Duluth worked even better than I expected.

The Miami Herald reports that the woman in the viral video wasn’t arrested or charged.  From Woman smashes husband with laptop on plane, video shows:

The woman was not arrested. According to the report. there was a delay from the time the incident took place to when police were notified and dispatched to the area. A search for her “yielded negative results.”

The husband spoke to authorities and said they were en route from Ecuador back home to L.A. when the argument ensued, but did not want to press charges. He went on to take a later flight. McLemore’s whereabouts are unknown.

The flight attendant and passengers were treated for bumps on their heads. Neither wanted to make a statement.

“If there’s no statement, we are not able to move forward with the case,” a Miami-Dade Police Department spokesman told the Miami Herald.

Note that according to the Miami Herald the police are saying there is nothing they can do because the airline crew failed to call them in a timely manner, and then refused to make a statement to police.  Imagine the outrage if the sexes were reversed and the airline didn’t promptly call the police, declined to make a statement, and the police reviewed the viral video and left it at that.  Every major media outlet in the country would have editorials decrying the proof the case provides that the evil patriarchy is systematically oppressing women.  There would be calls for heads to roll, and the heads of the American Airlines, Miami-Dade PD, and the prosecutors office would all have made self abasing press conferences by now apologizing for not taking domestic violence seriously.  All of the democratic presidential candidates would have expressed outrage on the issue, and very likely President Trump as well.  And the men of National Review would stage a self flagellation parade.

Tellingly, the Miami Herald doesn’t use the terms “abuse” or “domestic violence” anywhere in the article*.  It characterizes the woman smashing her disobedient husband over the head as a blowout fight between a married couple (emphasis mine):

Passengers on an American Airlines flight from Miami to Los Angeles got a front row seat to a blowout fight between a married couple seated in the exit row.

A woman, identified by police as Tiffany McLemore, can be heard yelling expletives at her husband on various videos taken by fellow passengers, and circulating on social media.

According to a police report on Sunday’s incident before taking off from the Miami airport to L.A., McLemore became “enraged” because he was “ignoring” her.

The silence in this case is all the more telling because the woman almost seems like a hoax given how perfectly she acts out the feminist description of men using violence to maintain power and control in a relationship. She is a female version of the stereotypical angry drunk abuser, straight out of central casting.  From USA Today:

According to a police report of the Sunday incident, McLemore and her husband were arguing about McLemore’s drinking. McLemore became “enraged” when her husband was ignoring her and when he got up to walk away, she got his laptop and threw it at him.

She even declares that she’s the man in the relationship (emphasis mine):

In the video, the woman is heard saying: “I wear the f—— nuts, n—–. Watch until we f—— get home.”
The man leaves his seat and escapes up the aisle with the cabin crew, but the woman pursues him, smashing down her laptop over his head.

The cardinal rule of the Duluth paradigm of domestic violence is that you can’t apply the paradigm to women who abuse men.  Obviously American Airlines, Miami-Dade PD, the prosecutors office, and the media are all following this cardinal rule.  The alternative explanation would be that they don’t take domestic violence seriously.

Note also that while she was abusing her husband she was threatening to enlist the police to help her abuse him.  From the Miami Herald article:

“Never come to my house again, n—–!” she shouts in the curse filled rant. “I’ll call the police on you!”

She clearly understood how the process works, which is why she was so unconcerned when the flight crew (apparently falsely) claimed they were going to have her charged for assault.

*Likewise, neither term is used in the stories by Fox News, Business Insider, AOL, The New York Post, or USA Today.

This entry was posted in Business Insider, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Miami Herald, National Review, New York Post, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Duluth worked even better than I expected.

  1. Scott says:

    Like I said in the previous post. The narrative is that either she is mentally ill, or her anger needs to be “understood”

    Both of which are non-starters if you are a man.

  2. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Justice is not blind to persons
    Equality under the law does not mean equal treatment by the law

    It’s so simple, the penal system is for those with a penis.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    This paper was linked to in the previous thread.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2790940

    I read all the way through it once, might do so a second time. There is a circular argument through out that tries to reconcile the 1960’s – 1970’s feminist dogma “Domestic violence is a gendered issue” i.e. men are always aggressors and women always victims, with the 3rd stage “strong, independent woman with agency” feminism. The cognitive dissonance is pretty obvious at times.

    As I parse the argument in that paper, men are oppressors but can be victims of domestic violence and must be kept in the system, but any violence by a woman vs. a man is always a response to his oppression of her. Plus all parts of society must work to end violence against women.

    It’s logically self-contradictory, on a par with “squaring the circle”, because the fundamental premise of “men bad, always!” is false. False premise -> no meaningful conclusion. Logic 101.

    She clearly understood how the process works, which is why she was so unconcerned when the flight crew (apparently falsely) claimed they were going to have her charged for assault.

    Yes, this is very important, and I’m probably not the only man to miss it the first time through the video. She doesn’t give a flip because she knows she doesn’t have to, because the process is unquestionably on her side no matter what.

    This obvious “female privilege” is what feminists call “equality”.

  4. texinole says:

    It was nearly impossible to make out what she was saying in the bleep-filled video I saw. Now that I’ve read it…

    What a pugnacious muculent thundercunt.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    The narrative is that either she is mentally ill, or her anger needs to be “understood”

    Yep. Although the second option is more likely to get play, see the paper I linked to.
    I am very sure that there are some older, traditional, men whom I could play the video for and they would say “Well, what did he do to her?” without fail. Because women are wonderful and would never lash out without reason…and that just happens to play into the feminist “understand her anger” ploy perfectly.

    Previously Dalrock pointed out how Duluth sits at the nexus of feminism and chivalry.
    The press response to this incident is an excellent example of that very point.

    Anyone up for a search of feminist sites to see if they even acknowledge this incident?

  6. locustsplease says:

    They are lying about not notifying police there has to b a protocol about if a passenger hurts a person on board they are notified. Also they were treated for cuts and bruises so there was a call.
    They refused to make a statement like they want to protect the chick that just gave them an elbow to head!
    This is just the inevitable ramping up that is going to become more public.
    Me and my cousins got together a few years ago and the topic of girlfirends came up. One of them said his last would drink get in his face and say “what do you want to do hit me!” He had No idea what the argument was about.
    I was surprised because every girl i have dated did this at least once and all 5 of my cousins had dated girls that did this.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, this demonstrates just how “thirsty” men can get for female companionship. He’s in a relationship where verbal and mild physical abuse happens in public – so for sure it happens in private – and he’s putting up with it.

    Reverse the sexes and just on the one vid it would be a near-textbook case of “battered wife syndrome”.

    This female privilege is what feminists call “equality”.

    Jonadab
    Equality under the law does not mean equal treatment by the law

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

    Anatole France

  8. Jon Patch says:

    Seems she has a ghetto street voice she uses with him and a more normal voice she uses with everybody else.

  9. Anon says:

    Too bad no one in the ‘sphere has created a website to register such women with video proof (if only to warn future boyfriends and employers).

    Paul Elam started register-her.com, but then quickly shut it down once he found that it would actually advance men’s rights. But alas, no one else started a replacement.

  10. Anon says:

    I was in a more working-class part of town a few months ago.

    A Hispanic couple was having an argument across the street. As far as I could see, it was only verbal.

    Then, a car pulled up next to me with an obese Mexican man as a driver and a testy-looking white woman in the passenger seat. Two children in the back seat.

    The obese Hispanic husband asked me : “Deed he heet hur?”

    I honestly did not see that he did, but knowing what I know about VAWA, I still would have erred on the side of not involving police if there was a minor or even moderate blow struck. I said ‘No’.

    The white wife scoffed, as though to indicate I was lying, even though the bitch didn’t see anything herself (which is why her fat Mexican was desperately seeking confirmation). Then the obese Hispanic drove a few feet ahead, and asked another pedestrian “Deed he heet hur?”.

    In the end, no cops were called, but the fat whiteknight, who, due to his accent, was a recent immigrant and obviously did not grow up in a feminist school system, nonetheless was desperate to find someone to say ‘yes’ so that he could call the cops. His desire to call the cops on the other Hispanic man was palpable. I can only assume that the shrewish white wife radicalized the obese Mexican and we was effectively in full whiteknight mode.

  11. Anon says:

    I bet the man paid for her plane ticket too.

  12. westray says:

    But don’t go MGTOW though. That’s ‘despair.’ LOL. You just gotta Man Up Harder (MUH!) Just go fourth-wave Man Up to keep pace with the feminists. This guy shoulda been doing his deadlifts and building his career, right?

  13. Hazelshade says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Reverse the sexes and just on the one vid it would be a near-textbook case of “battered wife syndrome”.

    That the husband did not want to press charges further emphasizes this point. That the husband did not press charges will also be one of the Duluth defenses of the (lack of) resolution to this fight. Per Duluth all technical minutiae are now applicable in the defense of the woman’s conduct.

  14. feministhater says:

    Hilarious! Home of the cucked, land of the domesticated! Lol!

  15. 7817 says:

    The cardinal rule of the Duluth paradigm of domestic violence is that you can’t apply the paradigm to women who abuse men. Obviously American Airlines, Miami-Dade PD, the prosecutors office, and the media are all following this cardinal rule. The alternative explanation would be that they don’t take domestic violence seriously.

    Why not both?

    It’s DV when it serves the feminine imperative, and when it doesn’t the laws can be ignored.

    It’s who/whom.

  16. feministhater says:

    He should count his blessings to be married to such a strong, empowered woman. She was just letting him know that God is displeased and means business, her burning bush showing him the error of his ways for which he must repent. God talked through her, inviting him to improve himself and submit to her obviously superior leadership abilities.

    The ways of God are mysterious, so much more so when he speaks through the awesome power of the vag, energizing his base through the works of the engorged hole betwixt her legs. All bow before the mighty cunt.

  17. feministhater says:

    Just go fourth-wave Man Up to keep pace with the feminists.

    Dude! We need some intersectional nth wave, New Revised Feminist Bible, Man Up sermons up in here! Bayly and Co need to get on that right away! Show much to do, so little time!

  18. white says:

    What’s interesting is that the feminist/mainstream response to this viral video (as observed by comments on youtube and elsewhere) seems to be something like “I’m ashamed no one jumped in to help him!”,
    which is an ingenious bit of hamstering. No doubt they’re implying there are no consequences for other men who step in and physically restrain an angry women on camera, but also that it is men who have the duty to maintain order on a plane. A quick follow up question “Why didn’t the women stop her?” would reveal this hamster.

  19. white says:

    @westray

    What an angry comment! I don’t like your opinion, you need to quit whining. Stop being a loser! That man should have vetted better. Haven’t you heard? Vetting is a 100% fool proof process. If vetting ever fails than You Should Vetted Better. Vet Up!

  20. thedeti says:

    The way the local police, the airline, and the air marshals handled this is bunk.

    If the sexes were reversed and the man had head bashed the woman, the case could and would be prosecuted based on the video alone. This case as is can be prosecuted with just the video.

    All that would be necessary would be sworn testimony from the person who made the video, and testimony that the perp on the video is Tiffany McLemore. Any prosecutor can subpoena the video, the phone that created it and its owner/operator, and require that person to testify under pain of penalty. And it would be prosecuted regardless of:

    –whether anyone pressed charges

    –whether anyone else testified

    –whether anyone else reported it and when

    –whether anyone else wanted it prosecuted

    –whether anyone at all gave statements to police or anyone else

    The video itself is an open and shut assault/battery case. All that would be necessary to secure an indictment and conviction is authenticating the video, and all that’s necessary there is sworn testimony from the cell phone’s operator that “that is my phone, I created the video on that aircraft on that date, what you just showed me is a true and correct copy of the video I created, and it is a fair and accurate depiction of the aircraft and the events depicted on the video”.

    Then you subpoena one of the airline crew to testify to the flight’s passenger manifest to identify Ms. McLemore.

    Presto. Indictment.

    Then you take that same evidence and give it to a jury.

    Presto. Conviction.

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the video is irrefutable proof, beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. McLemore assaulted and battered her husband/boyfriend.”

    Nothing else matters.

    So this idea that the case can’t be prosecuted because the airline crew didn’t call the police in a timely way, and then no one from the crew gave statements, is total bunk. This is very, very easy to prosecute. You subpoena the video and the phone’s owner, and you subpoena the passenger manifest and someone from the airline to authenticate it.

  21. Lexet Blog says:

    I’ve personally witnessed cops taking people off of flights for far less.

    It may have triggered an FAA/police investigation, and it may be standard policy for AMA to not comment at that point.

  22. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    So this idea that the case can’t be prosecuted because the airline crew didn’t call the police in a timely way, and then no one from the crew gave statements, is total bunk. This is very, very easy to prosecute. You subpoena the video and the phone’s owner, and you subpoena the passenger manifest and someone from the airline to authenticate it.

    Government prosecutes people all the time like that. These assholes would also have us believe that they have no extradition authority and the statute of limitations is hours long or something.

  23. Opus says:

    Your starter for ten:

    Who described feminists as ‘obnoxious bigots’ and said that men got a raw deal?

    Was it:

    a. Paul Elam
    b. W.F.Price
    c Dalrock
    d Karen Straughan
    e. Dominic Raab (Britain’s newly appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs).

    The answer is of course e. Could this happen in the Trump or indeed any other administration? So remember the next time you say that feminists are obnoxious bigots and get called out on it just explain that this is not necessarily your view but that of the British Foreign Secretary.

  24. Minesweeper says:

    @Opus, glad you posted that. Maybe there is a future for us all.

  25. Pingback: Duluth worked even better than I expected. | Reaction Times

  26. TheTraveler says:

    The only reasons witches like this get away with it is because men allow it–men pass the laws, enforce them, praise themselves for being so chivalrous.

    But eventually, this will end: it is utterly against nature, and “if a thing can’t continue, it won’t.” Sooner or later something will happen, men (enough of them, at least) will wake up and a tsunami will follow.

    I can’t pretend to know what or when. But I do know that society is destabilized. Return to equilibrium is inevitable–I suspect it will be a sharp, sudden toppling over of instability. Whether it will orderly or ugly remains to be seen.

  27. Jacob says:

    Paul Elam started register-her.com, but then quickly shut it down once he found that it would actually advance men’s rights.

    And then where would his pension fund be?

  28. Iowa Slim says:

    @ westray

    If I remember correctly, it’s OK if divorce-wrecked men go MGTOW. They’re just not allowed to give fair warning–pardon me, SPREAD DESPAIR–to the young men. They’re super-duper losers if they do that.

  29. Scott says:

    Iowa Slim

    Yes, there is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t sense to those who choose MGTOW. Like talking about fight club or something.I can’t quite place it.

    I am one of the few happily married manosphere guys who sees MGTOW as a totally rational response to the current situation. If I had a magic wand I would create a different set of circumstances so it wouldn’t have to exist. But I don’t.

  30. 7817 says:

    Scott:

    I have no intention of continuing the other threads debate in here, but I agree with what you said here:

    I am one of the few happily married manosphere guys who sees MGTOW as a totally rational response to the current situation.

    It’s possible for some to understand things in a greater than binary manner.

    The OP lays things out in an informative enough manner that everyone can see what is clearly happening, without the tone of “the sky is falling!”

    That’s one of the great qualities Dalrock has: laying out the truth, however bad, without being unreasonable.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Traveler
    The only reasons witches like this get away with it is because men allow it–men pass the laws, enforce them, praise themselves for being so chivalrous.

    Two points:
    First, learn the difference between “some” and “all”. Some men enacted VAWA, all men are subject to it.

    Second, the old fables are often instructive:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Belling_the_cat

  32. Scott says:

    7817-

    There is also the problem of MGTOW having so many iterations and site hosts and youtubers claiming to know what it is, that its pretty hard to define. One could call me MGTOW, but I just happen to be married.

    Lets say, for the sake of argument that a man comes across the red-pill and he is already, currently married. Lets say he then shares with his wife of X years all the really cool things he is learning about hypergamy, intersxual dynamics, misandry, “game” and so forth. The probability that this will have the intended effect on his wife is basically zero. But he tries anyway. And guess what, every one of my coaching clients is basically in that exact situation. Not an exaggeration. Every one.

    Different details, but each story has the same trajectory. Something like My wife was resistant, then sort of came along, and now she is fading away from it and using the stuff we both agreed on against me.

    Now, I HATE prooftexting and beating people over the head with Bible verses, but in Pauls day, the brand newly minted Christians were operating under the assumption that Christ was returning soon–most likely in their lifetimes. Some of the married folks looked around at what a hassle having a family was and asked if maybe they should just divorce so they could work for the Kingdom.

    Pauls advice was to stay in whatever situation you are currently in.

    Applying that to Chistian MGTOWs does not seem like a stretch to me. Are you married? Stay married. Are you single? Don’t bother with marriage.

    The exact context is not the same, but there is wisdom in it. Marriage is ALL the things, all the risk, all the very low reward potential that “they” say it is. I choose to see MGTOWs as basically following something that approximates the kinds of advice Paul was dispensing there. Especially the ones who have been burned, and are now middle aged incels with no place else to go but Christ.

    But for the Grace of God…

  33. purge187 says:

    At least the sow’s name was leaked to the press, so hopefully she’ll be getting “feedback.”

  34. 7817 says:

    Fascinating comment Scott.

    I could have very easily been in the situation of the men you counsel.

    I’m glad you’re doing it.

    Sometime when it’s not OT I’d be interested in your thoughts on the advice from MRP reddit.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    Lets say, for the sake of argument that a man comes across the red-pill and he is already, currently married.

    That’s a good thing.

    Lets say he then shares with his wife of X years all the really cool things he is learning about hypergamy, intersxual dynamics, misandry, “game” and so forth.

    That’s a huge mistake. He’s wearing The Glasses but one lens is missing. He took the Red Pill but is choking on it. Because he is unconsciously assuming that his wife is just like him mentally, this is not at all true . The brain scans, the wiring, the emotional reactions – all different.

    The probability that this will have the intended effect on his wife is basically zero.

    Yes, because women are not “men with boobs”. Explain to a man how his own sex drive works both for good and bad, many men will want to manage things differently. Explain to a woman how her sex drive works she might just become angry and insulted.

    It is hugely tempting when a man learns some Game, learns some applied psychology, tries it out, sees it work – tempting to tell his wife “Hey, I see why Agree & Amplify works!” and maybe say it with a smirk. This is a dangerous situation.

    The first rule of Fight Club applies. Don’t talk about it. Look at an advert for Nike shoes and “just do it”. Acta, non verba.

    PS: One thing I have observed both online and in real life, men who are extremely betaized often fear their wives / girls. The “why” is complicated, I’ll leave it to Scott, but Game doesn’t work if a man has any fear inside him. End that fear – fear of her sharp tongue, her quick temper, her passive-aggressive backstabbing, fear of divorce – and it becomes truly possible to maintain Frame of reference even when she’s screaming incoherently.

    There might just be a Bible quote or three on that topic.

  36. westray says:

    “It’s possible for some to understand things in a greater than binary manner.”

    Coming from you 7817, that is comedy gold. Just hilarious. Great, great stuff.

  37. westray says:

    @Purge187,

    The feedback will be negligible. If anything, she’ll be lauded for putting him ‘in his place’ or some similar cliché.

  38. NCMike says:

    It was probably past her feeding time and the poor guy failed to maintain frame.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    It was probably past her feeding time and the poor guy failed to maintain frame.

    Low blood sugar makes people cranky. Especially obese diabetics. Just sayin’.
    The only Frame in that vid is hers. The man is 100% in her frame. That’s a big part of the problem.

  40. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    You are correct. I talk about what I read and learn and my exwife couldn’t handle as I began to internalize many of these truths. I had been close to many already due to the internal beliefs I seem to have been born with (very strong will, fairly logical, etc.). She got very offended that I noted a lot of truth she didn’t like.

    She even accused me as being “just like her father” in many ways, something that is surprising because he is quite controlled by his wife (3rd) and 3 daughters. Perhaps they beat it out of him over time.

    He paid for the initial part of the divorce so his daughter could act just like the first wife he can’t stand. Quite ironic but far too common today.

  41. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    Dalrock,

    Did you delete a few comments from this thread and the one above it?

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Il Deplorevolissimo

    Did you delete a few comments from this thread and the one above it?

    I did. See the comment policy.

    As I noted in my reply to one of the Warhorn questions, what you were doing is exactly how I would troll the men’s sphere if I were so inclined. If your goal was to make sure no meaningful discussion can happen on my blog about the problems with the Duluth model, then your comments were perfection. I’ve deleted the comments and placed you in moderation.

  43. Il Deplorevolissimo says:

    Then unlike a troll, I will actually leave you in peace with one final comment in rebuttal to your point.

    If your goal was to make sure no meaningful discussion can happen on my blog about the problems with the Duluth model, then your comments were perfection.

    Contrary to your assertion, mine was one of the only discussion points that actually said anything novel. I pointed out a fact, which you deleted because it was inconvenient, that Florida passed a rather radical Stand Your Ground law that would almost certainly protect any husband who can prove his wife was the initiator of violence. In this case, I believe I even pointed out that her behavior would easily be considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon which is a statute that dovetails rather neatly with the Stand Your Ground law. If you can prove me legally, factually wrong then go for it, but to call that trollish is ipso facto nothing less than an attempt to black pill men.

    Should the Stand Your Ground law apply, then the Duluth model would be superceded by it because the former is statutory law and the latter is merely enforcement policy in most jurisdictions.

  44. Minesweeper says:

    @westray says:”Coming from you 7817, that is comedy gold. Just hilarious. Great, great stuff.” 😀

    @westray says:”@Purge187 ;The feedback will be negligible. If anything, she’ll be lauded for putting him ‘in his place’ or some similar cliché.”

    Indeed, she will prob be given a commission by the UN, if Angelina Jolie, Amber Heard accusations against Brad and Johnny Depp are anything to go by.

    These women are all heroes in the eyes of the law, society and the world at large.

    If this one isn’t the face of AA advertising in a few years I would be very surprised. I could easily see her face embellishing the planes livery.

    “A safe place for women to travel in – and beat the shit out of any man you want without repercussions, your safety is guaranteed”

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Il Dep
    I even pointed out that her behavior would easily be considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon which is a statute that dovetails rather neatly with the Stand Your Ground law.

    “Deadly weapon” generally refers to an object capable of causing “grave bodily harm or death”, the sort of thing that TSA works pretty hard to keep off of aircraft. A plastic laptop case? Probably not.

    Your ignorance is deep.

  46. Frank K says:

    I suppose that if you hit someone hard enough on the noggin with a laptop, you could give him a concussion. Definitely assault, though I doubt it would be legally considered with a lethal weapon.

  47. BillyS says:

    Should the Stand Your Ground law apply, then the Duluth model would be superceded by it because the former is statutory law and the latter is merely enforcement policy in most jurisdictions.

    In your dreams. They would still enforce the Duluth Model, whatever the law says about other things. You fail to realize that thinking women are always the victim skews even what should be rational legal thought.

    Many people get off with illegal things, while others get hung (figuratively or literally) for dubious reasons. It is hard to have law strictly in place with humans involved, but we are well passed being a society purely built on legal logic.

  48. Chiroro says:

    Well, for now “nobody pressed charges”.

    In time she will become a hero for the cause of Wymyn, who “flipped the script” – because of course normally men do this kind of thing in the public, but for a change this time a woman dared to do it. YouGoGrrl!

  49. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side, August 1, 2019 | SovietMen

Comments are closed.