How domestic violence against men is ignored by the feminist state

Article is from MSN Lifestyle. (H/T Andrew)

If your wife attacks you and the police are called, it is often the law that they must arrest the man:

Four Sacramento County Sheriff’s cars pulled up in front of David Woods’s house. He tried to explain to them what happened. But the lead deputy cut him off: “Yeah, that’s fine. Put your hands behind your back.”

David said, “No, wait, she stabbed me … there’s the knife. See the knife? See my neck wound? See?”

“Put your hands behind your back. Turn around,” the deputy replied.

“No,” David protested. “She stabbed…”

The deputies drew their weapons.

Women use the element of surprise and weapons when they assault men:

She had a serrated vegetable knife with a blade about seven inches long. She turned around and she stabbed at me.

“I tried to block it, but I was surprised. I was off balance…the knife went right through my collar and gave me a little nick on my neck.

“She reared back to stab me again. I tried to block it again…I hit her in the mouth. She dropped the knife, ran to the telephone, called 911, and told them, ‘My husband is hitting me! I think he’s gonna kill me.’

State employees, including police, social workers and judges, have been brainwashed to believe that women can never be violent:

After 15 minutes, the female deputy returned from the bedroom after talking to David’s children. She told the other deputies, “It’s true. Both of the daughters saw it. She tried to stab him with the knife.”

They took the cuffs off David. “Your wife obviously needs help,” the lead deputy said. “She works for Kaiser, you’ve got health insurance that covers mental health, you need to call the emergency number and get her an appointment.”

David says there’s a double standard when it comes to charging men. “Now, isn’t that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally realized that she tried to stab me in the neck, it stopped being a crime, and instead it was a mental health issue.”

Taxpayer money is spent used to fund feminist research and a bevy of social programs exclusively for women:

“The violence really began in our family about 10 days after Ruth realized that she had all the power [financially]. I knew I had to get my kids out. I called the largest domestic violence shelter agency in Sacramento County several times. They told me, ‘Men are perpetrators of domestic violence; women are victims of domestic violence,’ and hung up.

“I had no way out. I had no money. Whenever we bought a car, Ruth insisted that the car be in her name only, so that if I took it and went to the movies without her approval she would call the police, and report, ‘I’m estranged from my husband, and he stole my car.’ She did that several times.”

Worst of all is what David’s children endured. One daughter says, “No one would help. Teachers, parents of friends, anyone I tried to talk to about what was going on at home told me I didn’t understand, that my mother couldn’t possibly be the violent party. When the police came to our home, they would always be ready to arrest my father, sometimes putting handcuffs on him. It was up to me to scream as loud as possible that it was my mom and not my dad, so they wouldn’t take him away and leave me alone with her.”

That was all just an example. The article goes on to explain the real domestic violence statistics and laws. In this country we have a massive budget to pay for a collection of social programs just for protecting women from violence committed by men. There is nothing remotely comparable for male victims of female violence.

All of these discriminatory programs are authorized by bills like the “Violence Against Women Act”. There is no “Violence Against Men Act”, and virtually no social programs for violence against men.

The take-home lesson for men is this: women have been trained by feminists for decades to view themselves as the victims of male discrimination. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-male behavior up to and including domestic violence. Every woman is a potential batterer.

Additionally, women have been trained to view unborn babies and their own children as parasites who restrict their careers. This state-sponsored resentment makes every woman prone to rationalize anti-child behavior up to and including abortion and child abuse. Every woman is a potential murderer and child abuser.

Men: stay away from women until these anti-male laws and social programs are repealed. They have to learn somehow that hating men is not OK. Vote with your feet.

My previous posts on domestic violence are here.

15 thoughts on “How domestic violence against men is ignored by the feminist state”

  1. Exhibit A in way it’s foolhardy for men to get married. (As if there weren’t already myriad other reasons.)


    1. I have women in my office who try to convince me to get married. And I ask them what is in it for me. And they list a bunch of reasons for why it would be good for whoever I married. I just do not see much evidence that unmarried women know or care much about what men want.

      That whole post I wrote about women and sex as well as the post I wrote about the feminized church really brought that to light. (Married women are of course better) I just don’t believe that Western women know or care anything about men. If they commit to a man, they do not understand that their autonomy will have to be curbed at all to take the man’s needs or even the needs of children into account.

      I would like to see a prospective mate write to me about what men need from women, and also describe me accurately and then make the case as to how she can help me to do the things I want to do.

      I have yet to sit down with an unmarried woman and explain to them what I am trying to accomplish, in detail. They just don’t care. I am treated as an accessory – no talking is needed. Apparently, women can tell everything they need to know about me by looking at me. No questions are ever asked of me. There is no discussion of our future life together. What we will do as a couple is already known by her apparently, and I don’t need to be consulted at all.

      Is it such a stretch to see why men are being reduced to ATM/sperm-donor status by the feminist state?


      1. The needs of men are easily dismissed by unmarried women, in my opinion. When they commit to a man, they do not understand that their autonomy will have to be curbed at all to take the man’s needs or even the needs of children into account.

        I think this is a disease mainly afflicting Western women (which is really unfortunate as I live in the West!) that does not, in my experience, apply to *all* women the world over. (The problem, of course, is meeting these non-feminized (for lack of a better word) women when you don’t live in a major metro area–maybe moving out of the big city wasn’t a great idea across the board, sigh!)


        1. Yes, Shalini will tear me to pieces for saying that. This is strictly Western women I am talking about. I think women in the country will be more suitable for marriage than city women, but even they cannot re-make the whole world to get rid of things like no-fault divorce, compulsory funding of government-run day care, single-payer health care, gun control, compulsory funding of government-run schools, etc.


          1. You would really like two books by John Senior: “The Death of Christian Culture” and “The Restoration of Christian Culture”

            He has 1 or 2 unfortunate lines about women, and the book leans very Catholic, but his analysis of EXACTLY how our culture got to where it is, how and why those things are destroying Christian culture, and precisely how to start restoring it, are just spot spot spot on.

            It’s one of those books that I read and said “This is what I’ve been trying to say for years but haven’t known how.”

            The man also had a true gift for winning souls, literally leaving thousands of conversions in his wake– so much so that the University where he taught canceled the program he ran because so many youth found Christ because of him.


          2. It’s a dream come true for a Christian who loves the limitless intellectual depth of the faith. As someone who had been forced to learn the classics on my own (since they were no longer ‘in style’ in universities) it was like sitting at the feet of the master.

            John Senior and Mortimer Adler were friends, with each have a significant impact on the other’s views on education. Seeing the unbridled success of Senior’s Integrated Humanistic Studies program at Kansas really influenced Adler’s decision to come up with a philosophical framework for modern education, resulting in the famous “Paideia Proposal” which advocated a massive return to the liberal arts in American schools if democracy was to survive here.

            The IHS program at Kansas, though eventually killed off by the administration, died a martyr’s death. And, in true fashion, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

            Since then many graduates of that program have worked to build new liberal education programs at various places, both Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical. Almost every single one of the awesome amazing new liberal education colleges that have arisen in the last 15-20 years can trace its pedigree back to John Senior and the IHS program in some fashion, usually with the founders having sat previously at the feet of ‘the master’ John Senior.

            I’m a real bookworm, and I’m not exagerating when I say that these 2 short books (I view them as one book) are in the top 3 of books that have changed my life.

            #1 is the Gospel of Matthew
            #2 is Augustine’s Confession
            #3 is the Death/Restoration of Christian Culture

            A book (Truth on Trial: Liberal Education Be Hanged) tells the story of the program at Kansas, how it functioned, and how it, like Socrates, had to die for corrupting the youth


            Seriously though, read those books, and you will never be the same again. They are both heavily Catholic, but what it says about Catholicism applies exactly to a lot of the problems Protestantism and Evangelicalism have faced in America too (feminization of things, etc)


          3. You’re probably correct that the odds of getting a better one improve in the ‘country’ but I’d still sooner take my chances with someone that hasn’t been marinated in a the feminihilist cult since birth.


  2. Wow.

    I never realized men were so victimized.

    It’s really sad that nobody looks out for what men want. Maybe some day we can live in a place of equality in which men make as much money as women for the same job, or men won’t be forced to carry the progeny of women who forced them to have sex, or men can grow up to be doctors or lawyers or anything they want to be. Maybe some day, there will even be a male President.

    Maybe you’re right, Wintery. Maybe you should “stay away from women until these anti-male laws and social programs are repealed.”


    1. Hey! Only I may snark on my blog! I forbid you to snark any more! Forbid!

      Oh, you can read about pay-equity in Thomas Sowell’s book “Economic Facts and Fallacies”. It has to do with women’s natural desire to have children and raise them.

      More women are enrolled in universities today than men, it’s about 55-45. Men are underperforming in schools at all levels due to various forms of discrimination. I’ve posted on this before, but it’s not hard to find.

      I want Michele Bachmann to be President.


      1. Good. I see you’ve taken that with good humor.

        In regards to the content to which I was dismisively snarky, yes, I think women can commit crimes, even violence, against men; and I think they should be held accountable by law (and I think they generally are). I think the feminist movement (and the civil rights movement, and the labor movement) began as a response to transgressions which were not addressed by the legal system (e.g. sexual violence, sexual harassment, the glass ceiling, etc.) Occasionally there are women attacked by men, or white people attacked by blacks – I suppose there might even be straight people attacked by homosexuals – but in the context of our society in which thousands of women are raped every day, I don’t think one account of a man allegedly not being taken seriously when he complained about a woman attacking him is even a blip on the radar.

        Please, don’t misunderstand me, I think everyone should have his or her rights respected – and this guy certainly deserves justice. I just don’t think a movement is warranted. I don’t think the feminist movement has finished its work yet either.


          1. Re: Deadbeat dads. I think that as usual, politicians seized on something that was easily compressed into a soundbite and tried to make hay on a popular issue (who could be against supporting children?) And, as usual, they villified a charicature and wrote draconian policy in an attempt to out-outrage each other.

            I have seen articles about how male children are not performing as well in schools as girls, but I’m not sure of the exact roots of that problem. It’s definitely worth more attention.

            Hmmmm… Michelle Bachman… I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Did she reintroduce her Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act in this Congress?


  3. Maybe men are getting a taste of their own bitter pill now!!:)

    On a serious note, that is really disgusting! Violence is loathsome no matter who the victim is. In fact, I think the statement I made above would be branded sexist, if it were directed against a woman. But seriously, as sorry as I am for men who are being traumatized by feminists, I still don’t think all western women are potential murderers, batterers or child molesters. C’mon, haven’t you got a single female friend who appreciates the rights of men? Haven’t you got a single female friend who would prefer listening to you rather than stressing their views on you? You can’t be serious!! If you are, keep looking, you’ll find at least one. And for the current surge of feminists, blame yourselves. Appreciate peoples’ rights to live as fellow humans but never molly coddle them!!! You guys did just that!! Unfortunately, the women who really suffer, keep suffering! And now men have started joining them.


  4. I was SO excited about Samantha Who after the pilot (tv series with Christina Applegate, amnesiac struggles to overcome her mean past..).

    At the end of the episode, Samantha feels burdened by the difficulty of trying to put together a life from scratch on top of people holding her accountable for nasty things she did but can’t even remember. Her dad comes along side her, listens attentively, offers practical and loving advice, and draws her close in silent loving kindness.

    Not since Bill Cosby had there been such a beautiful moment showing a good and true father on a sitcom.

    …when the first “real” episode aired, that character had been replaced by the stumbling bumbling ineffective loser husband and father that is present on every other show on tv.

    What a miss.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s