695,976 posts

The Unintended Consequences Of Domestic Violence Laws

Reddit View
September 11, 2013
27 upvotes
http://www.rooshv.com/the-unintended-consequences-of-domestic-violence-laws


Post Information
Title The Unintended Consequences Of Domestic Violence Laws
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 27
Comments 16
Date 11 September 2013 02:23 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/174973
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1m6di0/the_unintended_consequences_of_domestic_violence/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy

Roosh, as always, very apt in his analysis.

Obviously, red pill bloggers are forward thinking. Is marriage completely dead? No. But there's a reason people like us are avoiding marriage. And he's very close to hitting the nail on the head here.

I don't think the domestic violence laws in themselves are the sole cause of our problem. But if you read into what he's saying, he's really suggesting a category of laws and public opinions that have morphed to empower the weaker gender, which causes problems like the ones he described.

Something I have noticed- why is it that when we empower the weaker gender, we find ourselves losing equilibrium? Or more important, why did we ever have any sort of equilibrium to begin with?

I think this is an important question that really helps suggest why men and women love differently.

Are/were men perfect? Hardly. But men evolved as the stronger gender. Yes the power was abused in some places, but for the most part, men evolved to love and sacrifice.

We died for our women and cultures. We suffered for them. We put others' needs in front of ours, as a gender.

We reached a natural equilibrium where men realized their disposability and need for sacrifice. And we evolved the desire to do so. The DESIRE! Men naturally want to help women in distress. It's built into us. That's why we have a proclivity to being beta... we're programmed for it. We want to provide. It makes us feel good to do these things.

But you change the balance of power, and you put the guns in the hands of those who did not evolve the same selflessness, what do you get?

Women, as a survival and sexual strategy, were more selfish and self-oriented. And as the weaker gender, it not only makes sense, but is clearly the cause of this behavior.

Give them power, and their psychology doesn't exactly change over night.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

Something I have noticed- why is it that when we empower the weaker gender, we find ourselves losing equilibrium? Or more important, why did we ever have any sort of equilibrium to begin with?

The only valid justification for any social system is: it works.

The primitive version of balance between men and women worked for millennia. Modern social engineers fuck with a working system and then are surprised when their fuckery leads to misery and instability.

The same people are proud to espouse the Precautionary Principle when decrying any technological advancement. Never once would it occur to them to practice what they preach when it comes to social change.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Fuck I wish I could put that in less convoluted terms.

Boiling a Frog. You throw a frog into boiling water and it will jump out. You put a frog in warm water and raise the temperature slowly and it'll stay there and die/cook.

[–]TheBrownChrisBrown2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I like your conclusion, was never able to put it into words until I read this

[–]JohnPeel9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've also read cases of household robbery using these laws.

Basically, a woman turns up at your door, starts a confrontation and rings the police. Due to the Duluth model of domestic violence that is used to inform police training, police must respond to these calls and must arrest the man. The police will then let the woman into "her" house and then she and her buddies rob the place.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ingenious. Hopefully that happens more often so people realize how fucked up the Duluth model of domestic violence is.

Also, keep an inventory of all of your expensive stuff.

[–]orographic3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

  1. A few men do something bad to a few girls
  2. Law comes out to protect those girls
  3. Law is flawed because it gives every girl the ability to ruin any man
  4. Women being inherently more self serving abuse the hell out of the new law

Examples include sexual harassment, alimony, child support, and college rape rules.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Women being inherently more self serving abuse the hell out of the new law

Isn't exploitation an inherently human trait?

[–]t21spectre1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yes, virtually every person throughout history who has achieved great wealth and great power did so through exploitation.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, that's certainly something, but a small portion of humanity.

I'd say playing with little children and seeing their predisposition to cheat would be a better reflection of that.

[–]orographic0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yes but men are less so since they want to provide and protect.

[–]Insanitarium3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Just for the record, domestic violence is a huge fucking problem in the Ukraine, and this isn't just a feminist issue: while women are victimized at a much higher rate in adulthood, men are routinely abused as children. And it is in no way a functional ecosystem, unless you're actually just okay with routine, grievous abuse. There aren't a look of good statistics available, as is common in places where domestic violence is normalized, but about a fifth of all Ukrainians are victims of physical domestic violence, and only a tenth of those have ever reported it to the police. Between a third and half of emergency room visits by women are the result of beatings by their husbands (Section E).

Roosh's claim that "men show surprising restraint when it comes to violence against their women" is just factually wrong, and the idea that he feels qualified to make it on the basis of having only seen one incident of public violence during his stay is childish. The fact that he seems to use this argument to promote the Ukraine's inadequate laws and enforcement (most domestic violence is only punished with a fine, and that's in the rare cases where it's reported and the even rarer cases where reports are taken seriously), and to claim that it leads to a better outcome than the US's policies is either profoundly idiotic or kinda evil.

There are lots of problems with US law surrounding domestic violence. It's inconsistently applied, easily gamed, and definitely leads to some pretty bad outcomes in a significant number of cases. But to say that the Ukrainian system is better, and to think that that parable about disrupted ecosystems applies (with its suggestion that overreacting policies will lead to the complete destruction of the species), and that trusting "nature" instead of punishing abusers is the right track to take... Jesus fuck.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

his point is that beating your wife is already illegal and by making special laws you create a problem where women can abuse men and they cant defend themselves.

physical abuse is already illegal, no need for special anti women violence laws.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It sounds like the Ukraine basically sets men up to become abusers by abusing boys as children. I'm willing to bet a large amount of this abuse is by mothers on their sons as well. Effectively they reinforce the idea that violence is the best or only solution to problems. Effectively creating men with a predisposition to violence, taught that violence is acceptable and appropriate by their mothers.

You stop the abuse of those young boys and I would be willing to guarantee you that the domestic violence problem in the Ukraine resolves itself in a generation or two.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

i was only 19 when i went through the state's domestic violence meat grinder after an ex stole from me, assaulted me when i confronted her about it, called the cops and lied that i had hit her. that's how i took the red pill long before it had a name, and i hope you guys don't have to.

depending where you live, the local domestic violence policies may be outrageously anti-male. lots of police departments have a standing rule that the man will be arrested in all domestic violence calls. i know because i've been through it before, and i found that it was common across the state. my lawyer told me at the beginning that i was screwed because the state was hungry to prop up crime statistics any way they could in order to justify increasing budgets, and convicting men of domestic violence was extremely easy way to accomplish violent crime rate inflation. state prosecutors see domestic violence cases as a means to further their careers, because the more extreme punishments they give to men accused of domestic violence, the more respect they get in the justice system and the more likely they are to be elected DA or judge. when it comes to domestic violence, it's not about truth and justice; it's about how the justice system can use presumed aggressors (men) to justify its own growth.

in many states, a woman can have a warrant for your arrest made with one phone call without any evidence, and once that call is made, you aren't getting out of the system until your pockets are empty and your reputation tarnished.

BE CAREFUL, guys. in the eyes of the law, men are responsible for their violent or abusive behavior, but women are not because society at large has been duped into thinking that women are the minority perpetrators of spousal abuse. this is demonstrably not true, but it's easy to sell to the public. this is another great reason why you should never cohabitate with an intimate partner. when someone is indoctrinated to believe that they are destined to be a victim, they will find ways to make that a reality, or find ways to abuse privileges afforded to victims.

EDIT: a voice for men has a man's story about this. his Thai wife attacked him with a knife on two occasions, and the Alberta family court still gave the kids to the her and dismissed his appeal. this is what we have to look forward to as husbands and fathers. the only rational choice is to opt out.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/tom-matty-discusses-appeal-decision/



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter