settlement. Because IMO, calling the police on one’s husband injects an adversarial element into the marriage that cannot be reconciled with a continued relationship compatible with marriage and all that entails.

    When she calls the cops, it’s over. AT that point, she’s decided whom she’ll submit to. She’s decided who has power and authority, and it is NOT her husband.

  12. thedeti says:

    One of the justifications for the “must arrest” rule in the Duluth model, I think, is that “we need to arrest one of them (almost always the man) to separate them for a while, for a cooling-off period. When he’s cooled off, and she’s come down off the ledge, hubby will be released. he usually won’t be charged with anything. it’ll be OK. Just let him sit in the police station or a holding cell for a few hours, let him cool his jets for a bit, he’ll go home, and all will be OK.”

    But that’s not really what happens, I suspect. He’s taken to the police station, booked, fingerprinted and detained. He’ll either sit in an interrogation room or a holding cell. He’s essentially imprisoned. For most men, this is their very first encounter with the criminal justice system. First time in cuffs. First time in the back of a squad car. First time being Mirandized. First time at a police station as an arrestee. First time being actually locked up, behind bars, not free to leave. He hasn’t done anything wrong. he isn’t charged with anything. He desperately wants to explain himself, to tell someone what happened. In the course of doing so, he might unwittingly confess to something he can be charged with.

    It’s intended to intimidate, threaten, subdue, and control.

  13. Mr Curious says:

    The difference between DJT & HRC?

    DJT would ban the Louvre killer from America

    HRC would accuse you of racism & let him kill all the Yanks he liked!!!

  14. Lyn87 says:

    The simple fact is that calling armed men to remove a man from his own house in the absence of unilateral physical violence (especially men who it is illegal to resist even when they are the aggressors), is an act of violence on par with kidnapping, which is a federal felony in the U.S.. Of course the white-knights in their magic blue suits and their enablers in their black wizard robes will pretend that the victim is the aggressor and they are the good guys, but that’s crap, and I suspect even many of them know it. It is at least reckless endangerment.

    I’ll leave further exposition to Opus, but it seems to me that the legal enforcement of the Duluth Model is a textbook example of a “Bill of Attainder.” They, like debtor’s prisons, have been made illegal in every civilized nation for many years, but which have both made huge comebacks under the thinnest feminist-inspired rationale and applied nearly exclusively to men.

    The vacuousness of the Duluth model advocates is proved by its very effectiveness. If men were even 1% as violence-prone as they pretend we are, the streets would run red with the blood of women, cops, and judges. But men submit to being bullied by their wives, assaulted and kidnapped by cops, and sentenced by judges rather than defending themselves. Men are by-and-large rational about physical confrontation because we learn from an early age that – unlike women – we have to be. Sure, pretty much any able-bodied man can beat the snot out of pretty much any woman, and anyone who’s spent more than 15 minutes at a shooting range can out-shoot 90% of the cops who would show up at his door, but one man can’t stand alone against the might of the state and hope to win. Honestly, the correct answer to the threat of “I’m going to call the cops” may be a single warning: “If you call the cops I’m going to jail even though we both know I’m innocent. That means I get the same outcome whether I beat the hell out of you or not. You’re alone now – do you really want to put me in a position where you’re threatening me with lethal violence and I have nothing to lose?”

    It’s unfortunate that it’s come to that, but the only way to get a bully to stand down is to stand up and be prepared to take the lumps if she decides to try you, but if the cops show up you’re going to have to take the lumps no matter what, anyway. Your protestations of your innocence are taken as further proof that you’re guilty, so the only reliable way to win is not to get pulled into the game. Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria himself would have admired the ingenuity of the Duluth model. You may even give her a case of tingles like she hasn’t felt since Spring Break in Cabo.

    Needless to say, whatever happens you need to plan an exit strategy. A woman who threatens you with lethal weapons (which is what she’s doing when she calls the cops) is not someone to be trusted.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Duluth is another facet of the Threatpoint. Newer readers might find this article interesting. Note the year.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nova
    It isn’t required under the federal constitution,…

    But Federal funding to women’s shelters is surely connected to Duluth. Thanks to VAWA of 1994.
    Courtesy of Bill and HIllary Clinton, Joe Biden, and a cast of hundreds.

  17. Fred Flange Says Han Solo Eats Shoots and Leaves First says:

    There is a well respected former judge in New Jersey who wrote a now open-secret memo on requests for domestic restraining orders. The central point: when asked for you must always grant it, even if it’s just for 24 hours, because no court and no judge would want to be handling the one instance where, after failing to grant the injunction, the abuser killed the other partner.

    Now yes you see how that usually plays out. But stay tuned. Now there’s a new paradigm, which the Duluth model cannot address since it is based on cis-hetero-sexism, i.e., only men abusing women. And that new paradigm, of course, is the same-sex relationship. Who is the “man”? Who is the “woman”? How does the “using male privilege” pie slice work where both perpetrator and victim are male? Or women? It don’t and won’t work.

    It will be interesting to see some high-profile publicly-litigated same-sex d.v. case present the issue of how the Duluth model is to be used to determine who gets arrested and who gets convicted, when it bears no rational relationship to the situation before the court. This WILL happen, it’s only a matter of when.

  18. Lyn87 says:

    Fred,

    They’re just arrest whichever one is bigger. That’s the rationale for arresting the man now. It’s not based on “who is the assailant?” because that results in “too many” women in cuffs, so it has to be “who is more capable of doing bodily harm?,” which gives the cops a license to play Captain Save-a-Ho and always arrest the man, because men are presumed to be more capable of violence (except in the military, where we pretend that women are just as capable).

    (If that strikes you as a double standard that allows women to demand equality when it comes to benefits while retaining the right to damsel when it suits them, don’t worry: that’s a feature of feminism, not a bug.)

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Fred

    Now there’s a new paradigm, which the Duluth model cannot address since it is based on cis-hetero-sexism, i.e., only men abusing women. And that new paradigm, of course, is the same-sex relationship. Who is the “man”? Who is the “woman”? How does the “using male privilege” pie slice work where both perpetrator and victim are male? Or women? It don’t and won’t work.

    The Duluth creators are upfront that their model only applies to heterosexual relationships, because it is founded on the idea that patriarchy is the source of abuse. Duluth only applies with men as abusers and women as victims. For others, you need another model. From the Duluth wheel gallery page:

    Battering in same-sex intimate relationships has many of the same characteristics of battering in heterosexual relationships, but happens within the context of the larger societal oppression of same-sex couples. Resources that describe same-sex domestic violence have been developed by specialists in that field such as The Northwest Network of Bi, Trans, Lesbian and Gay Survivors of Abuse, http://www.nwnetwork.org

  20. Spike says:

    “Black Feather Australia”
    As I am Australian, I’m going to seek out this organisation and support it in any way I can.
    I haven’t heard of them, but that isn’t surprising. Australian media are a bunch of feminized compliant patsies who actually ramp up the “War Between The Sexes” for ratings. It is sickening.
    Thanks for the tip-off Dalrock!

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Lyn87

    Honestly, the correct answer to the threat of “I’m going to call the cops” may be a single warning: “If you call the cops I’m going to jail even though we both know I’m innocent. That means I get the same outcome whether I beat the hell out of you or not. You’re alone now – do you really want to put me in a position where you’re threatening me with lethal violence and I have nothing to lose?”

    If I were a feminist wanting to troll this site to make us look stupid, I’d post exactly what you just wrote pretending to be a traditional Christian man.

    She threatens to falsely accuse you of abuse, and you reply by threating to beat her, maybe to death? Under the law this gives her the right to attack you in your sleep, take away your kids, and have you arrested. Just like Joseph Kerr’s wife did, only your wife won’t even have to make anything up. And this solves your problem how? It doesn’t, but it does play into the hands of the Duluth creators, who started off with the assumption that Christian men are by their nature abusive.

  22. greyghost says:

    This article needs to go to the White house.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/#page
    Once again another MGTOW article. Hard to believe you are actually a family man Dalrock

  23. Novaseeker says:

    This article needs to go to the White house.

    Don’t worry, there are manosphere friendly types in this WH, I know that for a fact. Busy right now, though, but four years is a long time.

  24. Lost Patrol says:

    Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society.

    This would be ironic if they hadn’t done it with malice aforethought. Clever women in the USA have already figured out the power is imbalanced in their favor. A little longer and they will all know it. All it takes is an accusation and an absence of witnesses.This holds true not only in marriages or “domestic relationships”; but in any encounter between men and women at any time and place. It’s why a man must avoid getting on the elevator (lift – Opus) with a woman if its only the two of them, and this should be extrapolated to every possible variation on the theme. She, whoever she is including complete stranger, can wreck you with a word (current code-word: harassment).

    Now, if you are actually a desirable man as defined by her, then you are safe to act normally and treat her as though she were not a ticking time bomb. But most men will not fit this description and it may not be clear at the critical moment if you have passed this test or not, so everybody has to be careful.

    “Off with his head!” declared the Red Queen.

  25. Don Quixote says:

    Spike says:
    February 3, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    “Black Feather Australia”
    As I am Australian, I’m going to seek out this organisation and support it in any way I can.
    I haven’t heard of them, but that isn’t surprising. Australian media are a bunch of feminized compliant patsies who actually ramp up the “War Between The Sexes” for ratings. It is sickening.
    Thanks for the tip-off Dalrock!

    @ Spike and Dalrock:

    It is ‘Black Ribbon Australia’, not Black Feather Australia.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  26. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    These kinds of truths generate some powerful emotions and they should. Non christian men are going to have to fix this one.

  27. Original Laura says:

    One way to reduce your chances of being caught up in this situation would be to research your prospective bride’s parents criminal history. If your fiancée’s mother has called the police on her husband, it’s a very bad sign, since people often recreate in adulthood the family dynamics that they experienced in childhood.

    It goes without saying that if your girlfriend is hitting you, you shouldn’t promote her to wifehood. Another bad sign would be if the girlfriend likes to quarrel with you in public. Someone with a normal, middle-class background would be mortified to have the police showing up with blue lights flashing, but a person with narcissistic traits may get a rush from being the center of attention.

    If you are already married, and your wife has become abusive to you, try to convince her that getting the police involved might well lead to the children being taken by Child Protective Services, and that CPS will interview the children without either of you being present. If she is abusive to you, she is probably abusive to them.

  28. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    I can’t help you. In my time at least the Duluth model was not in existence in England and neither was a matter of domestic violence something that the police had any interest in. What I will say – repeat – is that I never saw so much as a bruise never mind a cut, and thus when I hear that some poor woman has been beaten by her boyfriend or husband, I laugh. In my experience domestic violence is always female on male.

  29. BC says:

    If your wife/girlfriend or even your child has ever raised their voice or threatened you at any time in the past, you are at risk and need to take precautions.

    Men need to start getting used to carrying a pen-shaped digital voice recorder* and surreptitiously hitting the REC button as soon as their wife/girlfriend/child raises their voice. And then act and speak very calmly, explain exactly, and ask permission for everything that you are going to do until you have left the premises. Keep the recorder on until you are free and clear, state the date, time and your name before turning it off, and then once you are safe, either upload the complete and unmodified recording to private internet storage or better – take it to your attorney whom you already have on retainer.

    *An alternative would be to set up a voice-activated recording system in locations where the altercations usually occur, but there may be legal issues, even if it is in your own home/car. Again, if you are at risk, retain an attorney and get legal advice.

  30. Per Desteen says:

    I remember that I had a saying back when I was dating in my 20’s. I always told the girls I dated “you don’t hit me, I don’t hit you.” I had seen how many girls would “play” fight with their guys, and I wasn’t having any of that. I’d hurt the crap out of them even with a “soft” hit, and I did not want to go there. I also said, usually in mixed groups, that “I don’t lit ladies, or women, but I do hit bitches”

    So I ended up essentially proposing MAD right off the bat. And in public. I imagine that most people thought this was just posturing, but none of my girls ever hit me, and I never had to hit them.

    I can’t tell if this would work today or not, but it’s also not a question I’d like to be tested on.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, remember that Lyn87 has no children due to medical reasons. Nothing personal to him, but that’s why he can understand part of this issue at the mental level, but not at the emotional or “gut” level.

    A friend of mine years ago was a bit of a player and swore that he would never take any crap off of a woman. Fast forward one marriage and a few births, he was putting up with some really obnoxious verbal and emotional abuse, maybe even some hitting or slapping. Why? Because he wasn’t going to abandon his kids to the raging hormonal maniac that their mother had turned into.
    He’s not the only one I know of or have known of in that boat. Seeing these things has given me a wider perspective on “last child graduates from high school, divorce follows in a year” events. I’m still opposed to that, for a lot of reasons but I do have more insight than I used to.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gah. An obviously betaized middle aged man in my hearing just chirped “Happy Wife, Happy Life!” to another betaized man. Must. Not. Rant.

    Instead I shall come here to I repeat myself: it was a big error to reorder society from top to bottom just to humor women’s sexual whims and wants, and now it is obvious to me that “Happy Wife Happy LIfe” is merely a brainwashing slogan, or even a gaslighting one. “Keep me happy or else” is the threatpoint that Duluth hands to women – like giving a submachinegun to a toddler in too many cases.

    Wearing the Glasses, seeing women as they are, it is obvious what the correct slogan is:
    Happy Life, Happy Wife.

    Oh, wait, it just got worse: one’s misquoting the Bible to the other about mutual submission.
    That’s it for me. Break time is over, I’m out of here.

  33. Lyn87 says:

    Dalrock,

    I get that. My point is that a man’s guilt or innocence is utterly irrelevant. Whether he issues a self-defensive warning or not is irrelevant. Whether he physically intervenes or not is irrelevant. He’s guilty no matter what. That’s the way they designed it.

    They created a Bill of Attainder that applies to any accused man. That’s unjust, and it’s evil. And they like it that way.

    But the consequence of them making innocence receive the same penalty as guilt is that if there is any benefit to doing the crime, there’s no reason not to… you’re going to do the time anyway (and there is a potential benefit to standing up for yourself). What potential benefit? Since they insist that it is not possible to be declared innocent once you enter the system, the only rational thing to do is to avoid getting drawn into the system in any morally-acceptable way. Physically preventing someone from calling an armed accomplice seems like a pretty mild response to someone trying to kidnap you at gunpoint.

    I didn’t ask for Bill of Attainder. I would prefer that Bills of Attainder not exist. But I’m not the one insisting on automatic Bills of Attainder for any accused man. If they don’t like it that there’s no way for an innocent man to avoid being punished as if he were guilty without being forced to do something that none of us want, then it’s up to them to create a system where that isn’t the case… a system where punishment requires proof and justice is available to everyone equally regardless of genitalia.

  34. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    I was hoping for your take on my premise that backing up the Duluth Model with “shall arrest” mandates amounts to creating a Bill of Attainder for any man accused of abuse by a woman. When we broke off from the authority of the crown one of the things we enshrined in law was to get rid of Bills of Attainder. I think you did the same on your side of the pond as well, since they are inherently unjust.

    What we’ve done is resurrect both Bills of Attainder and debtor’s prisons into family law.

  35. Pingback: The Duluth model is working as designed; you won’t smart mouth her again. | Reaction Times

  36. Firesox says:

    All you need is a little game though, right? LMFAO as long as blue pill faggots are in charge, men will continue walking away.

  37. Broderick says:

    thedeti: “Because IMO, calling the police on one’s husband injects an adversarial element into the marriage that cannot be reconciled with a continued relationship compatible with marriage and all that entails.”

    Agree, and I’ll take that one step further. It’s more than adversarial; calling the police is abusive. She is simply farming out who does the beating. In fact, it’s even worse, as the husband has no legal recourse. If the cops make a stupid move and wrongly jail or brutalize an innocent man, would the State turn on its own agents? Would the State in any way punish a cop for going too far with an accused wife beater? No way! Even if the legal system were not so messed up, in-group preferences of the State for its own people would mean the husband is screwed once the cops get involved. The current situation is, of course, even worse.

  38. Original Laura says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I once read an article about a study that had been done on the mental adjustment of young men who had become quadriplegics. They were deeply depressed shortly after the accident, but within six months, their day-to-day level of happiness was approximately the same as it had been just prior to the accident. This strongly suggests that life satisfaction comes from within, and that most people have a sort of “happiness setpoint.”

    Some people are simply “glass half empty” people, and martyring yourself to try to satisfy them is a fool’s game.

    Happy Wife, Happy Life is a truism to the extent that a reasonably happy man who has a happy wife is probably going to have a happy life. What isn’t realistic is blaming a run-of-the-mill husband for the wife’s chronic dissatisfaction with life.

  39. Lyn87 says:

    Broderick,

    That was my point, as opposed to seeming to advocate escalation unnecessarily. We pretend that kidnapping at gunpoint – with all the possibilities of “resisting arrest” culminating in anything from trumped-up charges to a hail of bullets – is somehow not what it is when the cops are the perpetrators acting on the wife’s behalf. It’s arguably even worse than garden-variety felonies in that it’s done under the color or law… it is literally a crime to defend yourself against what would be (and should be) a considered a violent felony but for the fiction that we attach to crimes committed by agents of the state. So the least-bad option might be to escalate just enough to prevent the dragon from waking up and turning its eye toward you.

    If cops were held to reasonable standards, and men were not considered guilty by default, and women who falsely accuse were subject to penalties commensurate with the seriousness of calling armed men to do violence on their behalf, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Sadly, that;s not the world we live in.

  40. l says:

    This is horrendous to any decent man – walk away from an abusive situation and have the courts strip you of at least half your assets – who says “crime does not pay” has not seen this mess, Best option is never allow women into your life. Satan laughs loudly at the wheel of Duluth.

  41. Well shoot, if you’re going to be treated like you punched her in the face whether you did it or not…

  42. Novaseeker says:

    Well shoot, if you’re going to be treated like you punched her in the face whether you did it or not…

    Except you’re not.

    Yes, they will arrest you. Normally you don’t get charged with anything, however, because you didn’t do anything and there is no evidence to charge you with. That doesn’t get you out of a temporary restraining order and your wife having a huge leg up in the pending divorce, but you’re not looking at criminal charges. Bash her around, and you’re not just getting arrested, you’re going to jail. It’s a dumb way to approach the situation, frankly. Plain dumb, but hey, guys, do what you want, you know?

  43. Just Saying says:

    “What do you do when a woman hits you?”

    I usually block – hard. If she were ever to connect, I would deck her. If a woman wants to “act like a man” treat them as you would a man. But don’t be surprised when you find out how easy it is to break their bones. You are a LOT stronger – too many women today believe the BS they see in the movies about women being able to beat up a man. Sometimes a dose of reality is what they need the most.

    Had a dyke swing at me once – didn’t realize it was a woman till I had broke her nose and shattered her elbow – but such is life. She pissed me off, and I wasn’t in a mood for it. If they want to act like a man, they have to take their bruises like the big boys… Then, just walk away – keep your head down when outside so the cameras don’t get a look at you… Remember – it’s all about what can be proven, and if she started it, that doesn’t matter it will be treated like it’s your fault – so it’s best to just walk away as quickly as possible. Then keep your mouth shut – if you could be ID’ed…

  44. Anon says:

    Convert to Islam and you are untouchable.

  45. feeriker says:

    This hasn’t happened to me. But it makes sense to me that the very first time a wife calls the police on her husband because of a domestic, that should be the only time. At that point, the marriage and relationship has become so adversarial that it cannot survive. At that point, the man should simply file for divorce and do the best he can in the subsequent litigation and settlement. Because IMO, calling the police on one’s husband injects an adversarial element into the marriage that cannot be reconciled with a continued relationship compatible with marriage and all that entails.

    If my wife EVER even made hints of pulling the kind of shit described in the OP, I would look her straight in the eye and announce, in the calmest and coldest voice I could muster that if she calls the police, it will be the very last phone call to anyone that she will ever make. If I’m ever going to go to jail, it will be for murder.

    And I would mean every syllable of that statement.

  46. feeriker says:

    Dalrock says:
    February 3, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    You make a good point, but on the other hand, Lyn’s approach (and mine) serves as a reminder to women of something that they are reminded of not nearly often enough in today’s society: that actions have consequences, ones that will hurt THEM as much as those they choose to vitimize through their selfishness and hubris.

    As for feminist quote mining of this site and its peers, they’re going to do that in any case, regardless of what any of us here write or don’t write. We’re condemned enemies of the Feminist State no matter what we do or don’t do.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Original Laura
    Happy Wife, Happy Life is a truism to the extent that a reasonably happy man who has a happy wife is probably going to have a happy life.

    “A happy man will have a happy life” is a tautology.
    “Happy wife, happy life” is gynocentric, female-dominant blue-pill nonsense.

    What isn’t realistic is blaming a run-of-the-mill husband for the wife’s chronic dissatisfaction with life.

    A whole lot of men would disagree. Being blamed for their wive’s unhaaaaaapiness is quite, quite real.

  48. Dale says:

    Thank you God that I do not have a wife.

  49. feeriker says:

    Original Laura says:
    February 3, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    In this day, age, and society it’s much easier and much less time and resource-consuming to just invert your advice: assume by default that ALL women are raging narcissistic abusers to be avoided like the plague. Then filter on the rare one who shows traits leading you to believe that she’s a sane, loving, feminine human being.

  50. Feminist Hater says:

    She threatens to falsely accuse you of abuse, and you reply by threating to beat her, maybe to death? Under the law this gives her the right to attack you in your sleep, take away your kids, and have you arrested.

    She can do that anyway. The law gives her complete power over you. The only move to make in a stacked game is not to play. No woman, no problems. The Duluth model breaks every conceivable idea of equality or fairness between the sexes.

    Indeed, Dale. Thank God!

  51. I’d like to make a point I’ve made before about how delicate the current system actually is to attack, it’s just no one has been willing or able to invest the resources to do it. (You’d not be making any friends, that’s for sure.)

    As for a wife ever calling the cops: the relationship is over. Period. You set about booting out the leech. She’s no wife and has given up the role & title.

  52. Ilion says:

    Shorter version — as long as modern men are willing to be ruled by their dicks, they will in fact be ruled by pussies.

  53. Broderick says:

    @Lyn87

    Precisely. Calling for protection is one thing. If I called upon a bodyguard or private security to deal with someone threatening me, I and the private security would absolutely be held accountable if indeed my claim was false. Assuming the court system is not totally corrupt, which of course it also is, but you get the point; other moral individuals would rightly judge me guilty and liable for restitution. Not so with the police – they are within the system, and the system protects its own. Calling the police is a act of aggressive violence worse than hiring a hitman. At least the aggressor has to pay the hitman. With the police, in the context of husbands and wives, it’s the victim who pays.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I guess one “solution” would be to belong to some sort of gang, not all of whose members are known to the wife. If she threatens to send you to jail, say, “You know I belong to X. But you don’t know everyone in X. If you send me to jail, someone from X will come after you. You won’t know who. It could be anyone. You’ll spend the rest of your life looking over your back. Any man you pick up, or go to bed with, HE would be the one. By the time you know it’s him, it’ll be too late for you.”

    Sad, that men must seek such ways to protect themselves from their own “helpmeets.”

  55. Nate says:

    I don’t know how we are going to break this geocentric cycle we are in. We are never going to fix this until we can prevent women from corrupting boys and raising them into the kind of men that will mindlessly enforce this garbage on other men. But how do we prevent the women from doing this when they already have an army of violent simping law enforcement and government agents?

  56. Opus says:

    @Lyn 87

    You must be right because I have no idea what a Bill of Attainder might be. I can never understand why America was so pro-French when prior to 1789 their King could arrest without trial anyone he disliked. England had and has Habeas Corpus – one of the prerogative writs – in other words bring me before a court of law or release me.

  57. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    Oh… I thought you would have some professional insight as a barrister. (Note) A quick definition is as follows, “A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.”

    Basically, it’s a law that makes it illegal to be you, or a member of some group (whether voluntarily or not). My contention is that when the Duluth Model is backed by mandatory arrest laws, it is functionally no different that a Bill of Attainder making it a crime for a man to be accused of DV by a woman. Punishment will follow no matter what, because your guilt or innocence with regard to the DV is not what is at issue… being on the receiving end of an accusation is treated as a crime all by itself. There is literally no defense against the charge – since it’s based on “patriarchy theory,” you are presumed to be guilty merely by the fact that there was enough of a dispute for the police to be notified.

    If you started it you’re the abuser. If she started it you’re still the abuser because you must have done something to deserve it (because women are never aggressors under patriarchy, ya’ know), and now you’re a manipulator who won’t admit his guilt to boot. You’re automatically guilty, and any attempt to clear your name is taken as further proof of your guilt. Like I wrote yesterday: Beria would have envied the sheer audacity of the Duluth Model: at least the Soviets didn’t expect anyone to actually believe the show trials were fair and just.

    (Note: I was under the impression that the U.K. took much longer than the U.S. in getting rid of them, as outlawing them was specifically in our founding legal documents and was, I assumed, in direct response to them being used by George III at the time. I read a book recently and it mentioned that Thomas Cromwell lost his head on the chopping block in 1540 after a BoA was passed against him for treason… the real reason being that he persuaded the king to marry a German duchess sight-unseen who, apparently, “looked like a horse.”)

  58. Scott says:

    As for a wife ever calling the cops: the relationship is over. Period. You set about booting out the leech. She’s no wife and has given up the role & title.

    I would agree. If your wife ever calls the police on you, you are not really married anymore.

    Related to this time-honored common law tradition that spouses cannot be called to testify against each other in court.

    The rationale was actually based on the “one flesh” biblical principle. (Imagine that. Secular laws that take their cues from ancient wisdom literature). The law looked at married couples, in many ways as one person, therefore making it unreasonable for them to go against each other in court. The implications of this kind of thinking drill way down deep into the Duluth model of “domestic violence.” They make the model unworkable, really.

    You can argue it’s merits, but that was the idea.

  59. feeriker says:

    As for a wife ever calling the cops: the relationship is over. Period.

    That’s the inevitable end result of the situation. Any man who doesn’t immediately serve divorce papers on his wife in the wake of her calling the cops on him is an imbecile.

  60. Roger says:

    It’s very sobering to read all of this, especially because I’ve never had a domestic altercation that rose to a serious level, so it’s a stark reminder that a woman has the power to have a man put in a cage with a mere phone call. Some patriarchy, huh? Actually, in my 33 years of marriage, we’ve only had one argument that really got heated, but even after we calmed down, she insisted “You were going to hit me!” The thought had not even crossed my mind. But all a woman has to do is imagine something, and then it becomes a reality in her mind.
    Even though I have no experience with DV in my home, either as recipient or as perpetrator, a couple of men close to me have. One is my brother, whose wife is a real tantrum-thower. She throws not just tantrums, but objects, and once broke his tooth that way. We learned the truth about his broken tooth only much later. Another was a friend who “confessed” to me (as if he were ashamed) that his wife had once chased him out of the house with a carving knife. I count myself very lucky that I have never had to deal with a violent woman, a creature whose existence our society blindly denies.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Yes, they will arrest you. Normally you don’t get charged with anything, however, because you didn’t do anything and there is no evidence to charge you with. That doesn’t get you out of a temporary restraining order and your wife having a huge leg up in the pending divorce, but you’re not looking at criminal charges. Bash her around, and you’re not just getting arrested, you’re going to jail. It’s a dumb way to approach the situation, frankly. Plain dumb, but hey, guys, do what you want, you know?

    Yes it is.

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    I guess one “solution” would be to belong to some sort of gang, not all of whose members are known to the wife. If she threatens to send you to jail, say, “You know I belong to X. But you don’t know everyone in X. If you send me to jail, someone from X will come after you. You won’t know who. It could be anyone. You’ll spend the rest of your life looking over your back. Any man you pick up, or go to bed with, HE would be the one. By the time you know it’s him, it’ll be too late for you.”

    Sad, that men must seek such ways to protect themselves from their own “helpmeets.”

    So you trade in your allegiance to Christ to allegiance to Sons of Silence. You are right, the laws very often don’t apply to them the way they do to Christian men. But why marry then? You don’t follow Christ, so why marry?

    @feeriker

    As for feminist quote mining of this site and its peers, they’re going to do that in any case, regardless of what any of us here write or don’t write. We’re condemned enemies of the Feminist State no matter what we do or don’t do.

    They make shit up all of the time. But if I’m a feminist I want to do something here, to thwart discussion about a reality I have absolutely no logical refutation for. The logic of the piece is unassailable, but we also know that most people (men and women) are reluctant to give a damn about something that happens to men. Men being assaulted by their wives, and men being falsely accused of abuse is something most men and women would rather ignore. Change the topic to men beating women, and the logic no longer is required. This is true by the way for any topic you know you have no rational argument for. Can’t defend no fault divorce? Change the topic to men abusing women. We saw this just the other day. It doesn’t have to be rational, it just works, and will work well for pretty much any topic. So I understand why a feminist would want to change the topic away from men being abused and a legal system designed to encourage this. But why do you?

    Moreover, sure whatever you say they will try to make is sound like you said the stupidest thing imaginable. But only a total fool thinks it is a winning response to decide to say the stupidest things imaginable.

  62. thedeti says:

    @ feeriker:

    “If my wife EVER even made hints of pulling the kind of shit described in the OP, I would look her straight in the eye and announce, in the calmest and coldest voice I could muster that if she calls the police, it will be the very last phone call to anyone that she will ever make. If I’m ever going to go to jail, it will be for murder.”

    No. Just no. Not murder. That’s the kind of shit that will have the self appointed “manosphere watchdogs” up in arms.

    Your wife ever calls the police on you, you go to the police station, you say absolutely nothing except “I want a lawyer”, you get released, you see your lawyer, you draw up the divorce papers. No crimes committed. Marriage just over. That’s it. Done and dusted.

    It bears repeating. The moment a police officer says to you “Place your hands behind your back”, the only words out of your mouth should be “I want a lawyer”. You comply with every directive. You do what the police tell you to do. But you say absolutely nothing other than “I want a lawyer”. Every answer to every question is “I want a lawyer”.

    The police are not looking for evidence to exonerate you. They are looking for evidence to implicate you. When you are under arrest, they are not looking to help you. They do not want to “take care of this” or “just clear up some things” or “get things straightened out”. On a domestic where you’re under arrest and in an interrogation room or holding cell, they’re keeping you on ice to have you cool off and until they figure out whether a crime was committed (and most of the time on a domestic, none was committed, or the evidence is so thin that there’s nothing to charge anyone with). So you say nothing until a decision is made to charge you or release you, which the police have to do within a certain amount of time – either charge you or release you.

    When they have nothing to charge you with (which is almost always the case on a domestic unless you really did tune your wife up, you really did put your fists or feet on her), you’ll be released, no charges. Then Job 1 is see your lawyer.

    But if you start talking, you run the risk of confessing to something. So don’t talk. “I want a lawyer”. That’s it. That’s all you say.

  63. Jim says:

    And moronic traditionalists and idiot women wonder why MGTOW is growing so fast? LOL. Read Dalrock’s post very slowly and carefully again. Do you guys REALLY want to sign a contract that says she can be as cruel to you as she pleases while all you can do is helplessly take it? You like being a torture toy for her and chickenshit white knight’s sadistic pleasure? Are you guy’s dicks that much in control of the rest of you?

    Companionship you say? You call THIS companionship? Read the OP again. THAT’S companionship? Where the cunt can call on the cops and a vast array of government agencies and women’s groups to back up her cowardly acts any time the feeling strikes her?

    Why play a game that is so rigged against you? Would you play poker with another person if you KNEW they would have 4 aces or a royal flush every time you played? Would you jump out of a plane from thousands of feet up if there was a good chance the parachute would not open? Why intentionally jump out in front of a car going 50 MPH? This isn’t rocket science.

    And remember something about “loneliness”:

    “I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It’s not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.”
    – Robin Williams

    You’re in a war and some men are refusing to accept that. Stop living in denial. You have two choices at this point. Violence (and accept the consequences) or MGTOW (this is the one I chose. It’s much easier and quieter).

    Dale says:
    February 3, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    Thank you God that I do not have a wife.

    Took the words out of my mouth. The cunt isn’t worth it.

  64. greyghost says:

    So you trade in your allegiance to Christ to allegiance to Sons of Silence. You are right, the laws very often don’t apply to them the way they do to Christian men. But why marry then? You don’t follow Christ, so why marry?

    There is no answer and no marriage. Every topic and article will end here. This is why MGTOW and why christian men are not respected.

  65. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    So you trade in your allegiance to Christ to allegiance to Sons of Silence. You are right, the laws very often don’t apply to them the way they do to Christian men. But why marry then? You don’t follow Christ, so why marry?

    I had to Google Sons of Silence.

    I see joining a male-protective gang as a form of insurance, to be used only as self-defense if the wife first threatens to send you to prison. To counter-balance her threatpoint with one of your own. Sort of like putting your assets into a trust, as a form of self-defense against frivorce.

    If an armed burglar enters your home, are you not permitted to defend yourself with deadly force? If a wife threatens violence against you (i.e., lying to the cops), is the husband not permitted to defend himself? Is self-defense from violence, if perpetrated by a wife, un-Christlike?

    No, I would not want to be married under such circumstances. And I’m not. As I’ve said before, I’m a reluctant MGTOW.

    But if I found myself married to a crazy, dangerous woman, who threatened violence, asset rape, lying to cops and judge, I’d consider any means of self-defense as I tried to extricate myself from her life.

  66. Jason says:

    Watch the TV show ‘Cops’ in EVERY case when a man calls 911 and tells the operator “My wife beat me up / stabbed me / attacked me” the operator always holds and hides a “chuckle” at this situation, and ALWAYS when the police arrive, abused guy is ALWAYS being hauled “downtown” for questioning.

    All the wife / girlfriend has to say is “I acted in self-defense / he threatened me / I didn’t feel safe” and the police ALWAYS take her side. They call to find a local “abused women’s shelter” or some counseling for her. She just has to show some tears. Dudes ALWAYS get hauled into police custody.

    Even the police when they arrive seem to be holding back their “Ha, he let a girl beat him up!” attitude during the show or segment. They always ask the dude “Well, what did you do?”

  67. “Dale says:
    February 3, 2017 at 11:43 pm
    Thank you God that I do not have a wife.”

    “AMEN” to that!

    “…You don’t follow Christ, so why marry?”

    Christ wasn’t married — he possibly had a good idea.

  68. Opus says:

    Women do (I have noticed) have a tendency to see as reality whatever comes into their minds. It is, I suppose, a heightened form of Paranoia. My friend’s wife woke from a bad dream in which dream he had been unfaithful to her. She spent the morning sulking. ‘But it was only a dream’ my friend in exasperation friend pointed out; to which her sulky response was ”but you were unfaithful”.

  69. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I notice that of those who write they would take this or that violent action, none have skin in the game but one. That one has no children, and hasn’t actually ever done what he wrote he would do. Which is how the these plotters are all alike: All talk, no action.

    And the tactics recommended don’t actually overcome the injustice. In a situation where a wife and the state abuse a man, only the state actually has power. I notice that none of these plots address how to deal with the state. So these threats are really just self-aggrandized chickenshit.

  70. Lyn87 says:

    Cane goes into chest-thumping mode again. How predictable. As for me, I simply said that issuing a threat to avoid being kidnapped at gunpoint was not a moral dilemma, and might be the most effective tactic to avoid being hauled into a contest with armed agents of the state that you can’t win. Apparently Cane is too much of a coward to even entertain the idea of even token resistance that has the potential to stop the wheels before they start. What’s that about “self-aggrandized chickenshit,” again?

    Get back to me when you’ve been to war, son. Then we can talk about who’s the “chickenshit.”

  71. Gunner Q says:

    “But the consequence of them making innocence receive the same penalty as guilt is that if there is any benefit to doing the crime, there’s no reason not to…”

    “If I’m ever going to go to jail, it will be for murder.”

    Christ would have us go to jail for being innocent rather than being guilty.

    “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.'” 1 Peter 2:19-22

    The wicked will not escape justice. We have God’s promise on that. Meanwhile, don’t throw away your innocence. It will protect you, on Judgment Day if not sooner, and usually sooner. Most men who suffer frivorce end up happier than they ever were in marriage, and their exes? Psychotic, heavily medicated cat fatties. That is only a foreshadowing of eternity.

    Meanwhile, the police know the real score. They have to respond to all of Barbie’s hissy fits, not just the DV calls, and it doesn’t take a beat cop long to notice the common denominator. His politically-appointed leadership just doesn’t allow him to notice. Take Deti’s advice, don’t incriminate yourself verbally or physically, and the savvy cops will be able to do what they can. Example, when a cop gives you time to calm down and think it’s because he DOESN’T want to railroad you by recording adrenaline-fueled muttering.

  72. feeriker says:

    Apparently Cane is too much of a coward to even entertain the idea of even token resistance that has the potential to stop the wheels before they start. What’s that about “self-aggrandized chickenshit,” again?

    Get back to me when you’ve been to war, son. Then we can talk about who’s the “chickenshit.”

    Ordinarily I just ignore Cane when he goes through one of his spergy juvenile spasms. However, I am quite curious to hear more from him about how he has culled so much biodata on all of us here that he can assert with such certainty and authority that we “have no skin in the game” where this topic is concerned. It should be very entertaining.

  73. Lyn87 says:

    Gunner writes, “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.”

    The emphasized part is important. If this was a matter of being punished for being a Christian I’d agree with you 100%. That’s not the issue here. We’re talking about being raked over the coals because you’re a man. Again, “Christ would have us go to jail for being innocent rather than being guilty,” but as long as we’re talking about being innocent of assault charges (as opposed to witnessing to the lost), I’d prefer not to go to jail at all.

    I’ve freely admitted that this is an academic exercise for me: like Roger, I’m not in a DV situation, and I’ve never had anyone call the cops on me, but also like him I’ve seen it happen to my brother. I’d like to think you’re right about cops “knowing the score” and not looking to hammer a guy, but I’ve known a lot of cops in my life, and the stories they’re willing to tell you when they see a uniform and sense a “kindred spirit” has disabused me of any notion about the basic goodness of the average cop. A significant minority of them actively look for ways to be as aggressive as they can be, and the rest of them look the other way at best, and get drawn into the moment at worst.

    The only way to win is not to play.

  74. thedeti says:

    “don’t incriminate yourself verbally or physically, and the savvy cops will be able to do what they can. Example, when a cop gives you time to calm down and think it’s because he DOESN’T want to railroad you by recording adrenaline-fueled muttering.”

    No, the cops won’t do what they can. They’re concerned about the optics of the situation. They don’t want to release a supremely pissed off husband to go back home into the cesspit of a vengeful angry wife. If someone gets sent to the hospital or the morgue, it’ll make the news, heads at the precinct will roll, the higher up brass will get involved, and someone will go to jail.

    They don’t care if husband gets railroaded or not. They don’t care if he incriminates himself or not. They just don’t want to clean up a mess after releasing a husband to go back into a situation where he and his spouse are at each other’s throats and someone gets hurt or killed.

    The cops are not going to help a husband who’s in custody on a domestic. You have to help yourself. The cops just want to make sure their asses are covered so it doesn’t roll downhill on them. That’s why you STFU, get released, get a lawyer, file the papers, and handle any potential criminal charges (usually, there aren’t any).

  75. thedeti says:

    Once the justice system’s wheels start turning on a domestic, you are completely and totally on your own. The only person on your side will be your lawyer. No one will help you. Not your family, not your friends, not your employer, not the police, not the judge, and certainly not your (soon to be ex-) wife.

    STFU, get released, get a lawyer, file the papers, and respond to any charges that get filed.

  76. Hose_B says:

    As a CHRISTIAN man needs to mean a different course of action than non Christian. “Even the pagans do that” and such. My question is how to actually cause positive change. I’d have to stretch to fit “she called the cops” under Jesus’s conditions for divorce. I’ve gone round and round on the terms “adultery” “sexual immorality” and the Greek “Pornea” but I can’t see how this fits. Denial of sex, I can make a case. She won’t do what I say, she won’t submit, she called the cops, even she hit me doesn’t fall under this.
    Non Christians can just divorce and go on. We have to think about it carefully.
    Open to thoughts on this.

    FYI, when the threat to call the cops came up, I made sure to explain the consequences of calling them. Exactly what was going to happen to me and what the kids will see. How it would play out. She was in no danger, but still threw out the threat. This caused her to stop for a minute and think. She had to answer to herself and me if those consequences were what she wanted to happen. She didn’t call, but also wouldn’t hesitate to threat again.

  77. Stroller says:

    So do you think we are going to get anywhere by changing laws?

  78. thedeti says:

    Hose:

    Even wife’s THREAT to call the cops effectively ends the marriage. By making the threat, wife has injected an adversarial aspect into the marriage that cannot be overcome.

    You can’t ever again trust a woman who threatens you with assault and battery by men with guns, arrest, and potential incarceration. You can’t ever again assert your leadership and authority in that home with that woman. Because by making the threat, she has just announced she does not recognize your authority and will not follow your leadership.

    That breaks all trust. That’s a dealbreaker. That ends the marriage.

  79. Lyn87 says:

    +1 Deti. That’s true in all dealings with the police where you are suspected of anything. Stay out of the cross-hairs if you can. If you can’t: shut up, lawyer up, and get out as cleanly as possible. [Note]

    This is something I do have a bit of experience with. A cop friend of mine ran afoul of his girlfriend’s wrath and she stated making calls: she accused him of stealing government ammunition, possessing stolen automatic weapons, fraud, and child abuse. It turned out that only the fraud part was true, but I was called in as a witness for the weapons stuff during both the investigation and the grand jury hearing. What I didn’t know until later was that they originally thought I was an accomplice on the weapons stuff, and were operating under that assumption when I was initially being interviewed.

    FWIW: Once I found out about the fraud I stopped having anything to do with him. It was mostly an administrative action and to this day I’m not sure what he did was actually illegal, but it was certainly awfully stupid of him, and he took a no-jail time plea bargain to avoid risking getting in worse trouble. Also, what he did to piss off his girlfriend was even more stupid, so I don’t feel sorry for him. Also FWIW, they ended up back together after it was over.

    [Note: if it’s a case of violence – including proxy violence by armed agents of the state – I would think making quickly for the exits would be justified.]

  80. Lyn87 says:

    Hose_B,

    I agree that divorce-and-remarriage-to-someone-else is probably not be the Biblical response to proxy violence (Matt 19), but physical separation is probably justified.

  81. Original Laura says:

    Hose B: By calling the cops over a non-violent quarrel where she was not genuinely afraid, she has deliberately and publicly humiliated you, and if the arrest is followed by a restraining order, then she has left you homeless which could be considered constructive abandonment. Some people consider abandonment to be a Biblical rationale for a divorce, but other do not.

    One of the big problems with calling the cops over nothing much is that she is doing this because she has already hired a divorce attorney and has been told that using the cops to get you out of the house and labeling you as violent and abusive will help her to get custody of the children. Whether you consider calling the cops to be grounds for divorce or not, her decision to get rid of you may already be final.

  82. thedeti says:

    Lyn:

    If the police are talking to you, you are a suspect. Or at least a person of interest. If the police want you to come to the police station to give a statement about some incident in which you were involved or they think you were involved, you are a suspect. You aren’t under arrest, but rest assured: Everything you say to them will be used against you if they decide it can be or they can pin something on you.

    The police do not go around looking for evidence to help people keep their noses clean. The police do not go out of their way to help people avoid run ins with the law. If the police want to talk to you about anything other than a traffic accident or a petty moving violation, it is because they think you did something illegal or you know something about somebody else doing illegal things. They are looking to jam someone up.

    Shut up. Do not talk. Talk to a lawyer FIRST even if you are NOT under arrest. DO NOT agree to go to a police station to give a statement if you are not under arrest. If you are going to make the very, very dumb decision to talk to a police officer about something, do it in public with other people around if at all possible. Do not talk to them again. If at any point in time they start asking you about you and what you did, end the questioning and say “I want a lawyer” and then leave the area. (That’s why you answer the questions in public – so you can leave when you’re done. You’re not at your house, where you have to demand that the cops leave. You’re not at a precinct house where there’s an inherent threat of police authority and large men with guns where the unstated threat is that you are NOT free to leave even if you’re not under arrest.)

  83. Nancy Pelosi says:

    Prosecution depts tend to be full of misandrist, feminist bulldykes. Like most state institutions, they are somewhat protected by the market, so go SJW.

    I’ve done jury duty a few times. One case took us less than half an hour to dismiss. It was obvious to me from day 1 they wanted to stitch up a White man to make the crime figuresmore PC. Must have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars.

  84. Hose_B says:

    Deti and original Laura. You are both correct. She has no respect for me, or any authority I might have. Nor any realization that denying the existence of this authority is denying God. I agree it is over. (We have been physically separated for a long time and she filed last year) a large part of me rejects this because it is not what I want. Regardless.

    @lyn87
    If divorce is not allowed but physical separation is, doesn’t that just open the other to say that they are being denied sex, hence justification for divorce?
    Yes playing a little devils advocate here, but you see the implications.

  85. Lyn87 says:

    Hose_B,

    I can’t answer your question by pointing to a definitive “proof text” in scripture, and I try very hard not to make definitive doctrinal statements without at least one, and preferably several. I can just tell you my opinion, which is that Matthew 19 means what it says (which I think most of us are on-board with), and that while the Pauline epistles speak of “separating” from an unbelieving spouse in cases where living together in untenable, the justification for declaring one to be eligible for remarriage after the threat or actuality of initiating proxy violence is less clear (although it is arguable).

    I’m sorry if that sounds like legalese or weasel-wording, but I just don’t have a definitive answer to give.

    thedeti,

    I have a much better understanding of that now than I did at the time. The situation was such that the investigator (a fed) came to our place of civilian employment (where the cop and I both worked) to ask about his alleged theft of military ammo and weapons from an armory where we both did our reserve duty (I was on drill status at the time – I had years of active time both before and after that). There was no police station: it was in an office, and he gave no direct hint that I was a suspect until I didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear. He didn’t know squat about military weapons, or ammo, or range procedures, and it showed, because he was trying to get me to say that a round of 5.56mm ammo that came from the cop’s house was military ammo that must have come from the arms room. I had to give the fed a lesson on head-stamps and what the little numbers and letters that are stamped on ammunition mean and, more importantly, what they don’t mean. He really was clueless, but when they finally charged my (ex) friend, there was nothing about stolen ammo or weapons.

  86. Lost Patrol says:

    Hose B,

    I completely agree with the commenters that say this conduct breaks all bargains.

    I see what you are doing there. Honor, loyalty, and justice tend to be the purview of men; and you are looking at things through that lens and trying to hold to those ideals. Most women do not tend to operate with those as overarching concepts. They may understand the words, but the infusing spirit escapes them as you pointed out –

    She didn’t call, but also wouldn’t hesitate to threat again.

    Theologically speaking, I have no idea. But as a human man, made in the image of My Creator, I will not abide this kind of “enemy within”. That’s no wife, and that’s no marriage, in one man’s opinion. I detest the disloyal.

  87. Hose_B says:

    Lyn87
    Thank your for your thoughtful response. I fully understand the hesitation to speak definitively. This is a tricky one and I appreciate the insight.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 3:48 pm:
    Gunner writes, “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.”

    “The emphasized part is important. If this was a matter of being punished for being a Christian I’d agree with you 100%. That’s not the issue here.”

    You’re intentionally misreading it. The Christian bears up under unjust suffering because he fears God. God is on record hating both divorce and domestic violence, notably denouncing both in the same breath in Malachi 2:16. If she denounces you then she is God’s enemy. If you break her because you’ll be denounced anyway then YOU are God’s enemy and her behavior is justified after the fact. What are you thinking, that you can disobey God because there’s no mortal drawback? THAT is what it means to be “conscious of God”.

    Christ did not retaliate against us for him being forced to bear the cost of our crimes. We must follow Christ’s example.

    Hose_B @ 4:02 pm:
    “Non Christians can just divorce and go on. We have to think about it carefully.
    Open to thoughts on this.”

    As I read it, divorce for other-than-adultery is permissible on condition of lifetime celibacy. This allows the chance for reconciliation while also ensuring it isn’t a go-to solution for mere unhappiness. Biblical marriage is defined by sexual fidelity so this seems reasonable for modern times. If wifey makes living with her impossible then toss her out and she’ll either come to her senses, or take a new lover and you’re off the hook.

  89. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 3:50 pm:
    “The cops are not going to help a husband who’s in custody on a domestic. You have to help yourself. The cops just want to make sure their asses are covered so it doesn’t roll downhill on them.”

    We must know different cops. The ones I’ve met are most unhappy about the current situation.

    Cop catches teenage Barbie committing child pornography when she posts selfies of her own twerking on Facebook. Parents are upset at the cop not their daughter.

    He tries to convince twenties Barbie to press charges against her Dindu lover for putting a crowbar through her face but she insists “he’s a good boy” and “he loves me”.

    He watches thirties Barbie sneer at her battered husband while claiming to be in fear for her life. He’s not allowed to charge her with filing a false police report.

    He arrests forties Barbie’s little boy for vandalism and gang activity. She screams at the cop for ruining her son’s reputation.

    He arrests fifties Barbie for DUI after the bars close. She threatens to sue him for sexual assault as he shoves her into the backseat.

    He detains sixties Barbie on suspicion of mental illness. Barbie’s kids disown their mother, telling him about the child abuse they suffered at the hands of her post-hubby lovers.

    He finds seventies Barbie’s bloated corpse half-eaten by her cats after neighbors complain about the stench. Anti-male literature is strewn all over. He reflects that he himself is male.

    Cops don’t like being lied to, or used as tools, or watching tomorrow’s thugs getting bred by today’s obnoxious she-pigs. They resent their SJW-converged superiors telling them that what they see ain’t so, or to stop arresting so many Dindu Nuttins who are driving the latest crime wave. And just to put the cherry on top, they get frivorced really bad… it’s easy for the gov’t to garnish the wages of gov’t employees. They know the score, and while they won’t heed Manosphere demands to quit or frag their bosses many are willing to give things a nudge where they can.

  90. Lyn87 says:

    “You’re intentionally misreading it.”

    And you’re not nearly as good at reading minds as you think you are. IF I am misreading it (and I’m not at all sure that I am), it is certainly not intentional. Anyway, I didn’t say anything about “breaking her.” Those are your words, not mine. I choose my words carefully, so it’s almost always wrong to extrapolate beyond what I actually wrote. For at least the third time: a wife who calls armed agents of the state to assault and kidnap an innocent husband is guilty of a VERY serious crime of violence. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that neither you nor anyone else on this thread would condemn a man for defending himself with a lot more than harsh words and physical restraint to keep that from happening… IF the perpetrator was anyone other than the wife and her accomplices in their magic blue suits. To say otherwise is to say that that assailant in particular is somehow above even the slightest resistance.

    Whether that is the best reaction from a legal standpoint is debatable, but I flatly reject it as a moral imperative.

  91. BillyS says:

    AR,

    Your life will be better if your wife is happy. Unfortunately she has full control over that, contrary to much churchain tradition.

    feeriker,

    My wife didn’t think through the implications of her actions. She was fairly smart to not try to get me arrested though as it could really hamper her ability to extract spousal support from me. Hard to pay anything when you aren’t making any money….

    In this day, age, and society it’s much easier and much less time and resource-consuming to just invert your advice: assume by default that ALL women are raging narcissistic abusers to be avoided like the plague. Then filter on the rare one who shows traits leading you to believe that she’s a sane, loving, feminine human being.

    I wish I had that advice about 30 years ago. It would have saved me a great deal of pain, even though it might have hurt in the short run.

    Dale,

    Thank you God that I do not have a wife.

    God set men up to be married and that makes it harder. I am not sure I will be able to completely ignore that pull in spite of my experience as well, but I do know I will not connect with someone who doesn’t really seem to be like a unicorn (in my eyes).

    OVERALL:

    What cannot continue won’t continue. It will almost certainly be a mess getting there however.

    Lyn87,

    What can be used against you will be used against you. Even noting some make such threats may be considered making the threat. Even noting what others might do can be twisted against you. I am not sure that it is as good of a tactic as some here think. It would have made my situation worse.

    while the Pauline epistles speak of “separating” from an unbelieving spouse in cases where living together in untenable, the justification for declaring one to be eligible for remarriage after the threat or actuality of initiating proxy violence is less clear (although it is arguable).

    Reality has a way of putting things into perspective. Jesus was answering the question of whether a man could put away (divorce) his wife for any reason with the adultery coverage. He was not proclaiming that divorced men, especially those divorced against their will, were required to be celibate the rest of their lives. We do the Scriptures a disservice when we stretch them past their intended application to make a new law to follow.

    I remain convinced that we should not look at a marriage as an easy thing to break, but neither should we tie a man to something he had absolutely no control over. The same may apply to women to a point, but I am finding the even those in bad relationships most often knew it ahead of time.

    On the Police:

    I used to be a strong advocate of the police, but I have seen enough examples of thugs in uniform that I no longer support them reflexively as I once did.

  92. N. Vandenberg says:

    Dalrock : I am so glad you posted this. Last year I was dating a woman who was not very open. So late one night I googled her. Ended up with this (Names Redacted):
    12 Cases Found.

    07/25/2016 I18-903 {M} Battery
    Officer: M

    06/16/1997 I18-918(3)(A) {M} Domestic Assault
    Officer: Unknown Officer,, AD

    06/16/1997 I18-705 Officers-resisting Or Obstructing Officers
    Officer: Unknown Officer,, AD

    04/11/2000 IX20-227-B {M} PROBATION VIOLATION
    Officer: Unknown Officer,, AD

    10/03/1999 I18-920 No Contact Order-violation Of
    Officer: Mon

    08/08/1999 I18-920 No Contact Order-violation Of
    Officer: zzBC

    06/15/1997 Original: I18-905(A) Assault-aggravated(use Deadly Weapon/instrument)
    Amended: I18-918(3)(A) {M} Domestic Assault
    Officer: Dal

    06/15/1997 I18-705 Officers-resisting Or Obstructing Officers
    Officer: Dal

    04/10/2000 IX20-227-B {M} PROBATION VIOLATION
    Officer: zzBC

    04/12/1995 I18-905(B) Assault-aggravated(produce Great Bodily Harm)
    Officer: zzBC

    04/12/1995 I18-905(B) Assault-aggravated(produce Great Bodily Harm)
    Officer: zzBC
    NOTE: Two separate charges!

    10/27/1995 Original: I18-905(B) Assault-aggravated(produce Great Bodily Harm)
    Amended: IX18-901-B {M} ASSAULT
    Officer: Cro

    08/05/1994 I18-918(3)(A) {M} Domestic Assault
    Officer: zzBC

    02/04/1994 I18-905(A) Assault-aggravated(use Deadly Weapon/instrument)
    Officer: zzBC

    05/17/1994 Original: I18-905(A) Assault-aggravated(use Deadly Weapon/instrument)
    Amended: IX18-901-A {M} ASSAULT
    Officer: zzBC

    10/09/1993 Original: IX18-903-B {M} BATTERY-DOMESTIC
    Amended: IX18-6409 {M} DISTURBING THE PEACE
    Officer: Wie

    10/09/1993 I18-705 Officers-resisting Or Obstructing Officers
    Officer: Wie

    02/06/1993 IX18-903-B {M} BATTERY-DOMESTIC
    Officer: zzBC

  93. I’ve been thinking a lot about innovations that men should use to defend themselves in the Gynocracy. Seems like home surveillance (like a nanny cam) *that the wife is not aware of* would solve a lot of problems. Anyone who thinks that the camera without the wife’s knowledge is some kind of breach of privacy can go screw themselves. You could catch cheaters and domestic violence perpetrators in the act. Also, there are cheap home paternity tests. They aren’t admissible in court, it would just be for putting your mind at ease. Just a few of the tools that men should use more often to strike back at the gynocracy.

  94. MarcusD says:

    Divorce and abandonment
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1040415

    Vivid dream about a man (and sin) I thought I’d got over…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1040583

    Dating someone who rides the fence about abortion and pre-marital sexuality
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1040760

  95. Pariah says:

    This Duluth post made me nearly go into a rage when I tried reading it yesterday, I had to step away for 24 hours to calm down, so now it’s gotten me thinking…

    Have you ever researched the qualifications for a pastor? Because I really want to become a pastor in order to start teaching the truth to other men, but I’m not sure I want to get married.
    I’ve heard some people teach that a pastor HAS to be a husband… if this is true, it almost seems like a flaw in God’s design for the church – like a loophole the devil can exploit to destroy the church.

    Destruction of marriage = disqualification of pastors = destruction of the church?

    Is that it???

  96. Opus says:

    Off topic perhaps but I have previously had cause to notice a difference, as I see it, between Britain and America when it comes to the influence of the clergy*: this came to mind as today’s front page in The Express is devoted to the former Archbishop of Canterbury castigating Mr Trump’s opponents as being ‘hysterical’. Now, ‘beardie’ is hardly conservative, but when the Archbishop even a retired Archbishop makes a pronouncement it becomes front page news and always has great moral weight. One advantage of being a Theocracy I suppose.

    * That of course is why you are American.

  97. Hose_B says:

    @Ayatollah1988
    Please read 1984, or for a more modern cautionary tale, watch episode 3 of Black Mirror.
    Cameras are NOT the answer. If you record it, there are legal privacy issues. And if you use it legally, your just as likely for the recording to screw your over. The recording can be scrutinized, zoomed, rewound, and replayed until HER attorneys find something to use.
    For a giggle, google the legal battles surrounding the “home assistants” such and amazon echo or apple home, etc.

  98. Opus says:

    @patriarchal landmine

    Cheaper to kill her. Law student’s are taught (though not encouraged to emulate) that should whilst driving in your car you accidentally run over a pedestrian that if the victim is still alive but badly injured the cheaper option and provided no one is looking is to reverse and finish them off – as damages for wrongful death (in England) are very small – just a few thousand pounds sterling* – whereas damages for a person who may continue to live with life impairing injuries can bankrupt.

    “I often wonder whether Americans have this as a figure on their keyboard £, as you see I also have a $.

  99. Hose_B says:

    @BillyS
    “I remain convinced that we should not look at a marriage as an easy thing to break, but neither should we tie a man to something he had absolutely no control over.”

    I would like to agree…….because I want it to be true. But God doesn’t care if he ties a man to something he had no control of. He TOLD Hosea to marry an adulterous woman to teach a lesson. Human “should” doesn’t equal Gods “should or is”

  100. feeriker says:

    On the Police:

    I used to be a strong advocate of the police, but I have seen enough examples of thugs in uniform that I no longer support them reflexively as I once did.

    Just remember this about cops: their job is not to protect you (they are under no legal obligation to do so; just ask the innocent people in Berkeley who got beaten up and vandalized by Marxist thugs last week as the local cops just stood by and watched it all happen). Their number one job is to protect the Ruling Classes from you and your fellow mundanesshould you decide that you want to live like free men and get uppity about it. On those vanishingly rare occasions when cops actually do “protect and serve” you, it is because 1) your specific situation puts them in no danger or inconvenience, and/or 2) they need to make an occasional gesture, however hollow and superficial, to maintain the “protect and serve” myth.

  101. Opus ,No. I do, however, frequently pound the keyboard. Maybe that helps.

  102. Boxer says:

    Cane goes into chest-thumping mode again. How predictable. As for me, I simply said that issuing a threat to avoid being kidnapped at gunpoint was not a moral dilemma, and might be the most effective tactic to avoid being hauled into a contest with armed agents of the state that you can’t win. Apparently Cane is too much of a coward to even entertain the idea of even token resistance that has the potential to stop the wheels before they start. What’s that about “self-aggrandized chickenshit,” again?

    Granted, you’re a lot smarter and braver than he is. No question about that. But, Cane has a blog, where he contributes original content. You don’t, so it’s hard to completely take your side.

    WordPress and Blogger (despite its google association) are both relatively free-speech zones. I’ve been through 100 twitter accounts at this point, but WordPress hasn’t caused me trouble yet. It costs nothing, and your thoughts would get wider exposure over there. Moreover, you wouldn’t have to do any extra work. Just copy some of your better comments posted here. Many of them are thought provoking mini-articles in their own right.

    Boxer

  103. BillyS says:

    Hose_B,

    Hosea was a policy exception, not an example to follow.

    We err when we apply something that is not a principle across the board.

  104. Boxer says:

    Talking about the Duluth model is most important insofar as it’s interconnected to the alimony and child-support racket. This appears to be the first step in the transformation from husband to wage-slave, who provides his ex wife the ability to live large at his expense, while she hoes it up in a second childhood lifestyle.

    I don’t blame you guys for being upset about it. Many’s the evening I have pondered what my life would look like, had I legally married one of the sweet dark chickies I spent some good times with in years past. Most of the conclusions I came to weren’t good, and most involved this here…

  105. MarcusD says:

    @Opus

    Hold the “Alt” key while typing “0163” (on the numpad) to get “£”.

  106. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: Law student’s are taught (though not encouraged to emulate) that should whilst driving in your car you accidentally run over a pedestrian that if the victim is still alive but badly injured the cheaper option and provided no one is looking is to reverse and finish them off – as damages for wrongful death (in England) are very small – just a few thousand pounds sterling* – whereas damages for a person who may continue to live with life impairing injuries can bankrupt.

    I heard a story about a trucker who apparently did just that. Reversed over someone he’d hit, for that very reason.

    Of course, it could just be an urban legend.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    “I often wonder whether Americans have this as a figure on their keyboard £, as you see I also have a $.

    What would we want that thing for?

    MarcusD
    Hold the “Alt” key while typing “0163” (on the numpad) to get “£”.

    Laptops don’t have numpads, and Not All Operating Systems Are Like That, either.

  108. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Two — not one, but two — transgender people are running for the Minneapolis City Council: http://www.startribune.com/transgender-candidates-for-mpls-city-council-seek-a-voice-at-the-table/412794853/

    I don’t hate trannies, but they are mentally ill. Seriously mentally ill. And this nation’s people are now placing them into positions of power and responsibility, and celebrating it.

    I was born in the 1960s and remember the 1970s. I thought things were bad during the “liberal” Carter years, but I never thought America could fall this low.

  109. I think the biggest problem with the “Duluth Model” for government intervention in handling matters of domestic violence is simply… they don’t really have ANY OTHER MODEL to follow. These are social workers, government employees as local and state levels. They are not really permitted to… think. They have to react and follow some kind of script in dealing with this. And if you don’t give them Duluth, then they don’t have a script to follow and they don’t really know what to do. If they could think outside the box, they wouldn’t be working in government.

  110. RPL, absolutely, trans-gender people are most certainly mentally ill. They need psychiatrists, not operations.

  111. Opus says:

    @ Marcus D

    So out of curiosity I tried Alt 0163 and because I do not have a laptop built for America the screen rather than giving me £ which I locate above the number 3 ($ above 4) it turned 90 degrees. I have after some time managed to get the screen back where it should be, but at least I have come across all the strange symbols to be found with Alt.. 🙂

  112. MarcusD says:

    @Opus

    For laptops I believe you have to ensure that numlock is on.

  113. MarcusD says:

    @AR

    “Laptops don’t have numpads, and Not All Operating Systems Are Like That, either.”

    Yes, my instructions assume Windows.

  114. Frank K says:

    RPL = “I was born in the 1960s and remember the 1970s. I thought things were bad during the “liberal” Carter years, but I never thought America could fall this low.”

    It’s going to get worse. Next on the prog agenda they are going to try to shove pedos down our throats and tell us that children have sexual needs and that we should get out of their way. Expect to see this championed on TV shows and Hollyweird movies and to be told that you’re a bigot and a fascist if you oppose it.

  115. BubbaCluck says:

    Option>3 works on a Mac.

  116. Novaseeker says:

    Next on the prog agenda they are going to try to shove pedos down our throats and tell us that children have sexual needs and that we should get out of their way. Expect to see this championed on TV shows and Hollyweird movies and to be told that you’re a bigot and a fascist if you oppose it.

    Eventually, yes, but I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.

  117. Frank K says:

    “If an armed burglar enters your home, are you not permitted to defend yourself with deadly force?”

    It depends on where you live. I love telling Europeans about the “Make my day” law they have in Colorado, where you can use deadly force against a home invader.

    Invariably, the Euros are horrified upon hearing that.

    I was watching the TV show “The Grand Tour” (AKA Top Gear 2.0). When it was held in Nashiville Jeremy Clarkson asked why was it that people didn’t have things “nicked” from the truck bed while drive. Said that in the UK at the first stop light that your truck would be picked clean. James May answered the question: If you do that here, you’ll get shot.

  118. Spike says:

    ”The administrator said Bad Girls Advice helped thousands of women and served a positive purpose.
    ‘We have talked over 25 women out of suicide, helped hundreds of women find temporary homes and supplies after breaking away from domestic violence,’ she said.
    ‘We aren’t going to sit here and say we are saints. But we help in a huge way with the heavy stuff that a lot of people can’t talk about.’
    She told Daily Mail Australia all women who contributed to the controversial post have since been removed from the group”.

    -Pull the other one. It plays Jingle Bells.

  119. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Eventually, yes, but I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.

    Yes, because a) it is the highest priority for the FI, and b) many cuckservatives will be in favor of it, even though they have the most to lose.

  120. Anon says:

    One important detail Dalrock should add is how under VAWA, police departments get matching grants of Federal money based on hitting certain arrest quotas.

    This is why even if you dial 9-11 if you are having a heart attack, if there is a woman in your household, they will keep trying to prod her to claim she was hit. Even if you call for something entirely unrelated to any domestic relationship issue. The police get grants for making VAWA arrests. They don’t get grants for helping the ambulance rush you to the ER.

    In the past, I used to cite the 911 response service as one of the things that made America better than most countries in the world. Unfortunately, the FI has taken this service, designed to help people in real emergencies, and turn it into am arm of misandry. Hence, the 9-11 service is one of the things that can terrorize a man in a way that cannot happen in most other countries.

    There are very few countries in the world where a man can be ejected from his own home in 30 minutes with no due process. Note that a third-party (like a neighbor) can also call the police on a man, even if the wife herself protests the complaint. Note that all countries where anything of this sort exist have been full democracies (i.e. female suffrage) for 90+ years.

  121. Dale says:

    @BillyS
    > Thank you God that I do not have a wife.
    >
    >God set men up to be married and that makes it harder.

    Lest I leave the deceitful impression that I am a man of vast self-control, who can simply suppress or totally ignore my God-given desires: Yes, you are correct. It would be rare that an entire day goes by without me at least once feeling a strong desire for the missing wife.
    But I strive to be grateful. (1 Thes 5:16-18, Col 3:15-17, Phil 4:4, 8, etc.) Instead of whining about my knee that is starting to cause pain, I thank God that, overall, I have great health. Instead of focusing my mind on the fact that I am away from my home and relatives, I thank God that I found this high-paying job in another city. And although I lack the wife I desire for sexual intimacy, sexual gratification, children, time together, and wife whom I can serve, I can absolutely thank God that I do not have a lazy, selfish wife; or a wife who betrayed and left me; or a wife who has stolen the home God provided for me; or who threatens these things.
    Certainly there is more I could hope for, but I am very grateful to God for the situation that I already have.
    Just today I went to a different church, hoping to find a unicorn worthy of marriage with whom I could try to strike up a conversation and relationship. So I certainly can empathize with you Billy. May God bless and guide you.

    Pariah
    >Have you ever researched the qualifications for a pastor?

    2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture…
    Rom 12:3-8 Gifts
    Phil 4:10-11 Gifts
    Heb 13:20-21 Equipped by God, not the local “Bible” school/seminary
    Titus 1:5-9 Elders
    1 Tim 2:8 – 3:7 Elders

    Some, such as Lyn, will tell you that a man who is not a husband cannot be an elder. The 1 Tim 3 passage listed above would at least hint that Lyn is correct:
    “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?”
    If a man has no children, he is not going to be able to demonstrate that he fulfills the fatherly requirement given above. (I would argue that if a man has no children, he is not failing it either however.)
    I would be quick to point out that the “manage his own household well” part should obviously include the wife. And other than the Slavic churches I have been to, not even one pastor that I have met has been able/willing to properly train/direct his own wife, even for the 2 hours when she is publicly seen as “the pastor’s wife” in Sunday service. Since these men cannot even keep their own wife from obvious, visible rebellion for two hours during the churchian service, why should I believe they are suitable for training/leading God’s people? (Deut 22:5 re clothes, 1 Cor 11 re hair, Titus 2:3-5 re self-control such as drunkenness or obesity, ?? re gossiping, Titus 2:3-5 re slander, etc.)

    I do not personally agree that Lyn’s interpretation is the only one permitted by a humble, submissive reading of the text, but I have to agree that it is certainly possible that his interpretation is the correct one. I do wonder at the obvious problem we have in our society however, where 99% of women in English churches are rebellious. Perhaps we should have groups that simply meet to read God’s word, without an elder/teacher, since we have hardly anyone who meets the standards. Or simply import all our pastors/elders from non-feminist cultures, again without ignoring any of the requirements from Scripture.
    May God guide and correct your thoughts. And mine.

    Hose_B
    >But God doesn’t care if he ties a man to something he had no control of. He TOLD Hosea to marry an adulterous woman to teach a lesson.

    Hosea was an extraordinary exception. Nowhere do I see the command to marry a b… Western woman applied to all men. Yes, 1 Cor 7 says let each man have his own wife… but we see modelled in Scripture one solution when you are surrounding by unacceptable women. Abraham got a wife from his son from a foreign land, instead of asking his son to debase himself by taking a local woman who was unworthy of marriage. That is not the only solution, but we need to be willing to reject what is being shoved in our faces.
    I admit that the passage in Jos 24:14-15 is not a command for us, but I have adopted the final statement as my own: “But as for me and MY house, we WILL serve the Lord.” (emphasis mine) If she does not submit, she is not welcome in my house.

  122. feeriker says:

    [M]any cuckservatives will be in favor of it, even though they have the most to lose.

    The more I think about it, the more absolutely that this statement applies to everything that cuckservatives are in favor of, whether it relates to sex and martiage or not.

  123. Lyn87 says:

    Dale,

    As you noted, I don’t see any way around the requirements for deacons and elders (which includes pastors) from being married fathers, for the reason you stated (I Tim 3 and Titus 1). That said, I know a lot of people disagree with me, and I have had a church approach me about doing just that during their pastoral search. Obviously I had done nothing to solicit the interest, and immediately declined on the basis that I have no children. TBH, I’m about the only person I know who takes those passages that literally (and it’s possible that I’m wrong), but I see “managing his marriage and children” as a test he has to pass, not one he simply has can simply avoid so as to not fail. We don’t have to wonder why it’s there because it says so in black-and-white: how can he manage the house of God unless he can manage his own house? Every one of the qualifications is based on demonstrated qualifications that everyone can see, so it would seem odd to put that one into a separate category of “you don’t have to pass this test, you just have to avoid failing it, which you may do by not taking it.” To me, that’s like me saying that I’m qualified to design nuclear reactors because I didn’t fail the finals for a PhD in nuclear physics. I didn’t fail them because I didn’t take them – lack of failure in not proof of success.

    One thing is certain: being married and/or a father cannot in any sense be disqualifying.

    In any case, I’ll reiterate what I wrote a few days ago about the author of “I Kissed Dating Good-bye.” It’s a mystery to me why anyone would take mating/marriage advice from a 21-year-old virgin who had sworn off one-on-one interactions with women his own age. That’s not the sort of book a Christian patriarch would be likely to write.

    That said, I’ve never walked out of a church because the preacher wasn’t a married father, but as an adult I have walked out of every church wherein a woman got up to preach.

  124. Lyn87 says:

    Edit: The sentence that ends, “… as a test he has to pass, not one he simply has can simply avoid so as to not fail.”

    should say, “… as a test he has to pass, not one he can simply avoid so as to not fail.”

  125. Lyn87 says:

    Novaseeker, Anon, and feeriker,

    Seconded… or… fourthed(?). Polygamy is probably next up on the agenda. Where it goes after that is anyone’s guess (maybe chipping away at the prohibited degrees of consanguinity), but in the short term I can’t see the rationale against polygamy/polyandry/polyamory holding up against serious challenge now that homosexual unions have been declared legal. All it would take is a few tweaks to the tax code, but the real problems would happen when somebody wants out, especially if kids are involved.

  126. Dale says:

    @Lyn
    > demonstrated qualifications that everyone can see
    Not arguing with your overall interpretation; as admitted, it may be the correct one. For your statement above however, I think it is not entirely correct. Five of the requirements from Titus are:
    – not overbearing
    – not quick tempered
    – not given to drunkeness
    – not violent
    – not pursuing dishonnest gain.

    For these five at least, there is no test to pass; but rather a standard to not fail. If a man shows himself to be overbearing, we know he is unsuitable; at least for now. On the other hand, if he neglects to show himself to be overbearing, then he has not failed. Failing to demonstrate anything is actually a pass in this case.
    The wording of the “He must manage his household well” clause is active / positive wording however, as opposed to the five negative standards given above, or a hypothetical “he does not screw up his household”, so my argument only half holds water. Still, failing to demonstrate himself a failure is at least a partial meeting of the standard, and obviously better than the man who actively fails the test/standard. Yes, we need to strive for perfection, not shades of grey (Matt 5:48) #AngelsOnHeadOfPin…

    On a more valid point, I have a question. Let’s accept that the man must be married, and must also have children. How old does his child have to be for him to be qualified? For example, my Slavic pastor was originally unmarried. Now he is married and they have a son. The son is so young however, that it seems unreasonable for me to try to assess the father’s husbanding/training skills. Perhaps we need to restrict not merely to fathers, but further to fathers with adolescents, where the results of his training can now be seen and assessed in the children who have both an independent mind and significant exposure to the father’s training. My pastor’s little boy is really cute, but beyond that I am not willing to make any judgements. 🙂

    On an unrelated rant, I think it is really interesting that Paul does not write that the elder cannot get drunk. Rather, the standard is that he is “not given to drunkenness”; meaning that once in a (great?) while is not enough to disqualify the elder. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of reality, as we all struggle with a sinful nature (Gal 5:16-18) and will therefore regularly fail our Master.
    I do not drink myself, so I (claim I) am unbiased in this case. I used to attend a Nazarene church, where church rules forbid everyone from drinking “even one drop”. That church’s standard was stricter than required/appropriate I think.

  127. Dale says:

    Re polygamy
    >but the real problems would happen when somebody wants out, especially if kids are involved

    Same as now. Woman takes his children away from him, and the man pays. Yes, the remaining women would suffer as the betrayer sucks resources away from the man she left, but that is no different than the present-day case when a man’s first wife takes from the man, even though the man now has a second wife and child with the second wife.
    A betraying wife is more important than a loyal wife, and therefore must be encouraged and rewarded. Or so “we” think.

  128. “I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.”

    Have you noticed that Vice President Pence is not a friend of degenerate sex?

    If the leftists want polygamy in the USA, they are going to bump into an emboldened social conservative movement with friends in the White House.

  129. Dale says:

    Lyn,

    (Sorry for the wall of text; hopefully you will read it, as I am curious how you would reason on this.)

    Sorry for the disjointed thoughts/questions, but I have been mulling over your idea that the elder requirements are active tests, rather than merely standards that must not be failed; i.e. not merely avoided. This is kind of related to my question from half-way through the 9:14 post.
    The test statement is that a man must be able to demonstrate he manages his children well, rather than avoiding the test by not marrying, or by getting married but failing to have children.

    I (hope) all will agree that both of the following men are unacceptable:
    1) “I used to be self-controlled, but now I eat excessively, and am visibly obese”.
    2) “I used to refrain from dishonnest gain, but now I cheat all my clients every chance I get”
    The fact that the men USED to meet the requirements of Titus 1 is insufficient for their continued participation in spiritual leadership. Past qualification is not good enough.

    Now, suppose a third man says:
    3) “I used to demonstrate that I managed my household well, having children not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient, but now I have no children at home; they have all grown and formed new families. I no longer demonstrate anything.”

    The “must have children” rule that we are accepting for sake of discussion is an active requirement; we do not accept the man who avoids the test. So if I refuse to accept the two men above who used to meet the requirements but no longer do, why would we accept the third man, who also used to be able to demonstrate that he was meeting the requirement, but no longer meets the requirement? Granted, he has the excuse that he no longer CAN, as opposed to the first two men who actively choose to fail, but the fact remains that *** he does not demonstrate that he meets the requirement ***. Either he meets the requirement or he fails to qualify.
    The parallelism in the three examples above seems logical/consistent.

    From a human (and therefore weak) perspective, it seems a shame to lose an experienced elder/pastor, simply because he “ages out” of the qualifications.
    From a more valid perspective, Scripture shows John and Paul exercising authority over churches (Revelation and Pauline epistles) even in old age. Peter also. Thus, the fact that these men do not demonstrate that they are successfully passing the children test seems irrelevant.

  130. feeriker says:

    I (hope) all will agree that both of the following men are unacceptable:
    1) “I used to be self-controlled, but now I eat excessively, and am visibly obese”.
    2) “I used to refrain from dishonnest gain, but now I cheat all my clients every chance I get”
    The fact that the men USED to meet the requirements of Titus 1 is insufficient for their continued participation in spiritual leadership. Past qualification is not good enough.

    Evangelical Protestant churches are chock full of both of these types in “leadership” positions (to the extent that these churches have any “leadership” at all, which is fodder for a whole ‘nother rant elsewhere).

    Now, suppose a third man says:
    3) “I used to demonstrate that I managed my household well, having children not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient, but now I have no children at home; they have all grown and formed new families. I no longer demonstrate anything.”

    In all seriousness, I think that any man who is known to his congregation who has indeed raised a family of God-fearing, Christ-following children who have successfully formed similar families of their own and who is married to a faithful, obedient wife would have demonstrated that he is elder material. If his grown children at some point fall away from the word, then that really is on them. Free of the nest, there isn’t anything a father can do other than TRY to guide his grown offspring back to the fold. Their rebellion or straying from the path is NOT his fault – especially if he makes every attempt to lead them back. At some point grown children become autonomous and parents cannot be held responsible for their actions. An elder’s grown children who are on their own and out from underneath his roof are beyond his control.

  131. DEN1 says:

    This is the same kind of SJW nonsense that tells everyone, Blacks cannot be racist because, ‘they have no power’.

  132. Lyn87 says:

    Test. (Having computer issues.)

  133. Pariah says:

    Thanks Dale and Lyn. I guess I’ll simply have to pray that if it’s God’s will for me to become a pastor, and if it’s a requirement for me to get married, that He will provide for me a suitable help-meet.

    The sad thing is, I too have only ever seen pastors who disqualify according to the requirements for elders. The previous church I used to go to for eight years (I left a year ago when I started to realise how doctrinally false they are) the pastor had three daughters who were all sleeping around and riding the “carousel”. I think the pastor knew about it, but just didn’t care; even when the eldest got pregnant outside of marriage, it all got swept under the rug and she got “forgiven” by the church.

  134. Höllenhund says:

    “Eventually, yes, but I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.”

    The obvious problem with that, from a leftist point of view, is that the people most likely to practise polygamy won’t be the Amy Schumers, Lena Dunhams and white-knighting SJWs like Hugo Schwyzer and Sam Biddle. It’ll most likely be old and rich Mormon men, old and rich Protestant men, Baptist TV evangelist types, and slender white women imported from Eastern Europe.

  135. Lyn87 says:

    Pariah,

    I wrote a long response to Dale to answer his questions of me, but it got sent into moderation purgatory due to an error on my part. I asked Dalrock to just delete it (it also had formatting errors), and I don’t have the patience to recreate it in toto, so I’ll just give the short version.

    First of all: pastors are elders. The Greek word for “elder” normally translates as “overseer,” (an elder is just what you call an overseer in a church) and pastors must meet the requirements laid out in Titus 1 and I Timothy 3. I’d say that renders your former pastor ineligible to serve in that capacity, and I left a church when the pastor refused to deal with a similar situation in his own family, then lied to the board in order to make me out to be the bad guy because I said it needed to be dealt with (which he agreed with until his wife got involved).

    Enough of my backstory. What I hinted at and Dale expanded on was the idea that there are two kinds of criteria for elders: positive ones (“He must be known as a man who does this”) and negative ones (“He must be known as a man who does not do that”). For negative criteria he must continue to not do it to remain qualified, and for positive criteria he must pass the test, then he remains qualified unless he demonstrates that he no longer can. We do that all the time with other things that require qualifications, like driving. Once I passed my driving test I don’t have to keep re-testing: I retain my license unless I demonstrate that I can no longer drive safely. (That was my take on Dale’s three hypotheticals).

    I don’t see any way to make “have wife and kids in order” into a negative criterion, which is what you’d have to do to turn it from a “you must demonstrate that you can do this” into a “you can pass the test by not taking it, since you can’t fail a test you didn’t take.” The fact that all the criteria are to be obvious in the candidate adds weight to that: the positive tests seem to require that the prospective elder be known as a guy who possesses the attributes… because his credibility hinges on it. Anyone can quote scripture, but an unmarried non-father’s advice on handling domestic strife would not carry the weight of the advice of a man who has demonstrated that he’s been through it successfully. (That’s the reason I never offer my opinions on those subjects when they come up here.)

    That said, I know my take on this is not the commonly-accepted one even among hardcore fundamentalists. In fact, I’m not sure I know anyone who agrees with my strict literal reading of it, so I’m open to the idea that I’m being unnecessarily restrictive.

  136. Hose_B says:

    @Lyn87
    “As you noted, I don’t see any way around the requirements for deacons and elders (which includes pastors) from being married fathers,”

    This would mean that Jesus couldn’t be a pastor………………Uh…where does that leave things?

  137. Hose_B says:

    “I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.”

    Consensual Polyamory is the hookup culture or “open relationships” It already exists. Free love and all.
    As for Polygamy……..Its not a leftist idea. It is a biblical one…..HOWEVER one that has been smashed all to bits as our definition of MARRIAGE changes.

    Legal Marriage in the USA is simply a Civil Contract between two people. This contract does nothing to enforce or define what make you “married” in the eyes of God. And it applies equally to believers and non believers. When we talk about gay “Marriage” (or whatever transterm you like) we are really fighting over the right to LABEL it marriage rather than the legal ramifications of the agreement.

    Marriage (IMHO) is the trading of authority and responsibility. The husband takes on responsibility for the oneflesh unit and she gives up her authority. The husband takes on authority and she gives up her responsibility (as one with her husband). A Legal contract will never uphold this.

    Biblically, If this trading of authority and responsibility happened, the he had “taken her as a wife” and I see this applying even if he already had a wife. But he was required to NOT reduce his first wifes food shelter or sexual provision.

    Am I saying multiple wives are a GOOD IDEA??? No. Jesus warns us against even one wife. But I am saying that it is not something that is against scripture. Now the US legal ramifications are staggering and really would abolish anything real thats left in the “Marriage contract” but there isnt much left so I don’t see it as a bad thing.

  138. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    One important detail Dalrock should add is how under VAWA, police departments get matching grants of Federal money based on hitting certain arrest quotas.

    Do you have any sources you can point me to for this?

  139. Lyn87 says:

    Hose_B

    Obviously God is not bound by the restrictions He places on us.

  140. White Guy says:

    Some interesting links:
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-26-million-grants-develop-and-strengthen-criminal-justice-and-0

    Holy CRAP! There is a WHOLE DEPARTMENT at Justice for Violence against women!
    https://www.justice.gov/ovw

    https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/914131/download

    I’m looking through the grant process, though can’t spend much time on it.

  141. Feminist Hater says:

    Lyn, how have married men performed in their duty to lead Christianity? Who has the most ability to take the risk to speak truth, a married man or a single man?

  142. Gunner Q says:

    Novaseeker @ February 5, 2017 at 4:11 pm:
    “Eventually, yes, but I think consensual polygamy is next on the cultural change bucket list for the left.”

    No, It’s pedos. California just effectively legalized child prostitution and have you noticed the Elites’ recent interest in “combating” child sex trafficking? They wouldn’t cover for the likes of Wiener and Podesta if they weren’t guilty of the same crime.

    While Churchians pursue inverted gender roles, atheist predators see their chance now that masculine Daddy is gone.

    Dale @ February 5, 2017 at 7:03 pm:
    “Abraham got a wife from his son from a foreign land, ”

    Actually, Abraham got Isaac a wife from his own people. He was living in a foreign land at the time. He’s no template for miscegenation.

    Hose_B @ 7:11 am:
    “Am I saying multiple wives are a GOOD IDEA??? No. Jesus warns us against even one wife. “But I am saying that it is not something that is against scripture.”

    It violates 1 Cor 7.2. Also, notice you’re trying to legitimize what the wicked are already doing. That’s Churchianity.

  143. Feminist Hater says:

    A leader must be blameless too. Ouch!

  144. BillyS says:

    Jesus holds a position far above pastor or elder.

    The “manage your household” cannot be a precise definition as that would only be true for a window of time, even for those with children. Those children will ultimately be responsible for their own lives, thus putting them outside the authority of the man being examined. That would mean a man over a certain age would be forced to retire from being a pastor or elder and that does not seem consistent with other principles.

    Whether a completely single man would be eligible is an open question, as he would never have demonstrated that key aspect. Hard to do effective marriage counseling (for example) if you have never been married.

    I do not see this as limiting involvement in effective ministry though, since a pastor/elder is not the only position of authority.

    I personally have no desire to be a pastor or elder, but would I be forever banned from that because I had a rebellious wife and attempted to raise someone else’s children (via adoption)? Perhaps, but I am not convinced.

    I wish we had far more details written out in cases like this, but it reemphasizes to me the need to rely on the Wisdom we are told to seek rather than just have rote actions to follow.

  145. Lyn87 says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    February 6, 2017 at 10:05 am

    Lyn, how have married men performed in their duty to lead Christianity? Who has the most ability to take the risk to speak truth, a married man or a single man?

    In my experience, married fathers win… hands down. Anyway, I’m not giving my opinion on whether that should or should not be the case. I’m not giving my opinion on anything other than the matter of exegesis. It says what it says, so even if my personal experience did not reinforce my exegetical understanding, I would have to go with the scriptures anyway.

    Whether 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 require elders to be married fathers is open to debate (I think they are, but I recognize that I’m an outlier), but it seems obvious that such men are preferred for those roles more than men who are never-married and/or childless, and under no circumstances should a wife and kids be considered disqualifying. I practice what I preach… I don’t consider myself to be qualified due to my child-free status. If I were in a pastoral position, how much credibility would I have trying to counsel a guy about dealing with his kids? All I could do is read him scripture (and maybe offer some limited insight from my time as a school teacher), but if the answer was detailed in black-and-white he probably wouldn’t be coming to me anyway. In other words, if the specific answer he needs is found in scripture, he hardly needs me for that, and if it’s not, I would have less insight and credibility than a married father with his house in order.

  146. N. Vandenberg says:

    @Dalrock
    January 15, 2016
    In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) changed the working title of the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders (Arrest) Program
    https://www.justice.gov/ovw/blog/important-notice-ovw-grantees-applicants-and-stakeholders-title-change-grants-encourage

    Just Google “vawa arrest program”

  147. N. Vandenberg says:

    http://eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html
    VAWA forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men and teenage boys. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women.

  148. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon, Dalrock, N. Vandenberg, White Guy, et. al.:

    Thanks for posting all these. Truly frightening stuff. Note that it seems to have been authorized in 1994 (midterm election time in first Clinton presidency) — very interesting.

    Boxer

  149. Original Laura says:

    OFF TOPIC FOR THREAD, BUT NOT FOR BLOG AS A WHOLE:

    Sir Paul Coleridge, former judge, writes his opinion that Brexit will enhance the stability of UK marriages. Several charts on marriage by socioeconomic status in UK and Europe.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-opportunity-reverse-tragic-decline-marriage-britain/

  150. N. Vandenberg says:

    http://psga.ri.gov/grants/vawa.php

    “The STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program, awarded to states and territories, enhances the capacity of local communities to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women. Each state and territory must allocate 25 percent for law enforcement, 25 percent for prosecutors, 30 percent for victim services (of which at least 10 percent must be distributed to culturally specific community-based organizations), 5 percent to state and local courts, and 15 percent for discretionary distribution.”

    Just Google vawa arrest program encourage arrest

  151. Dale says:

    @FeeRiker
    >An elder’s grown children who are on their own and out from underneath his roof are beyond his control.

    Agreed. My questions were only in relation to the suggestion that the “[man] whose children” text requires that a man (currently?) have children in order to demonstrate suitability. I did not look it up, but remembered an OT verse last night to the effect of “~~~ a father will not die for the sins of his son, and vice versa~~~”.

    @Lyn
    >and for positive criteria he must pass the test, then he remains qualified unless he [actively] demonstrates that he no longer can

    That seems a reasonable and logically-consistent application. Thanks.

    >Anyone can quote scripture

    Uhhh… have you been around many “pastors” who could? /end-snark
    I find it disturbing when people assume I have been to seminary, simply because they observe that I memorize God’s word. I think anyone who seeks to be a family/church leader should do this; no that is not directly commanded in Scripture to all fathers or elders; just my opinion based on Jos 1:8, Psa 119:11, 105, Col 3:15-17, etc.

    >but it seems obvious that [married fathers] are preferred for those roles more than men who are never-married

    One good reason for this is that a man who refuses to take a wife when offered, may be an overbearing perfectionist (or hypocrite who excessively judges others per Matt 7:1-5). Such a man may be hard to work with, whether fellow leader/labourer or one of the flock. But of course, *I* am not like that… ha ha

    Hose_B
    >Legal Marriage … does nothing to … make you “married” in the eyes of God.
    Absolutely. I am trying to find a way to run an end-run around Canadian law, to permit a marriage per Biblical rules, but it seems the bastards have thought of and blocked everything.

    >Marriage (IMHO) is the trading of authority and responsibility.
    This fits with the three “authority with responsibility” examples in Eph 5-6 and Col 3:18-4:1 (husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/slaves).

    BillyS
    > Hard to do effective marriage counseling (for example) if you have never been married.
    I do understand this point; Lyn also made a similar one.
    And I admit that mundane, daily things related to our specific culture are not directly addressed in Scripture (e.g. should we buy a new car or used, this house or that, home-school or Government, what is an effective disciplinary strategy, etc.)
    But, in my naivety, I think that if the counselor could preach only what is clearly in Scripture, ALL of it, and get the husband and wife to entirely submit to that, then most problems would be resolved or greatly reduced. Simply getting the wife to accept she cannot ever remarry, so make this work or be alone, would greatly help I think. Yes, I have never been married, so insert insults re my naivety here…

  152. JBP says:

    “First, men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional avenues, while women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support.”

    These people are delusional.

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    These people are delusional.

    Yes. They are. They are in charge of an entire system of courts, armed officers, and jails.

    But it’s to protect women and children, so no worries. Right?

  154. Mark says:

    Nice post Mister”D”……..another MGTOW article.These are the articles that get passed around the most.Everyone that is commenting here knows someone who has been in this situation.I can think of about 50 that I know.I have never been in this sort of situation that your article describes but,I have first hand experience as I have seen my former brother-in-law get falsely accused,arrested and thrown in jail,as well as lots of friends and acquaintances. Deti gives the best advice here about how to deal with a situation like this.Get arrested and give the cops your name and DOB….that is it! Then ask to speak to your attorney.The more you say…the worse off you will be.Exercise your your “right” to silence.I cannot overstate this point enough……”SHUT YOUR MOUTH!……ASK FOR YOUR ATTORNEY”….do not give the cop a hard time.If asked questions after your arrest…..”I refuse to answer any of your questions and choose to exercise my right to be silent and wish to speak to my attorney”….THAT IS IT! Always identify yourself when asked….and then STFU! You will be released in about an hour after the paperwork is done.No record…..you will be released on your own recognizance.Remember,the cop is not there to help you.The cop is a thug with a gun and will try and implicate you as much as possible with your own words.Again I emphasize….DO NOT TALK TO THOSE PEOPLE! Also,for myself if I were land in such a unfortunate predicament I would take things into my own hands.”Situations like this do not require criminal justice….they require mob justice”.The woman would be VERY VERY sorry that she ever crossed my path!
    I have seen another aspect to this type of situation that has not been mentioned in the comments that I have witnessed as personal observations.When these men get arrested and thrown in jail and have to go through the “legal meat grinder” it leaves a lasting impression on them.Not only do these men became jaded and emotionally unavailable as well as becoming a MGTOW(even though they have never heard the acronym) it goes deeper.These men become very real and very serious “women haters”.I know a lot of them.Where I refer to women as gals,broods,chics etc. they refer to them as “cunts,filthy holes,whores,pigs etc. Women do not stop to realize this.Men stop all interaction with women and ignore them completely…..and go the call girl route for sexual escapades.Can’t say I blame them.But,women cannot see the forest for the trees.Women are becoming despised and hated more and more.They have no one to blame but themselves.I do not hate women.My attitude is this..”I know they are fucked in the head.I would never get involved with one in a “legal deal” and besides sex I have no other use for them”…I live by this…….it keeps me out of the slammer.! The real winners of this lopsided game are the ones that choose not to play!

  155. Boxer says:

    Semi off topic. I bet Opus was this broad’s solicitor in the action. What say you all?

    A woman who blew a six-figure divorce payout on a string of “unwise” property deals should be supported for life by her ex-husband, judges have ruled.

    Much more on why none of us should ever marry in the UK, at…
    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exhusband-told-to-support-wife-for-life-after-she-blew-230k-payout-on-homes-a3459331.html

  156. Boxer says:

    Deti and Mark give very good advice, above. In the USA you have to give the police your name and address when asked. If you’re armed, you have to identify that too, and let the cop disarm you if he wants. Depending upon the state, if you’re armed, you may also be required to show him your gun permit. That’s it. That’s all you should do. Just politely ask to speak to an attorney and decline to answer any other questions. If you’re arrested, don’t resist. If you’re arrested unjustly, you can complain later in court and get paid for it.

    The video here is lengthy, but very instructive. Check it out when you have time.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-this-law-professors-lecture-if-you-love-making-a-murderer-2016-3

  157. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    A woman who blew a six-figure divorce payout on a string of “unwise” property deals should be supported for life by her ex-husband, judges have ruled.

    Incredible. And this is even before she ends up losing $300K on a Nigerian Romance scam (which is an outcome in her future).

  158. Pingback: Friday links, vids, and of course, the hawt chick. – Adam Piggott

  159. Pingback: Yalom, psychoeducation and the Russians | American Dad

  160. Pingback: Another case of Duluth working as designed. | Dalrock

  161. Mario Rodgers says:

    Why is this always getting dragged back to a left vs right issue? I’m a liberal who realizes the Duluth Model is evil, antiquated, and certainly anti freedom and anti equality and who also sees that feminism is more damaging than benevolent.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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