TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Females initiate 70% of domestic violence and Google has no information on how to stop it. Society really does believe its alright for females to attack men.

JOHNKELLY_

October 9, 2016
1899 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://m.imgur.com/0A8hHjn
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Females initiate 70% of domestic violence and Google has no information on how to stop it. Society really does believe its alright for females to attack men.
Author

JOHNKELLY_

Upvotes 1899
Comments 132
Date October 9, 2016 7:16 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/56nqyd/females_initiate_70_of_domestic_violence_and/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/females-initiate-70-of-domestic-violence-and.940161
https://theredarchive.com/post/940161
Red Pill terms in post
domestic violence
Top posts by JOHNKELLY_

This is why men should always cary a video device to record evidence of crazed women and for sexual consent. If it's on film it can't be denied.

145 upvotes
October 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Who objectifies who? The man staring at the breasts or the woman at his wallet? Most men go for the best they can get (if she is nice it's a bonus). Women choose whomever gives the nicest gifts.

12 upvotes
October 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

Why should men not defend themselves from violent woman?

1 upvotes
October 10, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Dazz316 241 points242 points243 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

People shouldn't hit people. It shouldn't be about sex in the first place.

[–]FeierInMeinHose 137 points138 points139 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men already know this, for the most part, though. They learn this from a very early age, women don't. Women are actually conditioned to think, subconsciously, that they can hit men without repercussions because "real men never hit women".

[–]ThirdTurnip 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Whoopie wisdom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCZ3xfS9Qw

[–]Makonar 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Chris Rock wisdom also!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVb6VHvCupw

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We already know that. Though society prefers never teaching girls that for some reason.

[–]RealRickSanchez 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

But with women it is about the game.

People forget that women's game is life. They are constantly fucking with life. People's lives, their lives. Lives in general.

Whenever they get something done their happy.

Making men fight is in the top three.

I know all women aren't like this. But it's my generalization. They don't play games because lives are their games. Fucking with people is their game. The sooner you understand that aspect of women, the sooner you can understand alot.

[–]Dazz316 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're around the wrong type of woman.

[–]Cgn38 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bullshit. You are just under the spell or casting it.

[–]Dazz316 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No there are some shitty woman and some great woman. If I find woman like this I don't give them my time.

Probably the circles I'm around but most woman I know would tell me not to get in a fight. Especially my wife, she'd think less of me for fighting.

[–]Byroms 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

As a woman, I have often seen this in my school friends. They made it a game who can ruin the others more without getting caught.

[–]3893liebt3512 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you just need better friends.

[–]Byroms 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have those now, but having been stuck in a town with an average demographic of 35+ and only around 10k people living there, back then I did not find them. Not in women at least.

[–]guy_guyerson -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Then you still have your coworkers... or your relatives... or your neighbors... of the other PTA moms... these kind of people aren't rare.

[–]Cgn38 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The very fact that you mention PTA moms as companionship.

They are the very definition of horrid people. Seriously the damn PTA?

Belong at any cost right? Just no.

[–]guy_guyerson -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

as companionship

I'm not sure what this means, but I certainly wasn't suggesting you hang out with these people any more than you have to. But you probably have to interact with people to some extent and many of them are going to be petty, competitive, insecure and generally horrible.

I was going to say 'people in your HOA', but went with PTA instead.

[–]RealRickSanchez 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And the white Knights on reddit downvote me.

[–]Orbiter42 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you know, i can follow "don't hit women," all good for that. the problem is that any counter expectation, is considered sexist.

in general, females have better verbal skills, stronger social sense, and large safety nets that men don't have. and these females will use these things to safely provoke a man, while any thought that she shouldn't, is patriarchal oppression.

i'm happy being physically restrained through social morality, and i will maintain my frame as a man, no matter what. i just wish that females would respect that, and not entice, or antagonize, just for their own fun.

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sadly, its about social status in the primitive sense. The woman who can manipulate men most effectively is most valuable. But of course, not all women act that way, like all men don't chase status.

[–]Byroms 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Of course they do. They think women will sort it out and maybe throw them a treat.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Byroms 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bit of an overreaction. I can only speak for what I myself have experienced and what I perceive. Are there good women? Absolutely. Are the "White Knights" well intentioned? Yes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Maybe I just had bad luck with meeting women in my country, I get along fine with women from other countries.

[–]Cgn38 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sadly you are the standard.

[–]guy_guyerson -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was a little incoherent and started with a pretty broad generalizations. I upvoted you, but your point is better than you post.

[–]AcuteRain -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Their happy what?

[–]AnotherPhilosopher 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're*

Chilllll bruh

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dazz316 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Woman, men, didn't matter. Just stop hitting anyone. Drop the gender and just don't fucking hit people.

[–]alaysian 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...........

Females....men

For starters, you dehumanize women. Then you go on to say they should be "afraid"; as if they are a child/animal who can't learn right from wrong and has to be taught through fear.

How the fuck did you get any upvotes?

[–]civilsaint 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Can you link to the 70% stat?

[–]SportsDroppings 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

Here ya' go. . .http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm

[–]ThirdTurnip 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I found the full article. It's interesting, short and relatively straightforward.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

In fact, men in relationships with reciprocal violence were reportedly injured more often (25.2%) than were women in relationships with nonreciprocal violence (20.0%); this is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious. An important caveat to these findings is that we do not know the extent or severity of the injuries reported, only that they were reported to have occurred.

...

Many authors have noted that research and prevention should begin to shift away from the sole focus on violence by men against women given the accumulation of data indicating that partner violence is perpetrated by both men and women.

[–]civilsaint 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

[+][deleted] -27 points-26 points-25 points 9 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

Jesus christ that 70% stat that you guys like to cite is flawed and misinterpreted in many ways. That study was just flawed methodologically. It contained an extremely small sample size, less than 20,000 couples, of only one age group 18-28 who also happen to be the age group that has the lowest marriage/relationship rates in America. Also, it failed to make a clear definition of what "violence" means, i.e. delineating between physical, emotional, mental violence. Pleases top citing something that is at best very flawed and at worst just bad science.

Also, that number referred to the percentage of non-reciprocal rates of violence, meaning relationships where the partner being abused didn't reciprocate the violent act. But before you think that affirms your view in some way, non-reciprocal abuse was reported to be less violent, i.e. inflicting less injury than reciprocal violence, and it found that the more severe injures were perpetrated more so by men than by women

Edit: the only thing that I seem to have miscalculated was that 20,000 is an sample size for a study like this (which I don't agree, I think the threshold should be higher, but nonetheless, fair enough). But the rest of my points still stand. And for god's sake please stop saying that what grants this study legitimacy is that it as published by a Harvard journal. Thats a fallacy called appealing to authority and its incredibly weak.

[–]gate_gate 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It contained an extremely small sample size

No

of only one age group 18-28 who also happen to be the age group that has the lowest marriage/relationship rates in America

So you just shit on your own objection by suggesting that a rising trend among the youngest is going to get WORSE as they age up.

it failed to make a clear definition of what "violence" means, i.e. delineating between physical, emotional, mental violence

Right back at you with the mountains of bullshit violence against women stats that lump in things like criticism, or asking women to stop misspending "family" earnings (derived from male breadwinners) as "economic" abuse. Perhaps if there weren't so many vested interests doing this game, there would be a clearer scope that doesn't include things that you seem to not like hearing about... only if they happen to men.

Pleases top citing something that is at best very flawed and at worst just bad science

Right back at you with the mountains of bullshit rape stats that conflate bad touches or bad words with "rape" despite the definition being objected by the subjects of the study, yet somehow only get cited more, the more people ask for grounded evidence.

[–]ThirdTurnip 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Dreadful critique. You don't even get the most basic details right.

It contained an extremely small sample size, less than 20,000 couples...

20,000 couples would be an enormous sample size. Though actually they didn't survey couples. They surveyed individuals. 11,000 of them. That's still enormous.

This was a Harvard produced peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Public Health, a credible source. Better yet, they didn't collect the data themselves so there can be no question of bias in the data collection. They utilised data from a broader national study.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Yes the 70% figure isn't female initiated domestic violence. It's that in more than 70% of cases where only one partner in a heterosexual relationship is violent, that partner is the woman.

EDIT: In response to notthatcreativearewe's edit.

Edit: the only thing that I seem to have miscalculated was that 20,000 is an sample size for a study like this (which I don't agree, I think the threshold should be higher, but nonetheless, fair enough).

Still incorrect.

As I pointed out you don't even get the number of participants right. It was 11000 INDIVIDUALS, not 20000 COUPLES. And both the real number and your larger number are both very large in this context and statistically sound. Your feeling that it should be higher is irrelevant.

But the rest of my points still stand.

Oh hell no they don't.

I've read the full paper now and all of your criticisms are complete bullshit. Utter rubbish.

It contained an extremely small sample size, less than 20,000 couples, of only one age group 18-28 who also happen to be the age group that has the lowest marriage/relationship rates in America.

a) That was the age group of interest for the survey.

b) Domestic violence only occurs in relationships and the researchers obviously (duh) excluded those not in them. So your criticism is bizarre. Also untrue. Only 18% of those surveyed reported having never been in a relationship.

Among the 14 322 participants, 2952 were excluded either because they reported no relationships (n = 2584) or only same-sex relationships (n = 368), which left a subset of 11 370 participants.

Your next silly critique:

Also, it failed to make a clear definition of what "violence" means, i.e. delineating between physical, emotional, mental violence.

Total bullshit. Their definition of violence was crystal clear.

To assess perpetration of physical violence within intimate relationships, respondents answered 2 questions (“How often in the past year have you threatened your partner with violence, pushed or shoved him/her, or thrown something at him/her that could hurt,” and “How often in the past year have you slapped, hit, or kicked your partner”) on the following scale: 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = 3–5 times, 4 = 6–10 times, 5 = 11–20 times, 6= more than 20 times, 7 = did not happen in the past year, but happened prior to that. Two parallel questions assessed the partner’s perpetration of violence toward the respondent.

Next....

And for god's sake please stop saying that what grants this study legitimacy is that it as published by a Harvard journal.

No one has claimed that. According to one site linked to above the study was conducted by Harvard researchers and published in an entirely credible scientific peer reviewed journal - the American Journal of Public Health.

As far as I can tell the researchers don't presently work at Harvard. They're at other credible but less prestigious universities and / or work in government health, eg. the CDC. Their credentials are good. So is the journal's.

Thats a fallacy called appealing to authority and its incredibly weak.

Oh my.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

The research was conducted by legit researchers and published in a legit peer reviewed journal. Totally not a fallacious appeal to authority.

[+]GeodeMonkey -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So it says men are less likely to fight back than women. That's it -- nothing about who initiated more violence.

[–]ThirdTurnip 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, that's not it at all.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

With half of DV cases being reciprocally violent and 70% of those with female perpetrators, that means 35% of DV (in that age group) is strictly female on male violence.

This is a damning statistic to the current DV dogma where men are portrayed as terrifying perpetrators of DV and almost never the victim.

[–]pacmatt27 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ehh, no... It's also suggesting women may be more likely to resort to violence than men. Otherwise the figure would be more equal. It'd be more clear if there were figures on who initiated physical contact in mutually violent relationships (I think I've seen some which confirms that but I forget where). Lesbian couples also have higher rates of violence than gays which supports that idea.

All that in mind it's fairly easy to make guesses as to why. Not scientific but I'm pretty sure if you test it you'll find most to be true. Eg. if I hit a man he won't retaliate, it doesn't matter if I hit him because it won't hurt... That sort of thing. Most men don't start fights with anyone because they know that 1 on 1 size doesn't always mean victory. You can be wounded or killed by someone small, especially if you don't know what they're capable of, so the only time you should hit someone is in self defence. Women aren't really taught those basic lessons... But they are taught that men shouldn't hit you.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Their interpretation:

Our findings that half of relationships with violence could be characterized as reciprocally violent are consistent with prior studies. We were surprised to find, however, that among relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were the perpetrators in a majority of cases, regardless of participant gender. One possible explanation for this, assuming that men and women are equally likely to initiate physical violence, is that men, who are typically larger and stronger, are less likely to retaliate if struck first by their partner. Thus, some men may be following the norm that “men shouldn’t hit women” when struck first by their partner. A different explanation is that men are simply less willing to report hitting their partner than are women.

This explanation cannot account for the data, however, as both men and women reported a larger proportion of nonreciprocal violence perpetrated by women than by men. One might be tempted to think that men who perpetrate violence in nonreciprocal relationships are the traditional male “batterer.” However, the data were not consistent with this representation; women who were victims of nonreciprocal violence experienced less violence and a lower likelihood of injury than did women who were victims of violence in reciprocally violent relationships. Some have suggested that survey studies, such as this one, likely exclude the more severely abused women typically studied in clinical settings. Thus, our findings may represent 1 form of partner violence—what Johnson has called common couple violence or situational violence—that is likely to be found in broader population samples rather than in clinical samples.

[–]pacmatt27 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

See I'd be hesitant to assume any of their interpretations are correct (or mine) cos none are tested. All of us would be making causal links without the data to support it.

One possible explanation for this, assuming that men and women are equally likely to initiate physical violence

Big assumption with no data to suggest that and is a massive oversight in my opinion.

As I say, though, my opinion is also of very little weight here so... It was just thoughts about their findings.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to confess to having once been a research psychologist. Would be now if I hadn't refused to date a woman who refused to take no for an answer.

You sound like you have a basic idea of research but not a full grasp. I read the paper and their interpretations are reasonable. They're not reaching beyond the data.

Big assumption with no data to suggest that and is a massive oversight in my opinion.

In the absence of data the most reasonable assumption would be the one they explicitly made - that there is no difference by gender. And they only make that assumption for the purpose of one possible interpretation of one result. That assumption doesn't underlie or undermine anything else.

Not really an oversight either. Research is an incremental process. You're absolutely right that asking who initiated violence would paint a more accurate picture. But this paper only examined 4 questions from a much larger and broader survey on youth health which wasn't conducted by these researchers.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It says that women are more likely to be violent than men are, in heterosexual relationships between young adults.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Fuck mate, you got owned. Now have a big tall glass of shut the fuck up.

Harvard peer reviewed independent data collection.....you really tucked up questioning this study

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Thats because something has an ivy league tag does not make it scientific dogma. There's a term for that in academic circles, its called appeal to authority and its a fallacy of argumentation. The problems with this study still stand, there's a reason why its only been cited five times in the nine years since it was published. Which such a monumental conclusion about domestic violence you would expect it to be cited a lot more than it is.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there's a reason why its only been cited five times in the nine years since it was published

That's also an appeal to authority.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok so now its not because of how the study was compiled, its because it came from an Ivy league college. Gotcha ;). Here is a question for you; if presented with a fact that is contrary to your world view, would you change your view or would you call it a lie. 70% of violent hectrosexual relationships where one partner is violent its the woman. Deal with it. It's a fact.

[–]th3davinci 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He didn't change his point, he reacted on everyone saying that because it's a Harvard study, it's legitimate.

[–]splodgenessabounds 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problems with this study still stand, there's a reason why its only been cited five times in the nine years since it was published. Which such a monumental conclusion about domestic violence you would expect it to be cited a lot more than it is.

Numbers of citations are not necessarily a guide to anything - this "low" number could simply be a direct reflection of how little research is being done on male victims of DV. It could also indicate slovenly research (in gender studies?! Good grief, how dare anyone suggest etc...), the reluctance of some researchers to front up with the dosh to get past a paywall and so on.

So, yes, appeal to authority, but that does not automatically mean that the paper is flawed (unless you're sold on the notion that prestigious publishing houses are full of sh1t).

[–]robsquad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Citations are a big deal and i think a lot of people miss that. Not all academic work is created equal, and something with a monumental conclusion but little citation might mean that other professionals in the field are skeptical of it.

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not in this case.

These people didn't collect the data themselves. They used data from a large and totally credible national survey. So there can be no question of bias in the method of data collection. The statistics they use are very simple and straightforward.

Their conclusions are perfectly sensible interpretations of the data.

If there was any skepticism about the paper, someone else would have come along and published another one blasting them out of the water. That's how science works. But that hasn't happened, has it?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]pacmatt27 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is it? Like... Off the top of my head the age thing is relevant because if you're interested in cultural shifts it's better to focus on new data. For example if you look at gendered hiring policies you want to look at new hires not raw ratios because the older staff will be from before your policy was introduced. If you've got an even split now then your hiring policy is biased the other way. Say you're interested in senior academics. 70% men and 30% women (as an example, not real figures). If you get to the point where you've got 50/50 then you're hiring loads of women at the expense of equally qualified men which is institutional sexism.

In this case if you want to see how culture and education or whatever is affecting violence in relationships and attitudes towards it you want new couples. Anyone over 30 was raised over 30 years ago and the culture has changed. If they're beating their wife because she didn't cook dinner right then maybe that problem has already been corrected (you have no idea from the data so it's useless). If the 18 year old is smacking his girlfriend cos she didn't cook his dinner right then it hasn't been corrected so you know you need to do something. Even then it's tentative cos his education started 18 years ago. Better than nothing though. So... Yeah you've gotta think about those sorts of things too.

Without wanting to sound like an appeal to authority as someone else mentioned as well... This isn't your field... These are Harvard educated academics who've spent a lot more time thinking about it than you have. They've likely addressed any issues you might come up with and if you don't think they have them prove them wrong. You'll earn lots of renown and mebbeh a book deal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The study in no way supports the claim being made in the title. It also doesn't claim to support it though. What it does claim is the 70% of non-reciprocated heterosexual intimate-partner violence violence is committed by women.

It contained an extremely small sample size, less than 20,000 couples

Nope, it was an extremely enormous sample size, and you clearly know nothing about sampling.

of only one age group 18-28 who also happen to be the age group that has the lowest marriage/relationship rates in America

I'm not sure what low rates of marriage have to do with it, but it is certainly a fair criticism that what holds for 18-28 year olds may not hold for other age groups. More research is needed.

Also, it failed to make a clear definition of what "violence" means, i.e. delineating between physical, emotional, mental violence

It is abundantly clear that when it says 'violence', it doesn't mean 'abuse'. Abuse may be physical, emotional, or mental, but violence is a well understood term meaning physical harm. It would behove you to learn the meaning of words like violence before making smart-arse criticisms of their use by others.

Pleases top citing something that is at best very flawed and at worst just bad science

It's bad science on what basis, that it makes a narrow conclusion about one group of people based on an enormous sample size? That you don't have the first clue about sampling?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Replace "domestic violence against men" with "campus sexual assault" and maybe you'll understand how men feel.

Pseudoscientific studies. Broad, unclear definitions. That type of Buzzfeed level reporting gains traction among various subreddits and social groups and all of a sudden we have a rape culture. Phrases like "TOXIC MASCULINITY" and "TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE" while 90% of us are throwing our hands up asking, "What the fuck did I ever do?!?"

The only difference is no one gives a shit about protecting men.

[–]garglemesh42 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bro, he/she isn't going to sleep with you...

Lol j/k couldn't help myself :)

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]bond___vagabond 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Growing up as the son of a violently abusive self styled "feminist" mom, I hope this situation is one of those things we look back in shame on in 50 years. I'd say she gave me nothing, but I do have a high pain tolerance.

[–]scanspeak 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a fundamental human right to be allowed to defend yourself with appropriate force. If a woman is hitting you, you have every right to hit her back.

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes I believe everyone has the right to use violence in defense of themself or someone else.

But violence should always be the very last resort. Better to walk away.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The best course of self-defense is seldom hitting back. Otherwise, yeah.

[–]Orbiter42 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yea, the best defense is avoidance. men should start vetting females, before any kind of intimacy.

think about it, if men started researching, and making character judgements of women's behavior, before any intimacy, females would settle down pretty fast.

drama queen? out

party girl? out

bossy? out

if they realized they couldn't get a good man, with out behaving, i'd bet things would change. ironically, the power has always been in our hands. we just have to collectively suck it up, and be men.

[–]Neijo 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I gotta put it out here, with all the words they use.

They say stuff like "boys shouldn't hit girls", but that is rarely the case, I cant ever remember anyone from middleschool hitting a girl, that was something you got bullied over "omg you cant fight boys haha u fight girls"

I fucking hate the oversimplifying of it all. There is something that triggers a man to hit a woman in later years, that is something to spread, some investigation of it all, and it goes both ways, whats the root of domestic violence and how do we minimize it?

There probably already is a bunch of research of it, but it surely hasn't hit the mainstream, instead we get thousands of these fucking shitty journalistics that dont even try to uncover the truth.

[–]Nulono 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Google doesn't respect word order unless you use quotation marks, buddy.

[–]JOHNKELLY_[S] 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

https://m.imgur.com/Kpi2lVv

https://m.imgur.com/4wqhahj

Like I sad buddy, no matter how you ask it, nobody really cares of girls hit boys, this needs to change.

[–]Fatpandasneezes 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

All of the links in your first image with quotation marks gives you sites that talk about how girls need to be taught not to hit boys

[–]kushxmaster 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

While they are, none of them are major sites. One is this sub, another is tumbler and another is a blog which all have no credibility.

[–]PanGalacGargleBlastr 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

major sights

major sites.

web site

You're probably on mobile, and autocorrected, but it makes me twitch. Thanks for tolerating my spelling nazi'ism.

[–]kushxmaster 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nah I'm probably just retarded.

[–]tak-in-the-box 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're all a little retarded

[–]dresdonbogart 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least someone here has an attention-span longer than 5 seconds. This sub has gone to shit. People will upvote anything. Props to you u/fatpandasneezes

[–]meh613 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First hit -- reddit's mensrights, we've arrived, gentlemen! Congrats!

[–]littletoyboat 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This, honestly, bugs me generally.

[–]Nulono 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you mean?

[–]dalore 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not so true anymore. Without quotes it still tries to find word order but doesn't always have to. With quotes it must.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tmomp 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With the quotes, I got five links to the same site about stopping domestic violence against men. The sixth was about domestic violence against women.

Without the quotes, the first link was about men being violent.

[–]splodgenessabounds 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

For those not convinced that the majority of IPV (inter-personal violence) is initiated by women, see also the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project. If that's too much bother, I dun a rough-and-ready summary a little while ago.

To the naysayers here, it's perfectly acceptable to question the premise of this thread providing you've read up on the subject. If you haven't, your argumentering and filibustering helps no-one.

[–]DoItLive247 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ABC News did an experiment years ago on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc

[–]rougecrayon 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Want to do something?http://equalitycanada.com/cause/violenceagainstmen/

All of the programs seem to be in the UK or Canada, US you need to step up and prtect your men!

[–]_bluebayou_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This survey draws a strong line between "domestic violence" and "male battering" so the title is misleading.

"The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence - the classic male batterer. The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering.

Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering. Couples counseling is generally regarded as ineffective for batterers, but if the violence is moderate and the injuries are minor, both partners involved, and they want to stay together, it makes sense for a therapist to work with both of them."

[–]Lumberingfeather 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm seriously staring to think MGTOW is the only sensible way for men.

Just avoid these entitled, privileged, man-hating *****es as much as possible.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's plenty of women out there who don't hate or abuse men. I still enjoy dating, but it's probably because I know how to spot a red flag from a mile away.

[–]adelie42 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is evidence of a belief in inferiority. Some people think men are responsible for the actions of women they date in the same way they feel responsible for the actions of a dog they adopt.

You tell people not to abuse their dogs; nobody would say we need to explain to dogs not to bite. It is the owners responsibility to handle the situation or get out of it.

Some people want equality, some people prefer women were treated like bitches. Feminism has changed the culture of a lot of men away from desiring bitches, next is convincing more women.

[–]FissureKing 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not quite right. Women are the abusers in 70% of relationships with only one abuser, non-reciprocal violence..The relationships where the other party retaliates are reciprocal violence where both parties are abusers.

[–]I_am_the_night 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As /u/Dazz316 says, it's not really about sex, nobody should hit anybody else.

But even if you want to make it about gender, you're using the wrong search terms. This is seriously disingenuous. Here are several searches that provide better results.

[–]scanspeak 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wrong. You have the right to self defense.

[–]I_am_the_night 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, you do. But that only has to happen if somebody hits you first (or threatens to, etc.) so my original point still stands

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

ITT: Feminists from /r/all going 'nuh-uh!', or otherwise equivocating.

If it should be about gender, why the fuck is it about gender in the first place, and why didn't you ever say that when the feminists first made this all gendered? 20k is an unbelievably large sample size. And unless you can prove that things have changed, you don't get to just assume that things have changed.

Chances are, no one here on reddit is actually smart enough or has enough access to the information to 'debunk' a study. Most of you aren't even 20 yet, FFS.

[–]andybev01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"So far it hasn't surfaced, But I'm sure it exists..."

[–]McGauth925 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. That's essentially correct. Society really does believe it's alright for females to attack men. That means feminists, and women in general, feel very little conflict about holding different standards for men and women. And, they really don't much talk about the sexism of women anyway. Only the sexism of males is considered worthy of attention. It's very good to have so much dominance in the arena of gender discussions.

[–]kr4psnus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I googled "Teach women not to hit men" and got this - http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/teach-women-not-to-hit-men-yesallwomen-stephenasmith-stephenasmith/

[–]Mentioned_Videos 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Videos in this thread:

Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO COMMENT
Whoopi Goldberg Talks about Women Hitting Men 19 - Whoopie wisdom!
Reaction To Women Abusing Men In Public 2 - ABC News did an experiment years ago on this:
Chris Rock - Don't hit women 1 - Chris Rock wisdom also!

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.


Play All | Info | Get it on Chrome / Firefox

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

70% one-way dv, most is reciprocal.

[–]naza1985 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is the source for the 70% of domestic violence getting started by women, pls?

[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The claim is misleading - the source of the 70% claim is indicated to be the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (2013) - see their Domestic Violence Facts and Statistics at-a-Glance under perpetartion which reads

  • Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV
  • Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)
  • Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women,
  • Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV

The 68.9% figure is traced to the following work:

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1103–1119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00202.x

A Full text copy is available "HERE

If you go to the ultimate page you will find :The Perpetration reports which give 68.7% Women - 56.8 Men

It is something of a "Woozle" to use the 70% figure, and would be more accurate to quote PASK's own figures which are

Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%)

Another possible source is

Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman LS. Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97(5):941-947. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020.

This publication has come under attack many times for the following:

"A recent meta-analysis found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence."

This has been taken as Victim blaming and indicating that Abused women are responsible for their own abuse. It was also objected to as it indicated that women were violent in ways that could not be excused or explained away as self defence.

However the publication does state -

"Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

as the 70% is only for "nonreciprocally violent relationships" it can't be validly applied to All relationships both reciprocally & nonreciprocally violent. The 70% also only applies to a sub group of the 24% of relationships found to be violet, making any claim that 70% of all DV is initiated by women as highly misleading.

Again PASK's actual findings are better as they show that by all analysis and all research the intuition of DV by women is higher than men across all research.

[–]ioncloud9 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First off, film it. Then try and stop it. Cops will see the video of you defending yourself and you will be most likely not in jail. Chances are she never will be in jail, but at least you won't be.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do they define initiate? Do they start arguments and the guys are just like "bitch shit up" followed by a punch or do females hit first? I have been hit twice in my life by girls, both unprovoked by me. So that's 100% likelihood for me.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The person who posted this link got it wrong. The researchers actually didn't look at who initiated violence. They looked at the incidence of violence in relationships in 18 to 28 year olds and who was perpetrating it.

[–]hehexd_reformed 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thing is, Google is probably not micromanaging this. MRA is not as popular as feminism. Google bases their articles and site selection based on that, how popular things are. They're job is not to sell MRA or convince people. That's the job of the MRA community, to create quality content and a strong community. We can blame the "lamestream media" but if you are even an men's rights activist you probably believe that this activism could harbor change thus it's rarely fruitful to blame the messenger for not spreading your unpopular opinion.

[–]ap117 -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How many men are killed or hospitalized by their spouses?

[–]xubuntu_user 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

John Wayne Bobbitt is one...

here is a list of 23

[–]ap117 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Compare that to the number of women murdered by their SOs.

[–]splodgenessabounds 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Since men are (in general):

  • more reluctant to report DV than women;
  • more reluctant to go to hospital with an injury;
  • less likely to admit that the cause of their injury was their partner

... your point is, well, neither here nor there. In addition, physical violence occasioning serious or fatal harm - while a serious matter - is only one of a wide range of behaviours that constitute DV. These other behaviours include:

  • Less brutal (but non-trivial) physical violence - slapping, pushing, obstructing;
  • Mental/ emotional/ psychological abuse.

The latter is by far the more common, and though both sexes do it, women are masters at it. Years and years of abuse, manipulation, blackmail and cold-shouldering can wear anyone down no matter how physically strong they are, to the point they see themselves off.

So, yes, when push comes to shove, a man is (generally) likely to physically overpower a woman. But that's not even half the story.

[–]ap117 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It would have to be reported if they're killed by their spouse. My question was how many are killed versus women who are killed?

As for the emotional/psychological, many men have a guilty conscience from cheating and project it onto their wife/gf accusing her of it too (I guess that eases the guilt or they want an excuse to cry 'abuse'), and they create the drama themselves.

[–]Max2000Warlord -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe don't look it up on Google, I wouldn't put it past them to censor anything like that. You're better off using bing or DuckDuckGo.

[+]dormetheus -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's about appropriate response to the level of threat. On average, women tend to be about 3-4 weight classes (50 lbs) lower than the average man. Submission tactics should be used

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're a fucking moron.

Sorry, that was probably a little much.

You're a moron.

Ever tried to dunk a cat in a bathtub? On average, cats tend to be about 10-12 weight classes (185 pounds) lower than the average man. But your arms, chest and face are going to get clawed and bitten to shit when you try to dunk that cat.

Now imagine the cat wants to hurt you, weighs 125 pounds and is going straight for your balls.

Are you really going to try and hug someone into submission? Clearly you know nothing about fighting, stay in your lane stupid.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"MRAs support drowning cats" - Future Buzzfeed article

[–]dankest_rooster 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So, if a guy three or four weight classes below you, starts punching you. Are you going to follow that logic, or kick his ass?

[–]dormetheus -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The last guy that punched me was about 5'10" 200. I just smiled at him.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is that supposed to give us some idea of how tough you are?

Or is it supposed to somehow excuse your total incompetence?

Help us out here.....

[–]dormetheus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm just giving an example where I didn't actually feel threatened, so I didn't respond with inappropriate aggression.

[+]WowzaCannedSpam -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this website. Even by your moronic standards this is pretty low.

[–]dankest_rooster 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should try to say why.

[–]noth1ngbettertodo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the way it works, is when someone stupid calls something stupid, it actually means it's actually intelligent. It's called a "double negative" - are you familiar with the concept?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Avambo 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have -100 comment karma. Don't you have anything better to do?

[–]oniongasm 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I dealt with (someone else's girlfriend) having a fight with her boyfriend, him leaving, her hitting me for 25 mins while I tried to calm her down (all narrated on 911 tape)

I got arrested because (direct quote from the officer) "on calls like these, we arrest the guy". Remember that there were eyewitnesses to everything that happened.

Despite the "victim" who shattered my glasses, tore my clothes, burst blood vessels on my eyes and left me bruised from chest to head (and who had no injuries) showing up at every single hearing and saying that she was the instigator, the (female) judge wanted to nail me to the wall. The DA wanted to drop the case, she wanted jail time.

I just know that I've never in my life heard someone speak that sort of venom toward me, not even close. And that was the judge. The person entrusted to be impartial. But I was a (beat to hell) 6'4", 250 lb man who (as was witnessed and recorded) did nothing, and she was a woman.

As soon as things revolve around provable facts and not stereotypes, then maybe we'll quit complaining.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So I always leave when people start beating on me. Why the fuck did you stay and get beat on?

[–]oniongasm -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hammered, known her for over a decade, was staying with my brother (her bf) for the night, felt emotionally obligated to fix things. Did I mention hammered?

And I just don't have a lot of "fuck this, I'm out" built in. I'm generally the calming factor for my more hot-headed friends.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That sucks.

I've had my own bad experiences but in my cases the only two reasonable judges (across several courts and cases) were the two female ones.

[–]oniongasm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I had two other judges for the other hearings, they just seemed bored more than anything

[–]ThirdTurnip 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think anyone was bored for mine..

Gay man sexually harassed by a woman. She explicitly threatened me in writing for refusing to date her, then falsely accused me of sexually harassing her.

My guilt was immediately assumed - despite my having complained repeatedly about her and her explicitly threatening me for refusing to date her. Cos I'm a man. It just kept getting weirder from there.

She tried to claim we dated. And not. Also to have to have no idea who I was when she was questioned about her repeated criminal access to my files when she was working for the government.

She wrote a suicide letter and forged my signature on it. Though bizarrely most of the letter was supposedly me expressing my unworthiness for her amazing beauty - she was not attractive though.

She fully confessed in writing to having lied about everything (except the suicide letter) when they told her I was gay. My employer refused to consider her confession because, well, it was inconvenient for them.

So she created a hotmail account using my name and sent herself a bunch of death and rape threat emails. Got an AVO out against me on the basis of those. The police eventually proved she faked them and got her to confess to that.... but she continued to profess that they were real in subsequent hearings.

At various times when she tried to claim we dated, she gave an incorrect birthday for me (which was an incorrect birthdate in the government files she'd been snooping in). Didn't know my skin colour. She described me to the police as fair skinned and I'm so not. Needless to say they were a little surprised when they turned up to take me in for questioning. She claimed I was an aboriginal on her DV application against me. Also wrong. She gave the police detailed accounts of my having driven her places in my car. I've never owned a car, had a driver's license or even a driving lesson.

Me, a quiet gay vegetarian with a history of supporting female victims of harassment at work. Her on probation for attempting to strangle her ex-boyfriend in a hospital.

It was completely dreadful for me but it wouldn't bore anyone.

[–]oniongasm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh wow yeah. Definitely not boring!

Did everything get sorted out? I hope you're not still going through all of that

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a few wins but it dragged out in court for years and they finally broke me. I came away minus the vital right to refuse to date a woman.

So I'm dirt poor, a recluse and with multiple privacy breaches (three confirmed in different government institutions) giving this convicted attempted murderer who threatened my life, I can't trust the government with any personal info. Especially since she now works in a different government agency as a social worker (yeah!).

On the upside I am due to die soon'ish from a genetic condition so don't have to worry about this for much longer.

[–]livingcode 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

not surprising coming from the same person that made this post, holy shit I mean seriously, could you be more blatantly sexist?

[–]mckaystites 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It must have been really hard being the ugly girl in high school ):

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RainbowHearts 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Scum like you are precisely the reason I can't talk about mens' issues in polite company.

[–]zombie2uRBX 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah what the fuck op.

[–]girraween -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where the hell did that anger come from? Not cool.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter