Another case of Duluth working as designed.

Today’s example of Duluth working as designed comes courtesy of the Sonoma News.  The focus of the story is on police brutality, but it is an excellent example of how the Duluth model primes law enforcement to see men as abusers even when they are being abused.

In this case the wife had been drinking and became belligerent when her husband didn’t notice her haircut.  The husband retreated into another room to avoid his belligerent wife, which enraged and made her even louder.  Neighbors then called the police who came in primed to arrest the victim, since the Duluth model teaches that domestic violence is something men do to women:

According to Del Valle’s formal claim, he had gotten into an argument with his wife, who had been drinking, after he failed to notice her new haircut.

He retreated to another room as her yelling grew louder and neighbors called deputies, who arrived about 10:30 p.m.

They forced their way through the front door when Del Valle’s wife would not let them in and kicked down Del Valle’s bedroom door when he refused to open it.

The husband made things worse in this case by refusing to open the bedroom door so the police could arrest him.  It isn’t right that they had come to arrest him for the crime of not noticing his wife’s new haircut, but he should have complied once the police were on the scene.

Del Valle was not able to record the entire encounter in which he was stunned two to three more times and suffered up to 15 baton blows, causing neurological damage and a separated shoulder, Schwaiger said.

Switch the sexes and you have the classic abusive husband that fills popular imagination.  He’s drunk and yelling at her for some minor infraction (perhaps dinner wasn’t ready when he got home).  She retreats into another room, enraging her drunken husband who gets even louder. The neighbors hear his yelling and call the police.

In that situation, the police would have instantly arrested the drunken husband after knocking down the front door.  They would not have pushed past the belligerent husband in order to break down the bedroom door and arrest his wife.  But under the Duluth model, it is the man who must be arrested either way.

Related:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Another case of Duluth working as designed.

  1. BillyS says:

    Completely and totally disgusting. I wish we were close to resolving this, but I expect we will have a lot more trouble before some rationality prevails.

    Combine thugs with guns with the assumption evil women are saintly and you get this mess.

  2. The deputy, Scott Thorne, is in jail and is facing felony assault charges.

    So what was the husband supposed to do?

    a. Call the cops?
    b. Hide in a room and lock the door?
    c. Leave his own house?

    There’s no escape for you under the Duluth model. You are guilty.

  3. rocko says:

    And he can’t defend himself against cops either because he could get himself in big trouble. He could get shot, or assuming he shoots one himself and next thing you know, he ends upon death row or spends the rest of his life in jail.

  4. Pingback: Another case of Duluth working as designed. | @the_arv

  5. Snowy says:

    Truly f@$ked up.

    Neighbours should mind their own business.

    All men should know it’s a crime to not notice your girl’s haircut.

  6. thetruthisoutthere says:

    My wife became a hard drunk after about 12 years of marriage. Luckily it was a slow process, I had time to plan a way out. Talked to AA members. They said that they never “get better” until hitting rock bottom and taking everyone with them. Counseling did not work. They lie and put on the nice sober face. After a few years, she start drinking earlier and earlier. It started “cocktails at 5” and went to while making dinner (at 4), then “because the kids were stressing me out (at 3), then “I talked to my friend/sister at lunch”, etc. When she slapped my 16 year old daughter and drew blood one afternoon, I talked to a lawyer. He said – never, ever, be alone with her. If she is drunk – leave the house, she will be passed out when you get back. He had seen to many men “try to calm” the drunk wife down and end up in the back of the squad car. My wife more and more started to threaten divorce, to call the cops and lie about abuse. One afternoon, when she was drunk, I left the situation, went on a drive. My kids called and were crying that she hit them when they tried to take away her wine. That was the out – I called the cops immediately. I was not in the house, kids confirmed story. They put her in the squad car, I never let her back in the house. The slight amendment to the Duluth model is that if the man is not there, and kids are involved, they will take the wife away. My advice – never try to “man up” and control the situation. You will look like the aggressor. Until laws are changed, if ever, be very wary of a unstable wife – you are living with wild animal that can turn on you at anytime.
    First time commentator – but this hit close to home.

  7. g2-cdb27520fb49967abcc1c55ca90a2fef says:

    Of course the man is always guilty. The woman is unhappy, and it’s never the womans fault. QED. This evil man didn’t notice the new haircut, so everything afterwards (including her drinking, even if it started first) can be blamed on him.

    The nuclear option is the only one that I have seen work here. Mutual Assured Destruction. “Make that call, and it’ll be the last time you will see me or any money from me. I will leave the country, and you will get nothing. You will lose the house, and be in gov housing living off food stamps, wishing you hadn’t blown up the marriage.”

  8. Mike says:

    Hell of a way to run a patriarchy.

  9. Scanman says:

    Can this unremitting pressure on men from every segment of our society really last even 10 more years? I don’t see how.

    I think a massive reset involving much suffering is imminent.

  10. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Duluth is not the only injustice that’s on display here. I couldn’t help but notice that the wife’s name was mentioned not even once in the story, not even as “Mrs. DeValle” (it’s still that possible she never changed it). So if this story is any indication, it’s a decent bet that shield laws protecting a woman’s identity are now so strong that even when she commits an assault, her name will be kept under protection. Her male victim’s identification details, however, will still be fair game for the press.

    Patriarchal society? My ass it is.

  11. Minesweeper says:

    ” It isn’t right that they had come to arrest him for the crime of not noticing his wife’s new haircut, ”

    imagine being arrested for the crime of being shouted at by your wife ??

    I really wonder what would have been the actual charge listed and what a judge would have thought of that. Disturbing the peace ?

    The mind really boggles as to just how far this is going and where it will end.

  12. The Question says:

    @Scanman

    “I think a massive reset involving much suffering is imminent.”

    I agree. The exact specifics of how it happens are impossible to guess, but it won’t end well.

    The good thing for men such as myself, being bachelors means we’ll do alright regardless. We don’t need much to get by, and although I’d very much like to get married and have kids, the realities of Western marriage and family easily put to rest any doubts I have that I’m somehow missing out on some huge joy that everyone is enjoying. Many of the state’s tyrannies are avoided simply by not getting married or having kids; and as meddlesome as governments go, they can’t force us to play their game.

    And should things rapidly change for the better, we age well and will be well positioned in the marriage market when we’re in our late thirties. This is a storm we can afford to wait out for a while.

    Those who suffer the most will be the carousal riders who hop off it between 29-32 expecting Prince Charming to be there waiting for her to save her, and instead faces the prospect of regret and loneliness for the rest of her life.

  13. Lost Patrol says:

    Duluth working as designed, and practically on its own. Run amok.

    The inebriated yelling wife did not call the cops, it was neighbors. She did not let them in, they broke in.

    Del Valle’s wife can be heard calling out to him and telling deputies, “He’s not doing anything.”

    She says this multiple times in the video as they work him over.

  14. Spike says:

    An almost identical situation happened to my father during his horrible marriage to his second wife. My dealings with the police over the matter made me swallow The Red Pill.

  15. Snowy says:

    @Spike

    Exactly. White Knights and manginas are in the overwhelming majority. Red Pill men are in the extreme minority. Which is why we still have to exercise caution in our dealings with the world.

  16. Ironsides says:

    @Scanman
    Knowing what I do of history, it’s rather astonishing that such a reset didn’t occur long ago. Humans have been extremely touchy, dangerous creatures throughout most of their history, ready to avenge their wrongs at the drop of a hat. The current crop, however, seems to be prepared to take levels of oppression that would have had their medieval ancestors fumbling for the pitchforks long ago. Even Machiavelli said that it was perilous for a prince to mess with the women of his subjects, yet the entire feminist movement has been a progressive stealing of women from the male populace by the state for several generations.

    If a reset does occur, it’s going to be a MOAR — Mother of all Resets.

  17. And some people (and groups of people) are surprised at the growth of Men Going Their Own Way, and the increasing numbers of men shunning women?
    Relationships? Marriage? ARE YOU KIDDING?! Interacting with women in any way nowadays means nothing but trouble if you’re a man in this misandric society.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Minesweeper

    I really wonder what would have been the actual charge listed and what a judge would have thought of that. Disturbing the peace ?

    Domestic violence, of course. Just like Saeed Abedini when his wife physically stopped him from communicating with his family, and just like the vet whose wife kicked him unconscious. If he was lucky he would then be given the option of either going to jail or taking a Duluth domestic violence class.

    Then he would be taught about his male privilege, until he learned to love big brother (or went to jail). Some time back Scott described how this worked when he taught the class. It is absolutely brutal.

  19. Pingback: Another case of Duluth working as designed. | Reaction Times

  20. Gunner Q says:

    thetruthisoutthere @ 5:33 pm:
    “They put her in the squad car, I never let her back in the house. The slight amendment to the Duluth model is that if the man is not there, and kids are involved, they will take the wife away.”

    That was well played. Good to hear you’re out of that horror.

  21. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This is hilarious.

    What a 54-year-old woman can expect from a matchmaking service: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-woman-warning-love-matchmakers-edmonton-investigation-complaint-1.4086464

    Val Taylor, 54, paid $7,344 for a membership with Edmonton Matchmakers at their office in Old Strathcona. A company salesperson promised to find her a match, but Taylor says her single suitor was hardly the man of her dreams.

    The date was shorter than her five-foot-10 frame, unemployed and homeless, she said in an interview with CBC Radio’s Edmonton AM.

    “He was partially toothless,” she said. “And during our coffee, he continuously chewed and destroyed plastic utensils. It was a very surreal experience.”

    “I had very strictly specified that I’m not anybody’s sugar mamma. I’m not dating any unemployed bums and this guy lived in a camper on the side of the road.”

    This 67-year-old woman is also disappointed with Edmonton Matchmakers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-matchmakers-lawsuit-1.4068837

  22. Anon says:

    Relationships? Marriage? ARE YOU KIDDING?! Interacting with women in any way nowadays means nothing but trouble if you’re a man in this misandric society.

    That won’t stop Brad Wilcucks and worst of all, Jim Gay-ratty from doubling down on their cartoonish pedestalization.

    I am eagerly awaiting their latest installment of extreme cuckservative misandry.

  23. Anon says:

    RPL,

    This is hilarious.

    That is nothing. The real event is when they lose all of their divorce-theft cash and prizes to a Nigerian romance scam. Women who fall for Nigerian romance scams lose six and seven digit amounts.

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Val Taylor isn’t being entirely accurate. She calls her date “homeless.” Then she admits he lives in a camper.

    I guess to her spoiled mind, living in a camper is homeless. Perhaps because she already owns a house (from a frivorce?), or, if never married, hopes to marry a man who owns a house.

    Must be depressing, still seeking a Beta Provider at age 54.

  25. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Ironsides: it’s rather astonishing that such a reset didn’t occur long ago. Humans have been extremely touchy, dangerous creatures throughout most of their history, ready to avenge their wrongs at the drop of a hat.

    They still are. White Knights are eager to avenge any slight to a woman.

    So it’s not that men have stopped avenging. It’s that most of their avenging is misdirected. Both domestically and in the realm of foreign affairs.

  26. Jim says:

    And some people (and groups of people) are surprised at the growth of Men Going Their Own Way, and the increasing numbers of men shunning women?
    Relationships? Marriage? ARE YOU KIDDING?! Interacting with women in any way nowadays means nothing but trouble if you’re a man in this misandric society.

    It’s the last acceptable bigotry and it’s only going to get WORSE. I keep trying to tell this tradcons what’s going on but instead I just get the usual female shaming language in return (you’re just bitter! You can’t get laid! You’re gay! LOL. It’s just childish denial). They’re so desperate for pussy that they’ll make up any excuse to ignore what’s really going on. They can’t get it through their heads that you CAN’T assert your God given authority if she can have you totally destroyed anytime she feels like it. You’re a SLAVE. Understand? A SLAVE. You have ZERO rights. This is not rocket science!

    I don’t know what it’s going to take to get these pussy hungry guys to realize that you either go MGTOW or face what that poor guy did. You can’t save it. It’s over guys. It’s just going to have to crash and burn. Yeah it sucks but welcome to reality. But hey, keep playing Russian roulette with 3 or more bullets in the chamber. But if you do don’t bitch to me when you get fucked up the ass by the cunt’s sharp iron strap-on.

  27. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Saw this on Drudge. Apparently there’s now a DragCon: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2017-05-04/how-rupaul-s-drag-race-pushed-glamour-mainstream

    Families are attending. Little children are wearing drag queen costumes.

  28. Mark says:

    Nice Post Mister ‘D’. I am glad to see that the moron cop got fired. If this was here in Toronto he would have gotten “desk duty” or “suspended with pay”. I doubt he would get fired as the Public Workers union would have saved his job. This is why I have no admiration or respect for cops. I am never in trouble with them but,I know what they are about…..protecting their own and budget increases….nothing more!

    @TTRP

    “”And some people (and groups of people) are surprised at the growth of Men Going Their Own Way, and the increasing numbers of men shunning women?””

    ^^^^^^^^^THIS!………kudos!…….Also,I have read many of your comments via other manosphere blogs. You provide great insight into the subjects and I am glad to see you here at Mister “D”‘s blog.Keep them coming!

    @RPLC

    “”What a 54-year-old woman can expect from a matchmaking service:””

    We have a tenant here in the office tower that runs a “matchmaking” service. Her biggest complaint is that she can never find enough men to sign up.In fact,she has told me several times that she has 5 to 10 women on her books for every man.On Valentine’s Day this year she held a singles meetup in a banquet room(that she got rent free from me) and there was about 120 women that showed up……..and the men?……..6!……You read this correctly…SIX! This is about the 5th time that this has happened to her.She holds about one per year and always assumes that “this year will be different”…Ya Right! She is always sending me profiles to show me women that she has as clients and I consistently tell her…”All I will be doing with her is using her as a booty call…that is it!….there will be no relationship other than sex. How many times do I have to tell you that I will never get involved with a Canadian woman under Canadian law!….What do you not understand about that?”. Business cannot be very good as I was informed today by the building manager(who answers to me)that she is behind on her rent……AGAIN!

  29. CSI says:

    “On Valentine’s Day this year she held a singles meetup in a banquet room(that she got rent free from me) and there was about 120 women that showed up……..and the men?……..6!……You read this correctly…SIX! ”

    I think I know why. In such a singles meeting the women would have the expectation that they get to sit back and pick and choose from whichever guys approach them. This would be nerve wracking for most men! To have to approach a woman in such a high pressure environment, with potentially dozens of other women watching and judging your performance. I can understand why most single men would decide this wasn’t worth the hassle.

  30. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Toronto women are very liberal and arrogant. (At least the ones I met in my life). No wonder only six men showed up.

  31. Scott says:

    In that situation, the police would have instantly arrested the drunken husband after knocking down the front door. They would not have pushed past the belligerent husband in order to break down the bedroom door and arrest his wife.

    Correct. This is an important point to be made, and simultaneously exemplifies why I argue with the Fathers Rights Movement folks on their site. They perceive that what is needed is to inject “equality” into the system to prevent this kind of injustice from happening. In doing so, they are doing two things:

    1. They are making assumptions about men and womens basic nature that are observably untrue.
    2. They are making themselves into just another aggrieved interest group demanding their “rights under the law.”

    Under their worldview, they actually believe that a system where the cops would show up at this scene, and carefully and methodically assess the situation — be slow to arrest anyone — and then determine without any preconceived notions whether a crime has occurred and whom (if anyone) to cite/arrest. Then, the court system will also apply these perfectly equitable laws in a fashion that protects the mans due process or whatever because “the constitution says equality and stuff.”

    This is, of course bizarro world. The failure to recognize and account for the deep differences between men and women and now the codification of the worst parts of her nature is not going to be fixed by pretending such nonsense.

  32. Roger says:

    People who say this is a “patriarchy” are willfully blind. In what kind of “patriarchy” do these kinds of situations exist? In our “patriarchy,” a woman can have a man put in a cage with a simple phone call. And she will always be believed outright, or at least given the benefit of a doubt. In any he-says she-says situation, what she says will always carry more weight. Some patriarchy!

  33. Pingback: Another case of Duluth working as designed. - Top

  34. Caspar Reyes says:

    The ex-officer Thorne has an obvious hair trigger and propensity for violence. Money says he is a real true domestic abuser, white knighting for some scolding harridan to atone for his own failures.

    If you hear someone praised as a “good police officer” it’s probably one of those psychopathic former playground bully types who are attracted to law enforcement as a profession. I know many.

  35. PokeSalad says:

    Years ago, when I used to do ride-alongs with the local cops, we would naturally end up at our share of DV calls. The cops always told me that a) if they go to a DV call, someone is going to jail for at least a night, and b) the only way it would not be the husband is if there was clear physical evidence of wife-only violence (marks, bruises, hubby lying in a pool of blood on the floor, etc). In other words, any “he said she said” meant jail for hubby, no exceptions.

    At every DV call I went to, this is exactly what they did. No exceptions.

  36. Novaseeker says:

    Talked to AA members. They said that they never “get better” until hitting rock bottom and taking everyone with them. Counseling did not work. They lie and put on the nice sober face. After a few years, she start drinking earlier and earlier.

    @truthisout —

    Yep — you can’t fix them, they only get fixed once they have nowhere else to go, and if you ride that elevator down with them they will let you ride all the way down. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is — the pattern of escalation is typical, really.

    It’s good that you had the presence of mind to leave the house. I did the same as well (my ex was not a drunk, but she was violent at times), and never got talked to by the cops in the ordeal. Had I stuck around and continued various arguments, I’m sure she would have had me booked eventually. It just makes tactical sense if you’re planning a divorce and you’re a woman.

    Seriously, folks, that is what people need to understand about this:

    If you’re planing a divorce, like anything else that is a legal proceeding, you learn your rights and you use them to the fullest extent to get the most of what you want in terms of the result. Everyone does this in the context of any kind of legal proceedings, and divorce is no different. What these laws do is make it very worthwhile for women to call the cops even if there is no actual physical DV (in many places, if the woman says she is scared that it may escalate, or just feels threatened by a raised voice, the cops must arrest, and it’s treated as potential DV), because even if the case gets dropped when it becomes clear that there is no physical DV, in the short-term it’s a huge tactical advantage for her, because
    (1) you are immediately removed from the house,
    (2) there is immediately a temporary restraining order placed on you (meaning no access to kids, clothes, files, computers, belongings, unless she cooperates with a third party picking them up, which she is in no way obliged to do),
    (3) that TRO in most cases becomes a permanent restraining order, even if the DV charges aren’t pressed (i.e., are dropped), and
    (4) the fact that you have been living apart from the kids and out of the house for quite some time before the divorce proceedings take place will be used to justify making the situation permanent so as to avoid disruption to the children.

    It’s a way of winning most of the case immediately before it even begins. It’s really a no-brainer. It only surprises me that not every single woman who is divorcing does this, given the huge tactical advantage it offers them in any divorce situation, and particularly one involving children.

    I’m willing to wager that there are some unethical lawyers who advise their female clients outright to trump up DV charges to do precisely this — unfortunately corruption exists. However, I think that there are way MORE lawyers who don’t advise their female clients directly to trump something up, but tell them things like “if he ever raises his voice in anger at you during an argument about these things, you should call the police immediately, just in case things get out of hand — trust me, just do it, you’ll be happy you did, it’s better to be safe than sorry” or something like that, which sounds like they’re being protective, but really is a back door way of advising them to gab a tactical advantage, because of course in 90%+ of divorces, voices are going to be raised at some stage, without question. It’s just a question of waiting for it to happen, and pulling the trigger.

  37. Novaseeker says:

    People who say this is a “patriarchy” are willfully blind. In what kind of “patriarchy” do these kinds of situations exist? In our “patriarchy,” a woman can have a man put in a cage with a simple phone call. And she will always be believed outright, or at least given the benefit of a doubt. In any he-says she-says situation, what she says will always carry more weight. Some patriarchy!

    @Roger —

    Again, feminist theory has an answer for everything, because it isn’t terribly concerned with being consistent. A versed feminist would respond something like this: “Feminism has always said that patriarchy is bad for men, not just bad for women. Feminism is for equality. We still live in a patriarchal system which treats men and women differentially, sees women as weak and in need of protection, and has sexist stereotypes about men. What we need is more feminism, not less feminism, to get rid of patriarchy and these stereotypes, and if we do that then men won’t suffer under laws like this — laws that are passed by men against other men based on patriarchal expectations of men and sexist patriarchal stereotypes of men and women, male strength and female weakness.” Never mind that the feminists themselves push for these kinds of laws — again, feminism doesn’t have to be consistent in theory, it just has to be consistent in always pressing for whatever is advantageous to women in any situation, and they are good enough with rhetoric (the smart ones are anyway) to be able to sling things around and bamboozle at least some people.

    The MRAs are among the bamboozled, because some of them fall for arguments like the one I paraphrased here, based on appeals to “equality”, when, in fact, as Scott mentions, men and women will always be treated differentially, because men and women are different in significant ways. Feminists also WANT women to be treated differentially when it’s beneficial to women, they just want to hide behind the idea of equality because it gets them more support than they would have otherwise.

  38. Caspar Reyes says:

    Whatever I said above, aside from a psychopath perhaps, I don’t really believe that any man, however ill bred, just hits his wife just because. Men who resort to violence have had their buttons pushed, probably on purpose.

  39. Minesweeper says:

    @nova
    “I’m willing to wager that there are some unethical lawyers who advise their female clients outright to trump up DV charges to do precisely this — unfortunately corruption exists. ”

    spk to any lawyer, their job is to use law at its fullest extent for their client, if that means saying you were scared when you maybe felt it alittle, and that gives you the house, then even the ethical ones will tell you to do that.

    i think as Dal has said before, the burden of proof has been lowered to ground level.

  40. Minesweeper says:

    @Caspar Reyes, one thing ive learned in life is that a woman can push a man over the edge like no other. I’ve always said to my child a man is at his worst when enraged by a woman. He will do things then he would never consider himself capable of. Its strange how this knowledge has been recently buried. And that a woman seems to think no matter how badly she screams\hits and treats a man he wont become enraged and lose control.

  41. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Cuckservatives like to say “Conservatives are the real feminists because we believe in equality, whereas Democrats want special rights for women. Democrats are the real sexists.

    Those are favorite cuckservative talking points. “Democrats are the real sexists. Democrats are the real racists. Democrats are the real anti-poor and anti-immigrant party, etc.”

    That’s how far we’ve fallen. It’s a given that feminism is good. The only question is whose feminism is the real feminism.

    The process of decay:

    1. Democrats promote a policy. Conservatives oppose it.

    2. The policy becomes ingrained in law and in the culture.

    3. Conservatives claims to be the real advocates of said policy, accusing Democrats of betraying said policy by going too far.

    4. Democrats promote another policy. Conservative oppose it.

    (repeat cycle)

  42. DivorceRapeSurvivor says:

    This article just brought back a ton of memories. I went through a crappy divorce too. The ex-wife accused me of spousal abuse, child abuse, and child sexual abuse. She went to authorities in two different states, filed numerous protective orders. It was insane how evil she got, I almost lost everything. She was believed without a shred of evidence, and in all those investigations by CPS, they all came back negative – the allegations were unsubstantiated. I am a Christian Pastor, she called up the church and members of the council spewing this garbage. We had a custody evaluation with a Clinical Forensic Psychologist, who thank the Lord said she is crazy and is making all of this stuff up. I got custody of my kids. It was later ruled that she could only have supervised visitation, no phone calls. She has not seen our kids in over three years. And for all the hell she caused us, for all the abuse and shame that my kids and I had to endure, she got nothing – no fine, no jail time, no probation, nothing. The only punishment she ever got was having to pay $250 of my attorney’s fees over $25,000. In some ways, I feel truly blessed and lucky to have not only survived but actually came out ahead. But part of me is still so angry that she did her best to completely destroy my life, and not even get a slap on the wrist. And this article just shows how messed up we are, that we have so empowered women to destroy men’s lives that I don’t blame men who want nothing to do with marriage.

  43. “My advice – never try to “man up” and control the situation”

    You did take controll–with intelligence and foresight. Well done.

  44. Shark says:

    1. The cops are, despite the long-term efforts at “professionalizing” them, merely hired thugs who want to finish their shift and go home. Accordingly, they always assess the greatest potential physical threat to them as being the man in the event, and move to neutralize him immediately. Add in the semi-legal “justification” that men are the “aggressors” in most DV situations, and you’re bound to be targeted immediately.

    2. My (now-ex) wife tried to get physical with me once, possibly to provoke me into striking her. I was a military service member trained in hand-to-hand and unarmed combat, weighing fifty pounds more than her. I blocked her attacks and once she was too tired to continue the assault, calmly advised her that if she wanted to get physical again, I would reply in kind, and her body would never recover. That prevented further assaults, but I always worried that she would fake injuries and call the police, especially after she later threatened to make up stories to have me arrested (I’d have lost my job and access to the children, as she well knew). Hence, I waited until: (a) the children were grown MANY years later; and (b) she was out of town on a trip. Then I packed my stuff and left. The day that I got the final divorce decree was one of the happiest of my life.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  45. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Since so many wives seem to threaten to lie, why not secretly record them? It’s easy, as anything can contain a recording device these days — cell phones, laptops, pens, eyeglasses.

    I’m not sure if it can be used as evidence in every state, but still, can’t hurt to have them admitting an intent to deceive.

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Speaking of thug cops, the ATF recently arrested a Pasadena cop who had an arsenal in his home: https://www.pasadenaweekly.com/2017/05/04/feds-find-57-weapons-pasadena-cops-home/

    It appears this cop might have been illegally selling guns:

    a law enforcement official who regularly acquires “off roster” firearms and sells or disposes of them for a profit is engaging in the business as a dealer of firearms and must be federally licensed.

    A person convicted of unlawfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license is subject to imprisonment for not more than five years and could face a $250,000 fine….

    The ATF response came one week after the agency sent a memo to police chiefs and sheriffs in Southern California informing them that the agency was concerned about law enforcement officers buying and reselling guns in what could be a violation of federal firearms laws.

  47. Just Saying says:

    Someone smarter than I once said, “Bitches be crazy!” I always found that to be true, so women are best used for sex then tossed, everything else is a recipe for disaster…

    The biggest problem, from a male perspective, is the craziest ones also tend to the hottest…

  48. Minesweeper says:

    @JS, you need to watch the hot crazy matrix, well what you tend to find is the craziest hottest ones are available ! If your hot and sane, they are generally kept behind a gates 😀

  49. Novaseeker says:

    I’m not sure if it can be used as evidence in every state, but still, can’t hurt to have them admitting an intent to deceive.

    Yeah it’s worth checking what the law is where you live. In some places it isn’t just inadmissible as evidence, it’s also a crime and you can get charged, which you don’t want in a divorce proceeding (“criminal doesn’t deserve access to kids, etc.”).

  50. Frank K says:

    “People who say this is a “patriarchy” are willfully blind.”

    This makes me think of the pro feminist TV series “A Handmaiden’s Tale”, where in a fictional world Christian men oppress women. Nevermind that they do the opposite and put women on pedestals and basically say that they can do no wrong. Cue Mark Driscoll thundering “how dare you!?” at the saps in his congregation.

    Meanwhile, feminists snuggle up with Muslims, who actually do oppress women. Go figure.

  51. Anon says:

    The process of decay:

    1. Democrats promote a policy. Conservatives oppose it.

    2. The policy becomes ingrained in law and in the culture.

    3. Conservatives claims to be the real advocates of said policy, accusing Democrats of betraying said policy by going too far.

    4. Democrats promote another policy. Conservative oppose it.

    Yep. Even now, cuckservatives refuse to repeal Obamacare, because it is such a large transfer from men to women. Cuckservatives eventually love any and all forcible wealth transfers from men to women. They are complete Communists as long as this sole criteria is met.

    The notion of repealing the entire law is unthinkable to them, since they think 2009 was the stone age.

  52. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    @Novaseeker
    It’s true that in some states surreptitiously recording someone is considered a crime (unless you’re in public where it’s all fair game). This is true particularly with phone conversations, even if one person (you) consents to the recording. But my advice would be to record anyway. It may be deemed inadmissible. You may get cited for doing it. But the recording could also save your ass from something far far worse like an assault conviction, by comparison an “improper recording” guilty plea might be a fair trade-off. Especially if the recording proves the claim is trumped up or there’s a recorded threat to have you charged unless you obey (which is extortion), or shows there is reasonable doubt. While you should not go posting such things on Fakebook or something (that would backfire bigly unless you’re keen to be a star on Worldstar Hip Hop), you can make it clear that copies of the recording are safely hidden, and if need be, they will be heard.

  53. Minesweeper says:

    Frank K says: “This makes me think of the pro feminist TV series “A Handmaiden’s Tale”, where in a fictional world Christian men oppress women. Nevermind that they do the opposite and put women on pedestals and basically say that they can do no wrong. Cue Mark Driscoll thundering “how dare you!?” at the saps in his congregation.

    Meanwhile, feminists snuggle up with Muslims, who actually do oppress women. Go figure.”

    All part and parcel of the anti-God alliance. Their enemies enemy is their friend after all.

    And may they REAP what they sow in abundance.

  54. Reading some of these comments I don’t think people understand a few things about this story.

    Deputy sheriff are not police. Sheriff are for executing lawful orders, police are for code compliance.

    The man (deputy) who broke into another mans house and attacked him with weapons was immediately fired and is being charged. Why? Because there are only two ways for a man to enter another mans property lawfully. They have a warrant, or they were invited. Was there a warrant? No. Were they invited? No. This is very different from the wife inviting the police to the location. It is lawful for the police to do whatever they can to secure the protection of a citizen if they call for help. This is the main difference between other cases and this one, and why the deputy was immediately fired. Charges are placed because either the city, county, or state, or the chief sheriff are liable for the injury and trespass. The man injured is ignorant of this, and whoever is liable doesn’t want him going to a lawyer, who if not completely daft, would know there is money to be made. I can’t remember which english king was beheaded for entering the private without warrant at this moment, but english speaking people take this very seriously.

    There is a difference between the public and the private. You can’t cross into the private from the public, and you can’t bring the private into the public.

    I guess I should say what makes a lawful warrant, which is pretty simple. It must be signed in wet ink (no stamps), timestamped (obviously), and from article 4 “but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I am leaving out one piece of information about warrants from article 4, because I can and I’m not going to give away everything.

  55. thedeti says:

    Kevin:
    Sheriffs and their deputies are law enforcement. They are the chief law enforcement officers of a county. Sheriffs, and their deputies, are not merely for executing lawful orders, serving subpoenae, hanging around courthouses, and running the county lockup. They are also law enforcement.

    And deputies have the full authority of the sheriff. The entire point of having deputies is that one individual sheriff can’t do all the work himself. So the sheriff deputizes others to do his work.

    Law enforcement can enter property using force if they reasonably believe another person is in physical danger, and they can do so without a warrant (exigent circumstances exception, when imminent bodily harm might be in progress, a crime is in progress and being committed when they’re RIGHT THERE, and there isn’t time to get a warrant).

    The problem in this case, as it is in so many of these cases, are the assumptions everyone has decided to make. First, that a phone call from a woman complaining about her husband means her husband is beating or killing her. Second, that the husband is in all cases the aggressor, merely because of his superior size and strength.

  56. Leiff says:

    I might invest in one of those security camera setups from Costco if I were dealing with one of these women. Never be a room with her that doesn’t have one of the cameras.

  57. thedeti says:

    “guy lived in a camper on the side of the road.”

    At least he didn’t live in a van down by the river.

  58. thedeti says:

    @ Shark:

    “My (now-ex) wife tried to get physical with me once, possibly to provoke me into striking her. I was a military service member trained in hand-to-hand and unarmed combat, weighing fifty pounds more than her. I blocked her attacks and once she was too tired to continue the assault, calmly advised her that if she wanted to get physical again, I would reply in kind, and her body would never recover.”

    good on you for staying as long as you have.

    My wife hit me once, pounding her fists on my chest. A few years later after getting sufficiently Red Pilled, I recounted that event with her. I told her if she ever put her hands on me like that again, I would get a lawyer and immediately file for divorce. I told her I would also sit down with her parents, my parents, and our kids, and tell them everything. I told her I would also tell her friends, our pastors, and everyone else exactly what she had done. I also told her I would go straight to the local police department, swear out a complaint, and press charges. I also told her I would file a civil lawsuit against her for damages.

    It hasn’t happened again.

  59. Minesweeper says:

    @thedeti , your lucky in that she is unaware that even if you did all that, it would amount to SFA.

    if she calls you on it, you will stand abetter chance my legging it.

  60. thedeti says:

    Minesweeper;

    SFA?

  61. Gunner Q says:

    Kevin Blackwell @ 1:12 pm:
    “The man (deputy) who broke into another mans house and attacked him with weapons was immediately fired and is being charged. Why? Because there are only two ways for a man to enter another mans property lawfully. They have a warrant, or they were invited”

    You forget probable cause. That cause can be almost anything from anonymous tips to smelling marijuana to hot pursuit. Here, the neighbors reported the fight and so it was reasonable (if apparently incorrect after the fact) for police to believe the situation was serious enough to get involved. This wasn’t a problem back when crimes were clearly defined and few in number.

    The cop was charged because he attacked an obviously unarmed and nonthreatening person. Duluth allows police to arrest men at will but not batter them at will. The Elites are too smart to confront men with kill-or-be-killed situations like that and it’s not their goal besides. They want slaves not bodycount. So far.

  62. Sean says:

    @deti:

    Sweet F*** All.

  63. thedeti says:

    OK.

    I actually think the “luck” is that my wife appears to have a healthy sense of humility and shame. Women do have that, you know. The luck is that Mrs. deti realizes I’m really not all that bad, and actually kind of cares about me, or at least acts like she does. She’s also a realist, and she’s not stupid. She knows I’ll leave and end the marriage if she resorts to mistreating me again, if the sex stops, or if she reverts to her chronic disrespect. She knows I won’t put up with that for one minute. She also needs my financial support and my help raising our kids. She can’t do it alone, and she knows it.

    I could go it alone. But, I know I would have a very, very hard time going it alone, having to live on maybe 1/4 of my current wealth. She and I both know I would get absolutely decimated financially, professionally, and personally in a divorce. She and I both know it would take a very, very long time for me to recover. We’d lose the house. She’d have to get a smaller house; I’d have to get an even smaller one, if I could afford a house at all.

    She and I both know we’d lose our kids if we divorced (lose them in the sense of they’d never be the same, their trust in God wouldnt’ be the same, and their trust in their parents and family would take an irrecoverable hit). Sure, she’d have custody and a hefty chunk of my paycheck, but at what cost? Kids in therapy, with falling school performance and poor behavior. Kids with a completely destroyed family life and bleak future prospects for ever having any kind of family life themselves. I couldn’t bear to do that to my own kids, and I’m pretty sure Mrs. deti wouldn’t either. I know I would be OK after a while. But what about my kids, who didn’t ask for that crap. They’re the ones who would really take it on the chin. I know. I’ve seen what divorce does to kids.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    I actually think the “luck” is that my wife appears to have a healthy sense of humility and shame. Women do have that, you know.

    Well. Hmm.
    Not All Women Are Like That.

  65. thedeti says:

    Anon REader:

    Yes, correction. Some women have a healthy sense of humility and shame. Mrs. deti has that, or at least appears to. She can be a rational actor when she needs to be.

    Many women don’t seem to be able to do that.

  66. Minesweeper says:

    @thedeti

    the most valuable thing is that she knows blowing the family up will have a detrimental on everyone – particularly HER – even if not immediately short term.

    unlike my lunatic ex who really genuinely thought destroying the family, destroying our large social network+church, moving halfway round the world to live with a stranger she met online, would actually be beneficial to the children.

    yes, some women really are that f***ing nuts and delusional. and have the FULL backing of the law to entertain all delusions that may enter their insane and deluded little heads.

    we clearly need 2 sets of laws, those for the sane and those for the insane. Unfortunately, labelling a woman as insane is regarded as a misogynistic position, whereby the courts are even more predisposed to whatever the out of control mother decides whats best for the children.

  67. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    Is anyone familiar with the One Love Foundation? It was started by the mother of Yeardley Love, who was murdered by her boyfriend George Hugely in 2010. It’s dedicated to helping teens fight “relationship abuse,” but the way it’s doing it is by: 1). Equating phrases like “I love you” with “control issues” and 2). Getting men to rat out other men for what they perceive as abuse from outside the relationship.

    I feel for the mother of this murdered girl, but just because her daughter wanted to “save” a bad boy doesn’t mean they need to make all men potential abusers.

  68. Scott says:

    Simply asking this question of my readers makes me guilty.

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/expectation-management/

  69. “The MRAs are among the bamboozled, because some of them fall for arguments like the one I paraphrased here”

    That’s preposterous. MRAs are the least sympathetic to such feminist claptrap.

  70. melmoth says:

    “I’m willing to wager that there are some unethical lawyers who advise their female clients outright to trump up DV charges to do precisely this —”

    Hugely understated. From my observations, fake DV charges are as standard to divorce law work as putting on a necktie in the morning.

  71. PokeSalad says:

    I have two sons. I have pointed both here, and begged both not to fall into this trap. One has rejected me and my advice, and has plunged into a problematic relationship; the other…..well, the jury is still out.

    I pray that both see what’s so obvious to all who can see. But, I hold no real hope. I fear the worst.

    Thank you Dal, and the others here………for bringing the truth.

  72. Jeff Strand says:

    I went to that One Love Foundation. Here’s their blog.

    http://www.joinonelove.org/blog

    Scary stuff. Everything is “relationship abuse”, including ever raising your voice, or telling your partner she is overreacting, or having a different memory of a past incident (because by questioning her version of the incident, you are implying that she can’t trust her memory, i.e. you’re trying to make her doubt her sanity, which is “gaslighting”…which is a form of domestic abuse).

    I poop you negative. That’s how crazy it’s getting. You sneeze, and you’re being “abusive”. Methinks the marriage strike is just getting warmed up!

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    (because by questioning her version of the incident, you are implying that she can’t trust her memory, i.e. you’re trying to make her doubt her sanity, which is “gaslighting”…which is a form of domestic abuse)

    Gaslighting is increasingly popular as an accusation against men. Ever notice how women tend to project? This is an example.

  74. feeriker says:

    I went to that One Love Foundation. Here’s their blog.

    If Yeardley Love was as bat-shit crazy as her mama is, it’s no wonder she got herself killed.

  75. mmaier2112 says:

    Fuck these bitches. I would sooner shoot them in the face with my 5.56 than give the an OUNCE of understanding.

  76. Anon says:

    I have two sons. I have pointed both here, and begged both not to fall into this trap. One has rejected me and my advice, and has plunged into a problematic relationship; the other…..well, the jury is still out.

    When the father is more red-pill than the sons, that is…… rare.

    It seems the opposite is true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Or at least they are identical to the father, not more blue pill…

  77. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    More from the OneLove blog: “Men holding other men accountable.” It’s not enough we have feminists doing this. Now we have meathead lacrosse bros “monitoring” every man for imaginary crimes. I’m sure this will end well.

  78. “Imaginary crimes” against women is what feminism was started on (at the time, it was called “Women’s Liberation”).
    I was a young teenager when feminism started, and I saw through their exaggerations, their half-truths, and their outright lies. I tried to warn people, speaking out against feminism and it’s potential for abuse and misandry.
    You can imagine the names that I was called and the threats that I received (because the good-looking “Women’s Libbers” had their White Knight sycophant defenders then, too).
    Through both intention and luck, I’ve never married nor fathered children; it wasn’t easy, but it’s turned out to be the wisest decision that I’ve EVER made.

  79. Jim says:

    Through both intention and luck, I’ve never married nor fathered children; it wasn’t easy, but it’s turned out to be the wisest decision that I’ve EVER made.

    Same here. Glad I never took the bait that was offered to me. We both saved ourselves from becoming a statistic.

  80. @Anon

    Man is divorce raped. Sons are raised by mother, and told to hate him. Sons think men are evil and start to hate themselves as men, and don’t know how to be men or protect themselves. Even if father gets it after the divorce rape, sons did not experience the same thing from the same angle, and discount his experience, and the perspective he brings on the rare occasions he gets time with them.

    Seems pretty common to me.

  81. BillyS says:

    Anon,

    When the father is more red-pill than the sons, that is…… rare.

    I would not necessarily agree. My son has become more red pill watching what my wife just did to me, but he is still not quite there. He certainly had a hard time stomaching this stuff a year or so ago. He has his own challenges and is a bit too much of the a-hole himself.

    I was talking with him a few days ago about how he faces challenges if he really does “clean up his act” since his wife was attracted to the bad part of him, which he admitted. He has a tough line to follow for many reasons. I hope I can give some sanity into his life, but he will have to walk it out and be willing to learn from the experiences of others.

  82. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    May 5, 2017 at 11:38 am, Just Sayingwrote:

    Someone smarter than I once said, “Bitches be crazy!” I always found that to be true, so women are best used for sex then tossed, everything else is a recipe for disaster…The biggest problem, from a male perspective, is the craziest ones also tend to the hottest…

    Dude.

    The “hottest” ones are craziest because they are the ones most likely to be considered by a certain class of men (gosh: are you in that club?) to be “best used for sex then tossed”.

    Any mortal human heart can only take so much sh!t before it breaks permanently, be it male or be it female: “the craziest ones” = heart broken permanently.

    Explain to me again, how treating women like disposable garbage will lead to a society that doesn’t treat men like disposable garbage, the way the present one does.

    And, any commenters here who think it might be clever to reply to this set of observations by accusing me of blaming men for women’s misbehavior, better reconcile that accusation with the simple, undeniable and continued reality of the transition from “pretty”-and-innocent-12-year-old-girl to “hot”-but-batshit-crazy-hard-hearted-25-year-old-woman, via 10+ PUA encounters.

    There’s a pretty good discussion of the evolution of “PUA Culture” [starting long, long, long, long (long) before Strauss ever got around to interviewing “Mystery”], which you can find here, and a fairly damning indictment of how “PUA Culture” contributed to, and continues to contribute to, The Mess that is Modern Woman®, here.

    [Incidentally, that author also has harsh things to say about The American Church, too, here (“My Quarrel with Religion in America”).]

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  83. melmoth says:

    Yeah, “gaslighting” is the latest toy for feminists to play with. It’s very useful; vague, too slippery to refute and basically a magic wand of sorts. It belongs in the vague realm of emotions which is where they are comfortable. Basically, a woman can harangue a man over whatever in whatever illogical way and his rational comeback will make her question herself, thus “gaslighting.” The insane behavior sprung from their entitlement/solipsism/misandry cannot be called out, or else it was ‘gaslighting’.

    The ‘you don’t make enough money and you’re never home’ oxymoron quickly becomes a gaslighting situation when the man explains to her that he’s never home because he’s working harder to make more money. The man simply points out how comically stupid the woman is behaving and she is forced to question her own thinking/sanity. Gaslighted! When you point out to them that their stances are insane, you’re a gaslighter. It can be used in just about any situation. It’s along the lines of men just being “angry, white men” when they try to mount any kind of pushback in a 100% identity politics culture.

    My sister claimed to be gaslighted after blowing up her own marriage and wrecking everything in a storm of the most typical, predictable, vicious behavior towards a very decent man. Of course he was ‘gaslighting’ her when he made any attempt to stand up for himself.

  84. melmoth says:

    I forgot to write about the main element of ‘gaslighting’; cold, hard projection. Women are the gaslighters, culture wide. ‘Rape culture’ hysteria is one example of men being gaslighted en masse.

    Basically feminism could be boiled down to a large scale exercise in projection that is so pervasive and total that it’s impossible to even recognize it. Women have been truly gaslighting men for centuries. They have been the dominant, heavy-handed manipulators and they’ve projected it all away. Throw in the gaslighting and men have never even gotten passed their own self-doubts concerning their decency/sanity to ever, ever, think to start assessing women. Guys work their lives away to accommodate women but come away from it all doubting their own decency.

  85. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    May 5, 2017 at 11:42 pm, mmaier2112 wrote:

    “Fuck these bitches. I would sooner shoot them in the face with my 5.56 than give the an OUNCE of understanding.”Dude, take a look in this mirror

    (βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι) [ 1 Corinthians 13:12 (note)].

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    YacYac
    And, any commenters here who think it might be clever to reply to this set of observations by accusing me of blaming men for women’s misbehavior, better reconcile that accusation with the simple, undeniable and continued reality of the transition from “pretty”-and-innocent-12-year-old-girl to “hot”-but-batshit-crazy-hard-hearted-25-year-old-woman, via 10+ PUA encounters.

    Looks like you have a little problem with the words “some” and “all”. They don’t mean the same thing. Ironic that you have an anti PUA tantrum on this blog of all places. There’s not a real big cheering section here for promiscuity, in fact there’s more than one man who wants to marry here. So you’re basically flaming the choir for being miserable, drunken, cads.

    In short you are blaming all men for the actions of some men and some women. Mark Driscoll, is that you?

  87. Yoda says:

    If notice haircut he didn’t,
    then she must throw a fit

  88. Bruce says:

    Her haircut probably looked like crap anyway. Women’s hair looks better when they just leave it to grow long and wash and brush it.

  89. Pathfinderlight says:

    This sort of thing can’t be resolved by democracy because women will vote pro-woman every time, even when the result is injustice.

  90. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    May 7, 2017 at 5:55 pm, Anonymous Reader replied to my earlier comment with:

    Looks like you have a little problem with the words “some” and “all”. […]

    Anonymous Reader, I’m confused by your reply. I do not use either the word “some”, or the word “all”, anywhere in the part of my comment which you quoted. In fact, neither word appears anywhere else in my comment, either.

    Therefore, I am not sure I understand your criticism of my comment.

  91. MATXMO says:

    Remake of this film coming out this year. Somehow I doubt the soldier will be portrayed as a victim… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beguiled_(1971_film)

  92. PeterW. says:

    Yacyac….

    Your argument fails at the point that it assumes that girls are innocent until made otherwise by PUA. I’ve witnessed Miss 14yo experimenting with her ability to make boys jump through hoops by sexual signalling. Girls mature in this fashion faster than boys, and emotional manipulation is a tool that seems to come naturally to them.

    Human beings are not noticeably innocent. We need to be taught to be good and it is generally only the type of sinfulness that varies with age.

    So no, you do not get to argue that exceptions create a rule. Otherwise we are justified in using the same logic to blame all women for the suicides of men who have had their children stolen via the divorce court. We could equally claim that the PUA culture about which you are do scathing, owes its cynicism to the infidelity of women.

    Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

  93. Pingback: Intentionally Conflating | Spawny's Space

  94. PeterW. says:

    Yacyac….

    Your argument fails at the point that it assumes that girls are innocent until made otherwise by PUA. I’ve witnessed Miss 14yo experimenting with her ability to make boys jump through hoops by sexual signalling. Girls mature in this fashion faster than boys, and emotional manipulation is a tool that seems to come naturally to them.

    Human beings are not noticeably innocent. We need to be taught to be good and it is generally only the type of sinfulness that varies with age.

    So no, you do not get to argue that exceptions create a rule. Otherwise we are justified in using the same logic to blame all women for the suicides of men who have had their children stolen via the divorce court. We could equally claim that the PUA culture about which you are do scathing, owes its cynicism to the infidelity of women.

    Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.f

  95. Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall

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