If it weren't for feminists, this man would be alive today.

[LJ_Reloaded]

If it weren't for the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence - which presumes the man to be at fault for domestic violence - this man would have been able to get help when his girlfriend was abusing him.

Instead he's dead today.

You manginas and internet white knights can now celebrate. Aren't you mad it wasn't you?

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2014/04/judge_responds_angrily_after_c.html

Rezmierski, critical of Gamet's "lip jacking" and laughing at the sentencing, contended Gamet used as many as nine weapons, including a busted floor lamp and a frying pan, in her assault on Hill, a man she had hurt in the past, according to information presented at trial.

If feminists weren't out there making fun of male victims of domestic violence, Hill would have felt comfortable with going to the police. But because of the Duluth Model of Violence - which is the law of the land - he would have been ignored or arrested instead of her.

So instead he took it like a man and died.

It's a pity one of you subservient feminist males on here didn't MAN UP and go take his place.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Everybody dies sometime.

 

[bronzeage]

You have become a pathetic little thing.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

You have become a pathetic little thing.

The balls keep growing and the cock shrivels...or so I've been told...or did you mean me?

 

[bronzeage]

The balls keep growing and the cock shrivels...or so I've been told...or did you mean me?

You jump posted me.

It's fun to post in Lt threads because he pretends to have me on ignore, which is not technically possible.

Many years ago, I hurt his feelings by pointing out one of his claims was also not technically possible. Since then, he has been afraid to talk directly to me, for fear I will do it again.

It's a sad case. He was once able to engage in intelligent conversation, but nothing remains of the man he was, just this pathetic thing we see today.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

You jump posted me.

It's fun to post in Lt threads because he pretends to have me on ignore, which is not technically possible.

Many years ago, I hurt his feelings by pointing out one of his claims was also not technically possible. Since then, he has been afraid to talk directly to me, for fear I will do it again.

It's a sad case. He was once able to engage in intelligent conversation, but nothing remains of the man he was, just this pathetic thing we see today.

I went back to 2010 to read thru some of his old threads. Pretty much the same shtick. He must have been a man under another name.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Everybody dies sometime.

That's not what they say when women get murdered like that.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

That's not what they say when women get murdered like that.

It's true every time I say it.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I went back to 2010 to read thru some of his old threads. Pretty much the same shtick. He must have been a man under another name.

You must have been a human being under another name. As it stands now you're nothing more than a shitwhistle who'd rather talk shit than address the issue of how feminism has killed male victims of domestic abuse.

But then you're a feminist, you can't be expected to surpass the already low standards society has for your kind.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

You must have been a human being under another name. As it stands now you're nothing more than a shitwhistle who'd rather talk shit than address the issue of how feminism has killed male victims of domestic abuse.

But then you're a feminist, you can't be expected to surpass the already low standards society has for your kind.

I've always been pretty much a digital being on the internet.

 

[bronzeage]

I went back to 2010 to read thru some of his old threads. Pretty much the same shtick. He must have been a man under another name.

Well, yeah. Why do think everybody calls him Lt? His original Lit name was Lovingtongue. His first name change was the earliest sign something had gone horribly wrong at home.

 

[Queersetti]

Well, yeah. Why do think everybody calls him Lt? His original Lit name was Lovingtongue. His first name change was the earliest sign something had gone horribly wrong at home.

Wormtongue's brother.

 

[bronzeage]

Wormtongue's brother.

Sounds like a tropical parasite.

 

[Queersetti]

Sounds like a tropical parasite.

Racist.

 

[bronzeage]

Racist.

I'm sorry, I meant to say tropical paradise.

 

[haurni]

If it weren't for the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence - which presumes the man to be at fault for domestic violence - this man would have been able to get help when his girlfriend was abusing him.

If feminists weren't out there making fun of male victims of domestic violence, Hill would have felt comfortable with going to the police. But because of the Duluth Model of Violence - which is the law of the land - he would have been ignored or arrested instead of her.

Like many victims of abuse, he may have felt very uncomfortable (or outright scared of) going to the police. Abuse victims will put up with a lot from their partners before they finally break free, if they are lucky enough to do so. Some, unfortunately, are not.

Generally speaking, women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. For this reason I understand the thinking behind the 'Duluth Model'. As a male who has been the recipient of spousal abuse, and who was the one who got arrested when I called the police on my ex, I have some first-hand experience of this.

I've called you out in some of your other posts and asked you to present facts and statistics rather than insults, so let me do the same.

According to Statistics Canada,

"Unlike other forms of violent crimes, females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
​

Because I know you have an issue with how society treats male rape, let me add this:

"Family violence was more prevalent among girls than boys (338 victims per 100,000 versus 212 per 100,000). The leading contributor to the higher rates of family violence among girls, particularly as they age, relates to their much higher risk of sexual violence. They were more than four times as likely as boys to be a victim of sexual assault or other sexual offences committed by a family member (134 victims per 100,000 population versus 30 per 100,000 population)."
​

Though I've not researched the topic exhaustively, a US study by the CDC gives generally similar results:

"Women more likely to report severe IPV [intimate partner violence] and related impacts than men.

• Women were more likely to be victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner (24%) than men (14%).
• Women were more likely than men to experience multiple forms of IPV, both across their life span and within individual violent relationships.
• Female victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate were significantly more likely than male victims to experience impacts such as fear, concern for their safety, need for medical care, injury, need for housing services, and missing at least one day of work or school."
​

In addition to the usual social (and other) pressures men must contend with vis-a-vis reporting spousal abuse, they face the additional problem that our society views men who report it as 'less masculine' (in pretty much the same way that reporting male rape does).

If these statistics are correct and the ratio of female to male victims of spousal abuse is only about 2-to-1 (407 to 180 in Canada, 24% vs 14% in the US), I would agree that it is probably time to give up the Duluth Model. I absolutely do not agree that it's appropriate for you to insult and blame 'feminists' and 'manginas'.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Like many victims of abuse, he may have felt very uncomfortable (or outright scared of) going to the police. Abuse victims will put up with a lot from their partners before they finally break free, if they are lucky enough to do so. Some, unfortunately, are not.

Generally speaking, women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. For this reason I understand the thinking behind the 'Duluth Model'. As a male who has been the recipient of spousal abuse, and who was the one who got arrested when I called the police on my ex, I have some first-hand experience of this.

I've called you out in some of your other posts and asked you to present facts and statistics rather than insults, so let me do the same.

According to Statistics Canada,

"Unlike other forms of violent crimes, females had more than double the risk of males of becoming a victim of police-reported family violence (407 victims per 100,000 population versus 180 victims per 100,000). This increased risk was primarily attributed to females’ higher representation as victims of spousal violence."
​

Because I know you have an issue with how society treats male rape, let me add this:

"Family violence was more prevalent among girls than boys (338 victims per 100,000 versus 212 per 100,000). The leading contributor to the higher rates of family violence among girls, particularly as they age, relates to their much higher risk of sexual violence. They were more than four times as likely as boys to be a victim of sexual assault or other sexual offences committed by a family member (134 victims per 100,000 population versus 30 per 100,000 population)."
​

Though I've not researched the topic exhaustively, a US study by the CDC gives generally similar results:

"Women more likely to report severe IPV [intimate partner violence] and related impacts than men.

• Women were more likely to be victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner (24%) than men (14%).
• Women were more likely than men to experience multiple forms of IPV, both across their life span and within individual violent relationships.
• Female victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate were significantly more likely than male victims to experience impacts such as fear, concern for their safety, need for medical care, injury, need for housing services, and missing at least one day of work or school."
​

In addition to the usual social (and other) pressures men must contend with vis-a-vis reporting spousal abuse, they face the additional problem that our society views men who report it as 'less masculine' (in pretty much the same way that reporting male rape does).

If these statistics are correct and the ratio of female to male victims of spousal abuse is only about 2-to-1 (407 to 180 in Canada, 24% vs 14% in the US), I would agree that it is probably time to give up the Duluth Model. I absolutely do not agree that it's appropriate for you to insult and blame 'feminists' and 'manginas'.

And this is what ticks me off and no one seems to want to admit this. I'll just post the cited evidence and let others interpret it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

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.

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. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

My interpretation: Men are more likely to inflict injury because we're stronger. Women report more than men because both men and women alike make fun of guys who get beat up by their domestic partner. Male chauvinists and male/female feminists alike are in on this shaming-of-men game.

haurni, you need to know something... we MRAs are at war with traditionalist chauvinism and we're at war with radical feminists.

You know something is really wrong with feminism-of-today when you hear women saying shit like this:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...uthor_who_wrote_the_golden_notebook_dies.html

Although many saw her as a feminist icon, Lessing was a frequent critic of modern feminism. In 2001, for example, she told an audience at a book festival that men were the new silent victims because they are “continually demeaned and insulted” by women and can’t say anything, according to the Guardian. "Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

Now who is this lady?

Doris Lessing, one of the most celebrated British writers of the last century who wrote The Golden Notebook and The Grass is Singing, died peacefully early Sunday. She was 94. Lessing began her career as an author when a selection of short stories were published in 1948. She would go on to write more than 55 works of fiction, opera, nonfiction, and poetry, and published her final book, Alfred and Emily, in 2008. Born Doris May Tayler in what is now Iran, she moved to Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) at 5 and stayed there until she was 29.
Lessing became the oldest writer, and only 11th woman, to get the Nobel Literature prize in 2007, when she was 88 years old. “Oh Christ! … I couldn’t care less,” she said when a group of reporters outside her London home informed her she had won the much-coveted prize. “That was typical of the irascible, independent Lessing, who never saved her fire for the page,” notes the Associated Press. At the same time she made it clear there was a part of her that cared: “I’ve won all the prizes in Europe, every bloody one, so I’m delighted to win them all. It’s a royal flush.” Later she said: “I’m 88 years old and they can’t give the Nobel to someone who’s dead, so I think they were probably thinking they’d probably better give it to me now before I’ve popped off,” according to the Guardian.

Until her death, Lessing was best known for The Golden Notebook, which is often referred to as “a feminist bible,” notes the Independent. The book became so famous and was so scrutinized that Lessing later went on to call it her “albatross,” although she did concede the book seemed to have a life of its own. “This book has got a sort of charge to it. It keeps popping up somewhere in some country and I have to say ‘My God, this book has got something. It has got a quality, a vitality,’” she once said, according to the Guardian.

You want to know why I disparage feminism so much? It's because of shit like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...mit-I-wish-unborn-baby-wasnt-beastly-boy.html
Feminists have nothing to say to women like that. Or this:

http://37.media.tumblr.com/a3d48a7579530c73de21cecc906bf468/tumblr_mz3t9l6Kcm1s8zzzfo4_500.png

Or this:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/60bff63cf38365a6e99e849beadcf3a3/tumblr_mz3t9l6Kcm1s8zzzfo7_500.jpg

What, you say that not all feminists are like that?

Well why is it that all Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) are judged by what nutjobs like Paul Elam says? MRAs get held responsible for what Return of Kings says (like their Fat Shaming Week nutjobbery) even though Return of Kings aren't MRAs and they don't even like MRAs!!!

MRAs are like black people - the actions of one nutjob become the actions of everyone. (And I'm black, BTW so I know this personally.) Feminists do all kinds of crazy shit and they get let off.

Do you see where I've been coming from now?

 

[Sean Renaud]

You'd have more credibility if you supported White Power groups. Nobody denies that men or blacks do fucked up shit. We deny that it happens frequently enough and goes unpunished frequently enough to warrent freaking out over. But please tell us why whites deserve to have special treatment.

 

[Queersetti]

What, you say that not all feminists are like that?

Well why is it that all Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) are judged by what nutjobs like Paul Elam says? MRAs get held responsible for what Return of Kings says (like their Fat Shaming Week nutjobbery) even though Return of Kings aren't MRAs and they don't even like MRAs!!!

MRAs are like black people - the actions of one nutjob become the actions of everyone. (And I'm black, BTW so I know this personally.) Feminists do all kinds of crazy shit and they get let off.

Do you see where I've been coming from now?

Where does anyone in your graphic identify themselves as a feminist? Idon't see anyone doing so.

Therein lies the answer to your question. You don't think that you should be held responsible for the words or actions of self described men's rights activists, but you hold feminists responsible for every reprehensible thing done anywhere, by any woman.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Where does anyone in your graphic identify themselves as a feminist? Idon't see anyone doing so.

Therein lies the answer to your question. You don't think that you should be held responsible for the words or actions of self described men's rights activists, but you hold feminists responsible for every reprehensible thing done anywhere, by any woman.

But men's rights groups are held responsible for the stupid actions of people like Paul Elam, and even for the murderous rampages of men who weren't MRAs, like Marc Lepine.

You got Manboobz attacking us as a whole, SPLC attacking us as a whole, Saturday Night Live, you name it.

And you get all whiny and offended when one person does the same thing to radical feminists?

 

[haurni]

But men's rights groups are held responsible for the stupid actions of people like Paul Elam, and even for the murderous rampages of men who weren't MRAs, like Marc Lepine.

You got Manboobz attacking us as a whole, SPLC attacking us as a whole, Saturday Night Live, you name it.

And you get all whiny and offended when one person does the same thing to radical feminists?

Just as Christians in general get blamed for Fred Phelps and Republicans for Tea Partyers. However, as I see it, Men's Rights Activists are operating on an incorrect premise - that men are being denied their rights (pretty much by definition) and, more specifically, that this is due to the actions of feminists and their 'mangina' allies (i.e. anybody who happens to believe that women are and have long been victims of discrimination and disempowerment). When you are at the top of the power/privilege pyramid, any action that attempts to level the playing field is seen as a loss for you rather than a gain for society as a whole. MRAs are the gender equivalent of white people who cry reverse racism.

(I do want to reiterate that I don't disagree with what I understand to be your general position on male rape - it's certainly something that happens far too often, nobody should minimize it, and there should probably be more information about it and more campaigns to support victims of it. I haven't read a lot of your posts but I expect I'll disagree with you on other issues - Men's Rights, for one.)

Therein lies the answer to your question. You don't think that you should be held responsible for the words or actions of self described men's rights activists, but you hold feminists responsible for every reprehensible thing done anywhere, by any woman.

I agree with this. You (typically) attempt to support your position in favour of greater awareness of male rape in the same way you attempt to bash feminists - by citing anecdotes and single cases, none of which prove anything except that there are stupid and insensitive people out there - something MRAs accomplish routinely on a per capita basis. Citing 10,000 instances of idiocy involving 4 billion women (many of whom are not feminists) means a lot less than citing 100 instances of idiocy involving, say, 100,000 MRAs. While individual cases may highlight injustices, it's in the aggregate that they achieve meaning.

Yes, I understand that those injustices are upsetting, but if you want policies to change, encourage people to do so by educating them about patterns and statistics, not by citing individual cases bemoaning the actions of individual people and attributing them to an entire group, then getting upset that MRAs are treated the same way. (An important difference being, as I said above, that I think the MRA position is flawed in its basic assumptions while the general feminist position is not, but that's another argument.)

 

[badbabysitter]

But men's rights groups are held responsible for the stupid actions of people like Paul Elam, and even for the murderous rampages of men who weren't MRAs, like Marc Lepine.

Perhaps because Paul Elam runs the most publicized, most vocal and most influential MRA site perhaps? Of course he's going to get criticisms for his views, just as dumbass alleged feminists like Camile Paglia who is considered to be one of the worst things to happen to feminism.

And Paul lepine blamed feminists for his problems in his manifesto... which is what alot of alleged MRA do...if a woman went on a killing spree and blamed it on the MRA, you can bet dollars to donuts you'd be harping about it every other post

You got Manboobz attacking us as a whole,

and a VoiceforMen, Hearsite, return of Kings, MGTOW, etcetera don't attack feminists? really?

SPLC attacking us as a whole

it's because of aforementioned groups such as above.. if they spent more time fighting for men's justice and less time attacking women, they'd probably not be on their shit list

, Saturday Night Live, you name it.

and there's no negative reinforcement images of feminism? really?

And you get all whiny and offended when one person does the same thing to radical feminists?

because it's not one person, it's thousands of them.. and this thread didnt even involve feminists untill you declared it did... what happned to this man was wrong but feminists arent even mentioned anywhere in it


You want to call out red fem's on their words, but you get outraged when asked to do the same to MRA.. and when you grdginly do acknowledge some of the harmful voices,... you give them the very approachable harmless name of traditionalists

women who disagree are radical feminists.. men who want women to live in the 1950's are just good ole boy traditionalists.. like apple pie and leave it to beaver.. even your language to describe them suggests absolving them of thier prejudices

I get it, you want to address the very real problems that many men are facing, and you should do so

but you always do it by prefacing it with an attack on women

this thread for example was about an injustice done to a man... but the very first thing you did was blame it on a woman

it became less about the injustice done to him and more about the evils of women

the saddest irony is that if the MRA stuck to the issues and less about the evils of women, they would find nothing but the firmest allies in feminism

 

[badbabysitter]

Therein lies the answer to your question. You don't think that you should be held responsible for the words or actions of self described men's rights activists, but you hold feminists responsible for every reprehensible thing done anywhere, by any woman.

this ftw

 

[Queersetti]

But men's rights groups are held responsible for the stupid actions of people like Paul Elam, and even for the murderous rampages of men who weren't MRAs, like Marc Lepine.

You got Manboobz attacking us as a whole, SPLC attacking us as a whole, Saturday Night Live, you name it.

And you get all whiny and offended when one person does the same thing to radical feminists?

So, "but Ma, the other kids did it too" is the best you can do?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Perhaps because Paul Elam runs the most publicized, most vocal and most influential MRA site perhaps? Of course he's going to get criticisms for his views, just as dumbass alleged feminists like Camile Paglia who is considered to be one of the worst things to happen to feminism.

I can meet your Paul Elam and raise you Sharon Osbourne, Jezebel "we beat up our boyfriends rah rah" Magazine, Maureen "Are Men Necessary/Incredible Shrinking Y" Dowd, and all of these, too.

And how about these feminist leaders?
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
-- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

Do you really want to ride this train about crazy quotes from movement leaders, badbabysitter? I can bombard you for weeks with this.

Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would be alive.

And Paul lepine blamed feminists for his problems in his manifesto... which is what alot of alleged MRA do...if a woman went on a killing spree and blamed it on the MRA, you can bet dollars to donuts you'd be harping about it every other post

News Flash!!! Traditionalists blame feminists for shit, too. That doesn't make Lepine a MRA. He wasn't complaining of workplace sexism - he was complaining about women "not knowing their place." THAT makes him a TRADITIONALIST.

If a woman went on a killing spree against men and blamed it on MRAs, yes, she's most likely a feminist. But she could also be a Traditionalist, though unlikely. Marc Lepine was a Traditionalist.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

and a VoiceforMen, Hearsite, return of Kings, MGTOW, etcetera don't attack feminists? really?

But attacking feminists is no less legitimate than attacking MRAs. That said:

AVoiceForMen has its crazy hour moments and is your one valid example here. Which is why I refuse to associate with them - especially Paul Elam and his "I will never vote to convict a man on trial for rape."

Return of Kings is not a MRA site. They're a PUA-related site and PUAs hate MRAs. Furthermore RoK are TRADITIONALISTS.

MGTOW - I have issues with them, particularly their hate for fat women and women who "hit the wall." There is no such thing as hitting the wall - there is only a woman's inability to accept that men have a right to their preferences and her desire to whine about men not preferring her. MGTOW perpetuates the idea that women who hit a certain age or weight class are no longer attractive even though tons of fat and old women out there routinely find men.

But that doesn't mean MGTOW is all bad - in fact, mostly the opposite. You really should be concerned about these guys. They advocate disengaging from women, especially those who give off a strong single mom, gold digger or paternity fraud threat. They also advocate against marriage and commitment. The problem with MGTOW is they're gaining ground culturally. Unless you live under a rock you have no doubt heard of women complaining about the lack of men wanting to get married. MGTOW is a symptom of that. You know what scares you the most about MGTOW? I do. What scares you is that if all men seriously considered their base argument, you would never be able to use your feminine wiles to manipulate men. Even a MGTOW guy who is marriage-minded is wise to that bullshit. You don't get a pussy pass with these guys, they see right through your bullshit, and most importantly, they won't put up with women's bullshit. You women derive great power from "do things my way or you don't get laid" and the MGTOW man does the most devastating thing that men as a group can do to women: they say "Fine, I don't need you to get laid." MGTOW teaches men that they do not need to grovel or work their asses off for validation by women. They teach that validation by women is overrated. MGTOW strips you of your over-inflated value - just like women have done to men on a daily basis since the dawn of time.

If you write off MGTOW as insignificant, you're not paying attention. Japan has gone MGTOW in a big way and women there are paying a huge price. MGTOW is, for all its nonviolent approach to feminism, the most dangerous enemy feminism has: its growth will mean the end of hypergamy and the end of a million years of female privilege. MGTOW could render heterosexual womankind utterly rudderless: and they have already done exactly that in Japan.

Badbabysitter, you think you as a woman have it bad now? Wait until men decide they no longer need to fight for and die over access to pussy. Who's going to rescue you from the fire then? Who's going to dig you out when the tornado destroys your house? Who's going to build the house you want to live in? Who's going to risk their lives in the coal mines, power plants and oil rigs, to give you heat in the winter and cool air in the summer? Who's going to die in the diamond mines to keep the bling on women's fingers? The answer to the above: certainly not American women, Canadian or otherwise, as very few under any circumstances want to do this.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

it's because of aforementioned groups such as above.. if they spent more time fighting for men's justice and less time attacking women, they'd probably not be on their shit list

Wrong again.

Men's groups fought for equal custody and the National Organization for Women tried to stop them.

Men's groups fought to stop paternity fraud and feminists fought to preserve it because they want men to keep paying the price for women's lying and treachery. Feminists talk equality but then act like they see men as slaves.

Men's groups fight for DV/homeless shelters for men in Canada and now because of feminism, they have none. Funny how women still have taxpayer-funded shelters in Canada!

Men's groups try to speak out on campuses and Canadian feminists - your sisters in arms - continually disrupt them and deny them their freedom of speech.

So you feminists attack us on general principle, not because of some evil groups.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

and there's no negative reinforcement images of feminism? really?

The only negative reinforcement comes from snapshots and reposted quotes from your own movement.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

because it's not one person, it's thousands of them.. and this thread didnt even involve feminists untill you declared it did... what happned to this man was wrong but feminists arent even mentioned anywhere in it

You sound just like a true white Conservative. The fact that the man in this story couldn't escape his situation is because of feminism.

Not because of feminists in his face, but because of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence - a doctrine created by feminists. The Duluth Model says men are the aggressors and women are not. Law enforcement agencies follow the Duluth Model; which means that generally (anecdotes aside), they do not arrest women - they either arrest the guy or ignore the situation.

So no, feminists aren't mentioned. But the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, which they created, influenced law enforcement to leave that man to his fate.

Feminism is as much at fault for what happened to that man as centuries of racism is at fault for what happened to Trayvon Martin.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

You want to call out red fem's on their words, but you get outraged when asked to do the same to MRA.. and when you grdginly do acknowledge some of the harmful voices,... you give them the very approachable harmless name of traditionalists

I don't GRUDGINGLY acknowledge the fucktardery of MRAs like Paul Elam. I'm quite open about it. And you CLEARLY do not understand the grudge I hold against Traditionalists. I never describe them as harmless. They have almost as much institutional power as feminists, or even more than feminists, depending on the day.

What you don't understand is that the battle of the sexes is in fact a THREE WAY CONFLICT:
1) The Patriarchal Traditionalists, who want everyone to go back to traditional, arbitrary gender roles, at the expense of the individual freedom they claim to love so much;
2) The Feminists, who are only in it for the women, at the expense of EVERYONE else;
3) The Men's Rights movement, which has no use for Patriarchal gender norms, nor the misandry of modern Feminism.

Matter of fact, there's a FOURTH faction out there that's threatening to burst free of the Men's Rights movement if the MRAs don't kick people like Paul Elam to the curb - Egalitarians.

Sorry if your brain just exploded.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

women who disagree are radical feminists.. men who want women to live in the 1950's are just good ole boy traditionalists.. like apple pie and leave it to beaver.. even your language to describe them suggests absolving them of thier prejudices

Are you fucking serious? I don't even want to know what you're smoking here. Let me tell you something badbabysitter, DON'T GET HIGH OFF YOUR OWN BULLSHIT.

"Good ol' boy" - More alpha male worship. All other men are treated as expendable.

"Mom and apple pie" - Why can't dad make apple pies?

"Leave it to Beaver" - No country for us black men in that universe.

I'm at a total loss here as to how you managed to twist this into absolving these people of their prejudices. TRADITIONALISTS deserve to be driven into the sea along with radical feminists. Get this into your thick skull - I hate those people just as much as I hate radical feminists. I can't imagine where you got the idea that I was absolving them. I shudder to imagine where you got that from - it must stink like hell down there.

Name one time where I've ever referred to Traditionalism in a positive light.

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

I get it, you want to address the very real problems that many men are facing, and you should do so

but you always do it by prefacing it with an attack on women

Not women, feminism. The very real problems that African Americans face are due to a legacy of racism. The very real problems that men face are due to a legacy of both traditionalism and radical feminism.

Once again, I will reiterate the one fact you cannot and will not try to refute: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would be alive.

this thread for example was about an injustice done to a man... but the very first thing you did was blame it on a woman

That's because Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

it became less about the injustice done to him and more about the evils of women

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

the saddest irony is that if the MRA stuck to the issues and less about the evils of women, they would find nothing but the firmest allies in feminism

But lets get back to the topic: Marcel Hill died because of the legacy of the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence. If this sexist, feminist principle had never existed, the police would have arrested Camia Gamet outright and Marcel Hill would still be alive.

That is the most important issue here.

Get rid of the FEMINIST Duluth Model of Domestic Violence and future men like Marcel Hill will stop dying. That is the solution here.