Domestic Violence Reality - the exception vs the rule.

[themaniusedtob]

Very true, but lets not forget that feminism helped to amplify that biased noise. Being that feminist groups lobbied for laws that are not fair to men.

[MLJ1219]

PiebRule comment, "a real but ignored problem" (wife battery). R u kidding? I can name 10 studies in 70's alone but the most telling 1 is (1977 Langley & Levy) "The most unreported crime is not wife beating it is husband beating." That was an independent study. Studies like that would now be trash canned because studies r pd 4 by feminazi's 2 promote the corrupt & lucrative divorce/custody/women's shelter industry. Judges got to have pensions & lawyers got to have JAGS & we get 2 pay for it all

[anikinippon]

Great video. This is exactly the reason why the iFeminists and other smaller feminist groups that actually strive for equality don't have power. NOW and the Feminist Majority are the organizations that are the power houses of Feminism. Now is responsible for the VAWA or the Violence Against Women's Act. The Act the specifically excludes men even though they are 37% of all Domestic Violence victims, this is a sexist scandal.

[St37One]

that would be nice.

but realistically we should aim for 5 years.

[PlebRule]

I do believe the attorney in the video IS correct about his assessment of who "is riding the bull" right now in terms of policy and enforcement - his ideological adversaries, the "shelter movement", etc.

I believe here in Canada (and from what I know, the situation is pretty similar in most of the U.S.), there has been (in some ways) a hysterical "over reaction" to what had long been a real but ignored problem (wife battery.)

[St37One]

by "tunnel vision" walter is refering to the bizzare belief that the experiences and stories of the women at the shelter can be generalized to the entire population as if it were a random sample.

They do actually claim that If o1 in 4 women at the shelter were assaulted, then that must mean that 1 in 4 Canadian women are assaulted.

Walter only generalizes from his own male DV clients who tend to have no priors, to male DV clients in Ontario, which is probably warranted.

[PlebRule]

Speaking of "tunnel vision", is it possible that this defense attorney has a little of his own? I mean, he see's nothing but men swearing up and down that they've been wronged by the system. Not completely unlike the people he speaks of who got "shell shocked" by seeing nothing but battered women and real bad "hard luck" cases.

That said, I tend to think the "truth" is somewhere between the extremes in rhetoric.

[St37One]

This is one area where what you might call the "middle ground" or the majority opinion is missing the boat.

His point is not so much about the men, as to how the system is structured in a way that makes it immune to reality.

If you learn more about this particular issue, I think that you will see how it is not a mere over reaction, but a full fledged witch hunt, which is not capable of solving the problem of domestic violence due to its ideological bent.

[thegreatpadaxes]

You know it amazes me, that with all the things the government tries to gurantee people now, we still have to pay out of our own pocket for justice. I'm all for free market lawyers but court fees should be handled by the state. If society imposes an expense, they should cover it.

I'm a small government fiscal hawk but people shouldn't have swallow their pride and say "no contest", just because they can't afford to be exonerated.

[St37One]

The PARS business is also a protection racket, and the only reason that they get away with it is due to the social stigma against the accuzed, which the government is also promoting. Participation is not really voluntary.

You also have the promotion of a strong bias against men, along with a strong bias against the accuzed. There is also a thriving PARS industry that has sprung up recently (not mentioned in this video) to meet the extremely high demand created by this zero tolerance policy.

[Gogonostop]

The "shelter movement" idea - that one battered woman represents all women - has everything to do with Radical Feminism. The two are not dissimilar.

[St37One]

"Radical Feminism" doesn't mean much... much like "Radical Islam".

On the other hand, "Feminism" does not stand for "Equality" any more than "Islam" stands for "Peace."

For one thing, Walter probably wants to distance himself from the stigma of being an anti-feminist (becaues most people will just ignore him and his message). Clearly not all feminist individuals or groups either support this, or deserve the blame for it... there is no need to take on the world. Only World Communitarianism.

[Somethingreallycool]

I think this comment pretty much exposed your tru opinions. You refuse to acknowledge that most people in this world aren't extremists. They're moderate. Including feminists, Muslims, Jews, and Animal Rights activists.

[St37One]

I resent your implication that I am trying to hide my true opinions. I am not.

Please tell me what you think is the real difference between a so called "radical" and a "moderate"?

[St37One]

I do not refuse to acknowledge that most people are not extremists.

Especially if by "extremist" you mean only those people who take direct, violent, or criminal action in the name of thier cause.

By definition, most people can not be extreme, most people must be moderate.

But labeling or dismissing people as "radials" does not mean much or advance the discussion. That is a very glib strategy IMO to use that word to cherry pick amongst the members of any ideological movement.

[Somethingreallycool]

Really? Because you jump on my comments, but don't seem to have much to say to, "Durrr feminists are ugly".

Do I really have to do this again? Really?

Google Annie Sprinkle, for the love of fuck.

[St37One]

You must be getting sleepy.

You are reacting to nothing.

Yes there are many different feminists with different ideas.

Wow.

I get it.

Never say anything bad about feminism. that would be generalizing.

But if you want to say something good about it, that is perfectly acceptable.

Feminism can take credit but not blame.

[Somethingreallycool]

No, you just jump on the bandwagon and point your finger at these radical, man-hating feminists and think you're saying something profound. You're vastly over representing them. It's the same bullshit O'Reilly pulls.

[shazam20007]

did someone say "lawyers associated with the "justice system" "

men don't get justice they get dealt with hahahahh

and bequeathed with a peonage order

[shazam20007]

the academics , the lawyers, the bureauctats and the community groups are all in cahoots with the feminit agenda a major plank of the established government

in contrast the mens' groups are fighting for survival agin the feminit octopus with the academic arms the lawyer arm the bureaucrat arm ll funded by the public purse in thier supression of men in favour of wimyn and their interests

wimyn's shelters are run by misandrist wimyn who clamour for public funds gladly given from public taxes

[DymphnaWolf]

Hmmm... Interesting, interesting.... Bit of a tricky situation though. I understand and agree with the point that not all women are innocent victims and that not all men are abusive assholes and its not fair what the legal system does. However there are still cases that warrent the shelters, so that leaves us with the question of where to go from here. How do we pick the legit cases from the wrongfully accused?

[DymphnaWolf]

I suppose a change in the law so that the guy would not have to pay so much money to fight to clear his name is the obvious answer, but what else could be done I wonder?

By the way, given some of the comments on here I feel I should say that not all feminists are man haters. I am a feminist and I like men just fine. I also believe that women can be just as sexist as men which is why I find the idea that men = abusers repulsive and ridiculous

[St37One]

The main obstacle here is the deluge of propaganda and politically correct media spin on domestic violence.

Domestic Violence is a problem, but you need be armed with the facts if you are serious about solving it.

The facts that are being hidden are that the more common and dangerous IPV is escalatory and reciprocal in nature, and that both genders perpetrate violence at equal rates.

But the law has been shaped to treat IPV as both a hate crime, and as unilateral abuse (e.g. children/pets)

[St37One]

Before Police make an IPV arrest, they must identify the "primary aggressor" and if it werent for that, there probably would not be any significant problem with the system.

The "primary aggressor" is identified based on height and gender. It is not based on testimony or degree of injury.

Once "abuser" has been separated from "victim" the way that the system treats them is radically different. But they are both coerced into providing the one sided testimony that the crown is looking for.

[St37One]

If both partners were simply, arrested interrogated, and charged. Then there would be twice as many people facing criminal charges, and the vast majority of them would be women. This would also encourage men to report the violence, and discourage women from reporting the violence. The media would then begin to portray the system as being too prosecution heavy, and as being way too harsh on women (suddenly way more women are going to jail). Then I think it would start to balance out.

[St37One]

Feminist groups would be forced to get out of the moral panic business once it became obvious that women were being victimized by the unfair prosecution in equal numbers. Just as you can imagine that the KKK would stop defending slavery if white people stood an equal chance of becoming slaves.

Simply remove the double standards and restore the Magna Carta and the system will be fair again. The only difficult problem is how to bring about those changes through political action.

[St37One]

As for your proposal to "change the law so that the guy would not have to pay so much to clear his name"

What we do need is symetry. As it stands, the female partner does not need to pay to prosecute the male because the crown simply does this automatically on thier behalf, and If the female refuses to testify against the male (which they are normally inclined to do), the female can be jailed for contempt. Any self incriminating testimony from the female is ignored for obvious reasons.

[St37One]

The male, on the other hand, has the freedom to choose whether or not to procede with criminal charges, which would just mean more protracted legal hassels, more money out of his own pocket, needlessly harming and aggravating their partner, and it would not help with thier own defense. It is not suprising men elect not even think to lay charges against thier female partner.

The system was not designed to sort out conflicts for same sex couples where there is no bad guy, but the same rules apply

[amymichellestone]

When there's actual evidence that a woman has been harmed. Like she's obviously beat up. Or take me, where my landlord called the police because she heard me screaming and my (now ex) husband was still holding a gun to my head when the cops arrived.

My boyfriend got arrested after his ex-wife was punching *him* and he pushed her away, to get her to stop. But she calls the police and says he pushed her down. They did not arrest her. Just him. This happens alot, and it's wrong.

[St37One]

This happens alot because of the strict regulations that police must follow. The police are still indoctrinated with propaganda even though they do not need to agree with thier own protocols.

Being arrested is just the begining, the real problems are caused by the way that the system treats people after that.

[ALVHUN]

@amymichellestone I refer to what happened to your boyfriend in your relationship with him as "Second Hand Divorce."

YOU are feeling the effect of the wrath of ill minded women many of who should be behind bars or in an asylum! Instead the men they intentionally harm are getting cuffed! That pisses me off deeply.

My ex-wife attempted to frame me for sexually arousing my child, that never happened. I will be seeking charges being laid in due time for public mischief and perjury!!!

[amymichellestone]

I hope they lock her up and throw away the key, ALVHUN. Women like that should be punished harshly.

And thank you for understanding how I feel.

[technologysucks]

Domestic abusers, sex offenders and drug abusers are the three witches/witch-hunts of our time. Sure all three (domestic violence, sex crime & drug use) are real problems, but there are paralelles with midieval paranoia including unfair incentives to give false confessions, false accusations for personal gain or out of sheer paranoia, and planting of evidence (such as drugs) by police

We still have witch hunts, but today the bogeyman is no longer supernatural, & overblown rather then made-up

[JohnR22926]

Of course the stats for domestic violence have been grossly inflated by radical femminists. For many, femminism is like a secular religion; truth is irrelevant...anything that advances the cause is acceptable.

Just like global warming. A valid issue that has been politicized and blown all out of proportion by pols using fear mongering to get elected.

[AmberNightwolf]

Actually they haven't. They've been ruthlessly deflated, but only when a woman is the perpertaror when women are just as likely to become violent as men are and men are less likely to report it. In truth abusive relationships are usually abusive both ways, the main difference is that while men are stronger than women, a woman will instinctively pick something up to hit a man with (like a pan or an ashtray) to make up for that difference.

[St37One]

You dont need to see any video.

What a stupid question!

I dont know anything about you, and I could care less what you think.

If you dont like this video, then dont watch it.

[thecrimsonfloyd]

George Orwell,do you have something to say?

[MysteryManoLove]

Feminism is evil and vile, I am writing a book on the ideology itself, not just radical feminism but every sort leads to wrongs because the fundamental mission statement is flawed. Propagating "manism" is not the solution to the problem either, feminism must be stopped at all cost.

[Tavereen]

True feminism is not the belief that women are better or more capable. At it's origins feminism was solely about equality between the sexes.

Today what most people think of as feminism is actually radical feminism. You must be careful not to confuse the two because they are not the same thing in much the same way that radical Islam is not actually true Islam.

[St37One]

Tavareen:

You are grossly oversimplifying.

There are as many "feminisms" as there are "feminists" as with the many branches of monotheism.

But you should never judge an ideology by its own delusions (unless you count yourself as a member). Judge them by their real world effects and the conduct of thier members. If a member can be arbitrarily be excluded for defamatory behavior in a post hoc fashion in order to preserve the reputation of the rest, this is known as scape goating.

[St37One]

Tavareen:

Are you one of those people who would describe your typical suicide bombing incident as "anti-Islamic terrorism"?

Do you have any grasp of how unprincipled and impossible the distinction between "radical" and "true" Islam actually is, and how it only serves the interest of reputation?

[MysteryManoLove]

I don't care about radical or non radical because I group together the entire ideology. I have been writing a book on feminisim because I am concernerned with the people who think it's a good idea when the laws on the books are totally contradictary to their perceived goals. The way that all feminists are able to manipulate their clear intentions is because they have a loose definition for an unobtainable goal. How do you measure true social equality?

[chompy410]

Feminism is undoubtedly a pretty evil ideology. Just think about this. Name one funded organisation, or even well known or supported unfunded organisation that promotes the male gender in the entire western hemisphere (I don't mean gay organisations). The answer is 0. yes, thats right, there isnt a single organisation in the west that helps, or promotesmen.

Now count the number of organisations run by feminists, leftists etc that demonise me. Uncountable.

Western men need to rise against this!

[St37One]

feminism is not an ideology, but there is something about being left that makes people feel like they are not responsible for being right.

[einyr]

Look no doubt there is a prevalence of poorly represented feminism, but to jump to the conclusion that White Males require a balancing force of "Manism" is myopic. Western Males are much more fortunate than their female counterparts (makes more on average, greater political representation). Liberals must merely start becoming more critical and not allow guilty-consciousness to cloud their logic and thus let slip radical feminism under their political umbrella.

[St37One]

If they changed, then they simply would not be liberals anymore. We dont need to change them, or trust them. We must replace them and decrease thier numbers.

I am curious about where you get the idea that "manism" would be for "white males". Is that newspeak? PC think?

Do the female Liberals have this "guilty conscience" when they go along with this nonsense?

Does any politician have a conscience? LOL

You sound a bit clouded yourself.

Mostly, the word just needs to get out.

[St37One]

Personally I find that looking at males and females as in any real competition with each other is simply moronic.

Generally, males compete only with other males for females, and vice versa. The only exception would be homosexuals who are deluded enough to think that heterosexuals are a sea of potential converts to homosexuality, and that heteronormativity is an illusion constructed by the patriarchy.

I see postmodern BS and communitarian ideology as being the source of this injustice.

[einyr]

Why moronic? So far your statements have been a lot of strong opinions but not a lot of explanation for them. These would be helpful. I know about the postmodernism BS, i remember having to read a textbook that equated the imagery of penetrative sex to male dominance as if biological happenstance was a wilful act by men to subjugate women. Still let's not toss the baby with the bathwater. Women have to fight for women.

[St37One]

I dont buy the baby and bathwater analogy.

And seriously, why should women fight for women?

there are plenty of men banding together to fight for women, and plenty of women fighting for men.

The point is that we are never actually in competition with each other.

Men ultimately only compete against other men, and women ultimately only compete against other women.

I am arguing that your social status is always relative to your own gender, and that a gender can not have a social status.

[einyr]

I'm clouded by certain statistics that I have been exposed to i'll admit that. But like it or not activism is the only way for minorities to gain a more equal foothold in society in a representative democracy. The male in the video may be speaking for men in general who are disenfranchised in the eyes of the law when it comes to custodial battles, which could be the result of reverse discrimination due to past history of men having a clear advantage in custodial battles of the past.

[St37One]

Youve done it again.

Now women are a "minority".

I dont think like you. Try going for meticulous and clear thought.

Where and when did men have a "clear advantage" in custody battles? That is a jaw dropping statement.

In case you think as you have implied that I have argued against "activism" then you are wasting your breath.

This video is activism, is it not?

[einyr]

Unless I am mistaken (really correct me if i'm wrong) Men have always won custody battles until recently, likely due to comparative affluence to their wife. Political minorities aren't due to numbers, I'm well aware that women on average on every continent slightly outnumber men. Political minorities are due to factors such as lower political power. Just like how for a while Black people were a minority in South Africa. Minority Activism is fueled by historical context.

[St37One]

Yes you do seem to be mistaken, but its too vague to tell.

Way back in the 1970s (the dawning of the divorce age) women were 5 times as likely to win a custody battle as thier male ex partner. The only thing that has changed significantly over the past 40 years is that their has been a large increase in joint custody also being awarded.

BTW

When ever you create a fact from your imagination/intuition, it becomes highly pretentious to also procede to speculate on an explanation for that fact.

[St37One]

I do not equate "political power" with the identity groups that politicians themselves can be included into. What good is an atheist or homosexual politician in power if they are in the closet, or who refuse to stand up for people who are just like themselves. The real power is not in the hands of the politicians, it is in the hands of the lobbyists/special interest groups, the parties, and ultimately the voters.

Having an all female police force would not result in empowering women.

[einyr]

I think this perceived disagreement is due to misconceptions. People who fight for equality don't want to be treated exactly equal. A blind man cannot work at a job that requires sight. But imagine if he was turned down for a hearing job because of prejudice against the blind that they were sloppy workers. I don't want an all female police force, it's not imperative. Just as I feel that there is no imperative for "manism", we have it pretty good.

[St37One]

We have "feminists" like Camile Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Warren Farrel.

I was not suggesting that you want an all female police force at all, I was merely trying to drive home the point it doesnt matter who the authorities and administrators are, all that matters is whos interests they serve, and how the system is structured. It doesnt matter if they are black, white, male, female, good, or bad. If they only serve thier own interests, then that is always bad NO MATTER WHO they are.

[St37One]

Your suggestion that we dont need "manism" (BTW this is normally refered to as mens rights activism, masculism, or anti-feminism) is a little strange for the following reason.

Any one who actively opposes this nonsense, in the name of justice, is automatically considered and labeled as part of a movement.

Those few feminists who have stepped up to the plate have been ostracised and abused by the establishment. Everyone (male or female) who opposes this hysteria is identified as an MRA.

[St37One]

So yes, we do need activism on the other side, becaues no matter what you want to call it, it is activism and awareness raising (this video included) and it is needed.

Domestic violence is one of those issues that most "skeptics" dont seem willing to cover for some reason. But the truth is very counter intuitive, and enlightening.

[St37One]

There is a significant ideological distinction between "equality of oportunity", and "equality of outcome".

But, none the less, fighting for "equality" really is like fighting for justice, fairness, or truth. As it turns out, many different beliefs, desires, and ideals are given the same label.

Blind advocates will support what ever they think is strategically best for blind people. This means that they want to retain the benefits of any helpful generalization/discrimination.

[einyr]

Well I wasn't being pretentious then. Unfortunately youtube has a max character count, so my two separate points seem purposely connected. If I am mistaken about the the custody battles fine I concede. The separate political minority fact is a direct response to your earlier gripe about "women being minority" -- they are. They make less on average, have lower representation in the political & professional arena. They only recently received voting privileges = to white males. They need activism.

[St37One]

But I wasnt refering to your comment about "political minorities" at all. You did actually say that it is "likely due to the comparative affluence to their wife" as a PROBABLISTIC explanation for a fact that you also made up. Ideas that themselves come directly from intuition are neither counter intuitive, nor reliable or varifyable enough to require such hypothesizing. It gives a fanciful guess the impression of an observed fact when you treat it as only an observed fact would be treated.

[wolzek]

Enlightening clip. Keep 'em coming.

The one thing I don't get is why this lawyer tries to let feminism off the hook. I don't see how you can treat feminism and the "shelter movement" as if they were two completely seperate things; they're not. Feminists support the shelter movement and the shelter movement is permeated with feminists and feminist ideas. This is why, for example, the shelter movement is biased against men. Personally, I don't think shelters should be receiving our tax dollars.

[St37One]

The problem is that "feminism" means different things to different people. The good reputation of the old "feminism" is what has allowed these cult leaders and activists to thrive. Just as with Hitler and "Aryans", these womens groups share a fanatical love and concern for women exclusively at the expense of all non-women. Most people associate the old ideas of equality and fairness when they hear the word "feminism" so they would react with incredulity if feminism were attacked or blamed.

[einyr]

Yea it's the mob mentality that's the problem. I wish that lobbyist groups were less powerful unfortunately in a representative democracy I'm not sure if that can ever be the case.

[St37One]

Yes

The collectivist mentality is the root problem, and the well organized post-modern movement to erase the enlightenment, the magna carta, science, and freedom as we know it.

Its all about denying truth/reality/objectivity, while also trying to build consensus. All radical faiths/ideologies share the common enemy of truth, so that was the first thing that had to be done away with.

They want a tamed religion to take over and replace the "western model".

[incloak]

@St37One

Could be that it was embedded on a website called AngryHarry that day.

[St37One]

awesome.

thanks :)

[luckyvet]

Lets sum up the scam: Politicians toss bones @ the loudest whiners in exchange for votes.

Those (womens) groups in turn skew statistics & lobby for tougher laws to create more conflict & ensure next years funding. Most employed within the womens groups have no idea & think they're doing good for society.

Its all 1 big hydrahead of big government; parasitic & self perpetuating - all about money.

[St37One]

That about sums it up.

But, don't forget about the ideology, the trampling on magna carta and the foundations of freedom, the hatred, contempt, and scapegoating of the out group, and the cult like fanaticism, and emotionalism, and the one sided treatment by the media.

[St37One]

very interesting...

on April 28th the views for this video shot up from a steady 15 per day, to 150 per day, and have since settled back down to 50 per day.

Does anybody have a clue about why this happened?

[msknight5]

Wow. This is social insanity. Statistics driving statistics.

This is genuinely shocking. That's a system setting itself up for an automatic fall if I ever saw one.

Haven't these people ever read, "Women Who Kill," or, "Deadlier than the male," eh? Just feed "women murderers" in to a search engine and lap the results up.

In my mathematical equation; women who portray the weak stereotype = someone who has something to hide.

[kusakun]

I was half asleep when I viewed this so I apologize. First off, I agree that there should be no "defaults" to justice. If there is an incidence of domestic violence, then it should be fully investigated and both parties be held until the evidence points to the person who was violent. Not to make light of Snark's situation, but it should be fully investigated. Refusal to see all sides of an issue is what makes for poor (and wrong) decisions.

[zmadcook]

When I was stationed in Colorado with the Army there was a similar treatment of DV. If you were arrested (whether found guilty or not guilty) for DV you were no longer allowed to own or carry a firearm. Which for servicemen meant they got kcicked out of the army. Well there were multiple cases of wives etc... using this law against their husbands as leverage. Threatening to unjustly accuse them of DV in order to get something they wanted...

[zmadcook]

Things like money, gifts of some sort, paying their rent, a few even had to buy girlfriends they barely knew cars, so they wouldn't be falsely accused. This led to tons of break-ups and divorces.

The law basically said that if the police come to the house on a domestic violence case, that unless it was completely obvios the man was assaulted and not the woman, that the man would be taken to jail. So there went the mans ability to serve in the army. It left many men in fear of there wives, etc..

[AntiFeminaziAus]

For everyone,

I just received a personal message from SnarkLicker, She accused me of being an abuser.

"You like hurting women and you get mad whenever a woman suggests that that's not what she's here for.

"If I continue discussing anything with you, the only response you'll have is to try and hurt me because I'm a woman. You'll call me names and tear at me and try to shame me into believing that hurting women is not just okay, but the right thing to do. Typical abuser."

[AntiFeminaziAus]

Then she said the following crap:

"So I apologize for thinking that we were actually getting into a discussion. I can't discuss anything with someone who doesn't believe I exist (there are no women as far as you're concerned, only objects to be treated cruelly and feminazis).

I pity you, but thankfully, I don't have to put up with you. You're blocked, and you're someone else's problem now."

[AntiFeminaziAus]

This woman is one manipulative cunt. She throws out wild accusations BECAUSE she knows they have the capaciity to tar a person's character. The problem is she never assigns any meaning to them. Therefore, her accusations come across as being stupid.

[St37One]

This strategy has obviously worked for snarklicker in the past. Religious people aslo use this strategy when they associate dissent and skepticism with the work of the devil or demons. This petty strategy only remains effective because humanity still has some growing up to do. As Christopher Hitchens points out... we remain a poorly evolved mamalian species.. our frontal lobes are still too small, and our adrenaline glands are too big, and we still believe a whole lot of obvious nonsense.

[St37One]

Shameless emotionalism is the enemy. The cult of Oprah is the enemy.

Women's studies, and the feministry of truth is the enemy.

Anyone who claims that the truth is not important, or that the truth is not compassionate enough, or supportive enough, or hateful, or otherwise good enough, is the enemy of a free and productive society.

[St37One]

The way that SnarkLicker goes after you personally, like a loose canon, really makes me wonder if she can resist being abusive and vindictive with her intimate others.

Is she trusting?

Is she trustworthy?

Is she able or willing to manage her own emotional outbursts?

I somehow doubt it.

She seems rather paranoid and hysterical. Not the sort of person that it is easy to get along with.

She has been in an abusive relationship?

Not suprising at all.

[AntiFeminaziAus]

St37One,

You're right about SnarkLicker. She's exploiting society's hysterical, gynocentric stance on domestic violence and gender issues in general. She's a propagandist of the highest order. Hitler and Lenin would have been proud of her.

[AntiFeminaziAus]

I wouldn't be surprised if SnakLicker's "abuser" is merely a poor man who defended himself from her.

[St37One]

but on the other hand...

female = good, male = ungood, that's how you good think.

[St37One]

Snatchlicker also posted this comment, directed at me, on a different video "I've deduced the following: You're pretty sure that domestic violence against women doesn't exist, you like to make unwarranted extrapolations about things that nobody said, *and* you have no sense of humor. What a lovely person you must be. Please leave me alone."

- I have deduced that she is a hypocrite, who tacitly endorses double standards, and does not mind contradicting herself.

[St37One]

The fact that she had the nerve to say "leave me alone" when she is the one posting comments on my videos, is beyond absurd. That is actually an insinuation against me (when someone tells you to leave them alone, it carries the implication that it must have been provoked somehow, or why else would they actually say it?). The fact is, I have never harrassed her, or even made contact with her in any way. This is actually a form of what is known as "indirect aggression" and its no laughing matter.

[AntiFeminaziAus]

The "leave me alone" comment is an attempt to gain people's support for no other reason than she's a woman. She's aware that the majority of people will blindly support a woman who claims to be a victim of a big bad man. The fact she's using this to her advantage proves that she's just as evil and destructive as the men who batter their wives.

[einyr]

Dude the pop psychology is getting Bill O'Reily-like. Stick to the facts and take the high road.

[St37One]

pop psychology?

(as I psychology student myself, I have a vested dislike for Oprah and co.)

Bill O'Reily-like?

In the spirit of sticking to tangible facts, please tell me which of my statements you find to be psuedo factual, or non-factual.

[einyr]

I talking about antifeminazi's remark about the leave me alone comment. I'm a psychology graduate, and to derive a deduction of a person's personality from their observed reactionary propensity is usually wrong (fundamental attribution error). Both sides are emotionally committed to linking action with character rather than action with situation and circumstance. I think that she made the statement because she was under emotional durress. That would be the most proper explanation.

[St37One]

there really is no "proper" explanation

the situationists have no real authority, and have not earned any through emprical research.

Of course some people can be manipulated through highly contrived means to act in shocking ways, but this has no real significance for how to understand human behavior at large.

It is important also not to underestimate the power of blame and praise.

It is better to blame her for her observed behavior, than to blame any hypothesised emosystem. LOL

[einyr]

who are the situationalists? the liberals? the fundamental attribution error is a psychological theory that has been researched, using surveys and experiments. It is better? It is better to not contribute to a woman's affected psyche by blaming her. Unfortunately, social sciences are filled with hypothesiZed emosystems, but we have experiments to at least increase the probability of correctness. Unlike the colloquial "I have a theory..."

[St37One]

I know precisely what the fundamental attribution error is. I learned all about that in Social Psychology 101.

It is one of the most important tennets that defines situationism as an intellectual movement, and it also defines social psychology. I would not call it a "theory" though. It is a generalized description of human behavior (an overall bias) not an explanation.

You can look up the situationists if you want to.

Remember Zimbardo? Milgram?

[St37One]

"it is better to not contribute to a womans affected psyche by blaming her"

- you actually said that

WOW

[St37One]

So would you blame me for assuming that you would agree with the idea that there is something special about women as a category, that makes putting blame on them more harmful than putting blame on men?

[St37One]

There are two reasons that I eventually became disillusioned with Social Psychology

The first was that the constructs (and there are hundreds of them) that I saw being relied on were themselves insufficiently grounded.

And also, the only concerns and ambitions of the Social Psychprofs were to bring about attitude change, to brainwash people, and to socially engineer some future collectivist utopia. They have a disgusting idea of how education should be used.

[einyr]

My proffessor for social psychology only wanted us to use controlled thinking more than automatic thinking because the latter is the supposed cause of many projected misunderstandings. The truth is social science is difficult to empirize, but they definitely try (sans postmodernists). Social psychology is also generalist, so a 95% predictive ability is what a sound theory can be based one. Personally, I look at psychology as helpful and interesting, but I view biology and the like as truth.

[einyr]

Nope, in fact I am of the opinion that there is no significant psychological difference between men and women, save for social conditioning - where women are "prodded" towards emotive-based activity growing up. Why would you want to put blame? To view the importance of your point over another human being is a terrible thing to me, that's all.

[1WhoSeeks]

@einyr,

You either had a bad teacher or you are so blind to the truth that you truly believe there is no psychological difference between men and women despite all the evidence that says otherwise. It`s about time psychology and biology started to work together. Stop being so set in your ways and open you mind. That`s how great people become great.

[einyr]

Nah I would say that about anyone. I should have said person's instead of woman's, but I didn't expect the spanish inquisition on this one. She's obviously been fairly traumatized by her dealing with her ex, so why exacerbate her sitaution, or reach some public consensus of her further failings. I would make the same argument for a male soldier who was traumatized by war. Or even if the situations were switched up.

"WOW "--> Why bring our conversation down with your mock incredulity.

[SnarkLicker]

All I can say in response to this video is that I'm sincerely glad for you that you've never been raped by your husband or had to watch him put bruises on your children. Maybe you'd have a different viewpoint on what constitutes a "loving husband and father", and you'd be able to agree with me, but I wouldn't wish the experience it takes to get to that agreement on my worst enemy.

[St37One]

Your comment is filled with false assumptions and pretenses. You insinuate but you just don't commit. So I need to explicate the obvious.

What do you want me to agree with you about?

How has your experience informed/misinformed you?

Why do you think I have a different Idea of what constitutes a loving spouse and parrent? (I took the liberty of neutralizing your sexist/misandric language)

[SnarkLicker]

Fine. You're right. I'm wrong. I should have just put up with the constant rapes and the beatings and watching him punch my children (who were almost two and three months when I finally got away from him). He was a wonderfully loving man and I'm just a horrible old cunt for not seeing that. Happy?

[AntiFeminaziAus]

SnarkLicker,

Your response to this video suggests you cannot stand it when people refuse to view domestic violence from a one-sided feminazi-esque perspective.

[SnarkLicker]

No, my response to this video suggests I was in an abusive relationship. I'm sorry for not being able to understand that the man who beat me and my children was a wonderful person and deserved more of my life than he already took.

[St37One]

If I automatically take your side of the story as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then I am only being polite/sensitive.

What ought to be the only concern, is the truth. This includes not just your view, but also your husbands, and the whole story, not just carefully selected parts.

This topic has nothing to do with your testimony, its not even about what actually happened between you and your husband, it is really about averages, statistics, and undeniable evidence.

[St37One]

In other words, we are not telling you that your husband was a great person, we dont know anything about him. Also, your in laws could have been the most unpleasant people in the world, and your boss might have been a total jerk. But if you didnt realize how irrelevant these things are, then you need to chill out and take this topic more seriously. The idea is that the problem is not MEN and that men deserve to be treated fairly. And if you disagree with that, then there is a REAL disagreement.

[AntiFeminaziAus]

St37One,

Good response.

[AntiFeminaziAus]

SnarkLicker,

Please explain how this video is telling female victims of domestic violence that they deserve to be hit, and that their abusive partners are good men.

[1WhoSeeks]

@SnarkLicker,

No one is here saying, he was a wonderful man. We hate abusers as much as you do but we are not your abusers. Justice catches up with everyone eventually.

[1WhoSeeks]

@SnarkLicker,

Sorry you had a bad experience but not all men are to blame for the actions of a few. Most men are decent but, it s the decent men who are persecuted by the "victim society'". I was not the man that harmed you so why should I be punished. That is why MRA groups exist. Cause we are sick of the injustice directed towards men. We are sick of the false allegations and the bias in the legal system. Things are going to have to change.

[Hzqi]

@1WhoSeeks

It's not just a minority of men who are assholes.

A minority of HUMANS are assholes. Including women.

[vanity40ful]

@1WhoSeeks Until you have been subjected to such a life experience ,it's hard to say how someone else should feel about it. All men are'nt bad...but good ones are hard to find. They are exposed to dysfunctional conditioning by there own fathers and repeat the behavior.

[1WhoSeeks]

@vanity40ful You don`t think that there are dysfunctional mothers?

[Qermaq]

Yes, there are bad, abusive men, and I'm truly sorry if you've been a victim to one. But surely you cannot be glad innocent men or temporarily uncentered men are being treated by the judicial as if they were hardened criminals deserving of every disparagement of law? Not all men who are accused of domestic violence are guilty, and not all who are guilty are at all likely to repeat. Some are, yes, and that's truly sad, but is the solution to kill them all and let God sort out the nonsense?