Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence- Women are Half the Problem


"Domestic Violence."

Even the mention of the words conjures up the larger than life image of some battered, bruised woman on a highway billboard; a day glow orange hot-line number beneath her visage, and some catchy slogan like “love shouldn’t hurt.


And no, I am not insensitive to battered women. My heart goes out to any real victim. But the day I see the images of bruised men on those billboards, I’ll be less prone to being offended at seeing the images of beaten women being propped up like the starving children you see on your TV at two in the morning; the ones you can feed, clothe and send to Harvard for 12 dollars a month.

The myth is simple and designed for the simple minded. Domestic violence is almost exclusively perpetrated by men against women.  Even better, it means brutish thugs pounding the crap out of Mary Poppins for burning the toast.

And here and there, that is true.  But if you think it defines the problem, or even comes close, you need to take Dr. Phil off your TIVO to do list and start picking up some real books.

This nonsense didn't spring out of thin air. It was and is the raison d'étre of feminists, in their claim of patriarchal domination and how that extended into the home and family. And on the surface it makes sense, especially if you don't think about it.  And of course we didn't, so the idea spread like chlamydia in a cat house.

But let us scrutinize it now. You deserve a lot more depth than is offered in a sound bite.

I’ll start with some research that most would feel was from a reputable source. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. This is the summary of their findings as published in the American Journal of Public Health, May 2007.

First, almost 24% of all relationships had some level of violence. Half of those relationships involved just one of the partners being violent. The other half were reciprocally violent.

Now, in relationships where violence was perpetrated by just one person, over 70% of that was committed by the woman.

Did you get that? In all relationships in that particular study, more than 7 out of 10 batterers were female.

Let’s look even closer at the data as it relates to relationships where both partners are violent. This half is even more interesting than the first half.

The study concluded that reciprocally violent relationships were most likely to result in injuries, particularly to women.  They were also a solid predictor of future, repeated violence for women, but not men. In other words, women who engaged in mutual combat with men were much more likely to have a pattern of instigating repeated assaults. Men’s violence was much more likely to be isolated, and, contrary to the repeated assertions of feminists, not likely to be repeated.

Now let me sum up those conclusions in a clearer form of English. Relationships where both are violent are more likely to result in the woman getting hurt. Those relationships are also marked by women who are much more likely than men to initiate and maintain that violence in the first place.

We have common expression for much of the men’s violence in these situations.

It’s called hitting back.

I know, there is no excuse for violence. Ever, some would say.  But there is legal, and in the belief of many, moral justification for self defense. Either way, it is a judgment call made after, and only after, an attack has been made.

In fairness, it has to be pointed out that this one study, for many reasons, including methodology, can't fairly be generalized to the entire population.  And one study alone is easy enough to dispute, even from a sound source. So let's look at a hundred more.

Professor John Archer is a psychologist at The University of Central Lancashire and the esteemed head of the Aggression Research Group at the same university. In his analysis of 100 British and American studies he concludes that women are more likely than men to initiate violence in their relationships and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. He also addresses the myth that women are only violent as a matter of self defense by reporting that 29% of female college students admitted to physically attacking their boyfriends when no threat was perceived.

I know feminists won‘t be convinced by this, nor will they by several hundred more studies, but let’s look at them anyway. Professor Martin S. Fiebert of the California State University Psychology Department conducted an analysis of 249 scholarly investigations, 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews regarding domestic violence. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies numbers over 241,700 people.

Fiebert's conclusion? Women are as physically aggressive or more physically aggressive in relationships than men.

And if you think that the incidence of female on male violence is mitigated by women suffering more injuries at the hands of men, think again.

There are widely conflicting studies on this. Some of them place women at greater risk, but many of them place men. If we examine Fiebert's annotated bibliography which covers an exhaustive amount of studies, there are many times more studies cited that show women more likely to inflict serious harm, including with the use of weapons, than are men.

Are there other studies that contradict this?   Absolutely.  But there is a significant enough body of evidence to make three things patently clear.

1.  Domestic violence is not a product of gender.  Attributing it to one gender over the other is not only misleading, it actually hinders efforts to address the problem.

2.  Society is wildly misinformed about the nature, origins and realities of domestic violence.

3.  Most of our legal and political handling of domestic violence is based on the myths and not the realities, leaving us to put all of our resources into half of the problem.

As in so many other ways, we demonstrate a cultural tendency to remake reality, even embrace lies, when the truth about the fairer sex doesn't make them look all that fair.

Now many people of sound mind might well say, "Fine, let's just focus our attention on dealing with abusers and the abused, regardless of the sex."

But to say things are not that simple is a monumental understatement.

Richard Gelles is currently a dean at the University of Pennsylvania and holds The Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence in the School of Social Policy & Practice.

He is an internationally known expert in domestic violence, and was influential in the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Gelles wrote, regarding his work with Suzanne Steinmetz and Murray Strauss,  "The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present."

Now is it me, or is making terroristic threats of bombing and murder a rather strange way to protest being called violent?

Returning to the evidence, though, it would be easy to make an argument that domestic violence is more a female than a male problem. There are, after all, numerous studies that support that conclusion. But that would be as pointless as the current paradigm, and might result in my car blowing up the next time I start it.

So for those of you screaming for me to quit picking on women and take gender out of the equation, that is precisely what I am doing.

And what I am asking you to do, once and for all.

If you really believe that all violence is bad and shouldn't be tolerated, then here is what you can do to prove it.

Write Vice President Biden and tell him to seek an end to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the legislation he authored that allocates billions to women victims but leaves men totally out of the picture. Men are, after all, injured by domestic violence, too. 835,000 per year in America alone.

Start holding shelters and social services to account when they have no real programs designed for men. Their failure to do this is institutionalized sexism and needs to go.

Confront police and prosecutors for their actions. Men who call for police help when attacked by their partners are more likely than not to be the one arrested, regardless of the circumstances.

Victims should be helped, not arrested, incarcerated and stigmatized.

Be sure to express your objections to and boycott the media outlets and corporations like Pepsi and Fedex that use men getting abused as a sight gag in their advertising.

When you see or hear a public service announcement that says something like "A woman is abused in her home every 15 seconds," realize that is is a actually a public deception, a convoluted half-truth, based in blind bigotry and callous indifference to the victimization of men.

Those are a few good beginnings, but you can best start by simply and publicly acknowledging what so few seem to know. Domestic violence has nothing to do with what sex you are. It never has. Disinformation is a poor way to address social ills.  In fact, it just breeds more of them.

---

RESEARCH SOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE

CDC Report- American Journal of Public Health

Martin Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography

John Archer: Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review

NOTE: Access to Dr. Archers research is fee based!

Abstracts- If you want the complete studies, you have to pay.

Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Aggression During Courtship. ILEANA ARIAS, University of Georgia.  MARY SAMIOS, State University of New York at Stony Brook. K. DANIEL O'LEARY, State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Basile, S. (2004).  Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders

Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment.



Michelle Carney, School of Social Work, Tucker Hall, University of Georgia.  Fred Buttell, Tulane University. and Don Dutton, University of British Columbia, Canada

Quote from abstract: Particular attention is paid to the cultural influences that shape our conceptualization of “domestic violence” and the fact that empirical research suggests that domestic violence has been falsely framed as exclusively male initiated violence.

Gay Marriage? How About NO Marriage! Video

Gay Marriage? How About NO Marriage!

Gay Marriage?  How About NO Marriage!

It is hard to turn on cable news any more without having your senses assaulted by some ersatz conservative wailing like a bagpipe about the evils of gay marriage.

“We need to stop this from happening,” they say. “Marriage is one man and one woman. God-almighty Hisself said so.” And then there is the obligatory, nauseatingly redundant, “We need to protect the sanctity of the institution.”

Excuse me? The sanctity of the institution?

It makes me wonder if they have a rehab for this type of thinking.

Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture and it wasn‘t homosexuals that got us here. Nor will it be them that drives the final nail in the coffin.

As usual, we are not facilitating any real understanding with sound bites from talking heads. “One man and one woman,” no more illuminates the problems of modern marriage than nonsense like “my body, my choice,” illuminates the issue of abortion.

Worse yet, as any men’s rights advocate knows, marriage hasn’t been “one man and one woman” for a long time. The reality of the times is that men marry the state they live in. The woman just comes with the deal for a few years. When it’s fini with the woman, things really heat up with the state, shearing the man of his assets and adding a new, bizarre dimension to “till death do us part.”

And allowing gays into this fiasco is going to hurt the institution?

I wish I could corner a couple of these pundits and make them answer some questions. Maybe Hannity, or the anorexic looking chick with stringy bleached hair.

The questions would be simple. Where were you? And what are you doing about it now?

When the feminists pushed for and got no fault divorce, and the divorce rate consequently hit the stratosphere creating legions of dysfunctional, fatherless children, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When feminist ideology spread like a malicious rumor though the media, academia, government and the culture, demonizing all things masculine and creating the fundamental rift between the sexes that plagues marriage to this day, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When the family courts started taking Title IV-D money, turning benches into private fiefdoms, profit centers whose stock-in-trade became eviscerating the father-child bond, where were you? What are you doing about it now? And add to that another question. Do you even know what Title IV-D money is and how it makes it’s way from the federal government into family court coffers? Or would that take more information than you can squeeze in between Cialis commercials on Fox News?

Of course, the point is that we already know where these people were and where they are now. They’re in the place they have always been, crawling like roaches over every media news outlet that will call on them to say something profoundly meaningless about profoundly meaningless topics, in the name of plugging profoundly meaningless books.

These vultures want to protect the sanctity of marriage in the same way Courtney Love wants to protect chastity.

And those that caterwaul the loudest about the supposedly sinister prospect of gay marriage are the same ones that can’t stop wagging their tongues about the virtues of constitutional conservatism.

I’m fascinated by people that call themselves limited government conservatives, but sit by complacently like grinning, plastic bobble-heads, as long as the government is enforcing their religious and moral beliefs on the rest of the population.

News flash, that is not conservatism, it’s not even a cheap imitation. It’s theocracy. Ayatollah style. And it’s about as conducive to men’s rights as feminism.

I wouldn’t be bothered by this all that much if it were contained to media pinheads. I expect them to say a lot and understand little. It’s what they get rich doing.

But when I see MRA’s espousing this cause célèbre, it puts a spike in my “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot” detector.

Why, for the love of Pete, would men’s rights activists seek to protect the sanctity of an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them?

But I see it all the time, from MRA’s, rather from patriarchs who think they are MRA’s.

Just as theocratic zealots shouldn’t confuse themselves with constitutional conservatives, patriarchs shouldn’t confuse themselves with MRA’s. In this writers opinion, our agendas are diametrically opposed.

Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told. And I used the word imagined for a reason. The idea of days when men held all power and dominion over women never happened. It is just another in a long line of feminist delusions and revisionist history. It is a fantasy that modern patriarchs have swallowed, lending them to wax nostalgic about somebody else's pipe dream. I’m sure it would be a nice world for the control obsessive, but that toothpaste, inasmuch as it never existed, is already out of the tube and is not going to be squeezed back in. And chivalry, in that it hinges on putting women first at the expense of men, has much more in common with feminism than it does with men’s rights.

MRA’s just want to escape the sexism and bias and treachery involved in marriage and every other institution that affects men. And that puts us, again in this writers opinion, in the ironic place of finishing what feminists started; an all out assault on marriage itself.

The feminists won this one. Game over. A shutout. What remains of marriage is not salvageable. It’s water that can’t be decontaminated; a cripple that can’t be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. Hopefully that would be sometime after the culture has recovered from the damage of feminist doctrine and placed some sanity back on the table.

So if gay marriage erodes the sanctity of the institution, I say fine, let’s print them licenses by the truckload. I’ll spring for some rice.

There are plenty of real issues, the ones the pundits ignore, that need plenty of real attention. I won’t be bothered to invest in anything else, especially something that ultimately undermines men even more.

It was no doubt feminists that put marriage on life support. We should mourn that and look to the future for renewed hope that some day men and women will share life again with love and dignity. But today, MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug

The Psychology of Hate Video

The Psychology of Hate

The Psychology of Hate

Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification.


In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.


Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.


“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy." “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.


I then flipped the board to the other side.


“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.


“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.


“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”


Asking them a question with actual spoken words must of thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.


And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.


They were mental health professionals.


Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.


I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”


With that question the anger usually intensified.


In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.


Welcome to the wacky world of mental health.


It is a telling study in the psychology of hate. Indeed, as we peel back the layers of fantasy from the profession, we are forced into a most disturbing conclusion.


Psychology is hate. At least as it is practiced in western culture.


It’s most evident in the junk psychology market. Since the mid-eighties, get-rich-quick psychology gurus have often made their way to bestseller lists. Books like Robin Norwood’s Women Who Love Too Much, Susan Forwards, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and others have been runaway hits, all predicated on rigid stereotypes of men who hate and women who love; all just more additions to the already crowded grease board.


Recently, MRA Mark Rudov appeared on Fox News in a brief debate with Karen Salmansohn on women executives. She was given a nice plug for her new book, Bounce Back. They could have, and probably should have in the interest of balance, given her credit for her previous publication, How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers.


I don’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately, I don’t have to.


Currently, male bashing monarch Phil McGraw reigns in the ratings, and it won’t be long before another emerges, fighting to be top dog in dogging men. All you need is a warped worldview and a nod from Oprah.


And these are just the media hucksters. At least we can say that the men and women who embrace their misandry-for-profit schemes are just another dumbed-down group in a dumbed-down media culture.


The more culpable and dangerous are the ones with the air of legitimacy. These folks don’t write, or don’t just write. They teach, do research, and most dreadfully, hang out their shingles and help infect the world, one gullible client at a time.


The world of psychology in academics and practice has become a weapon in the realm of gender politics. Almost all pretense to objectivity and academic integrity has been forced aside by ideologues with an ax to grind against men and who are using the loathsome disguise of helping professionals to further their agenda.


If you think that is extreme, read on.


Allaboutcounseling.com is purportedly an information and referral resource for people seeking mental health services. What it is in reality is a portal, a conduit that induces women into the mentality that it is the vile scourge of manhood at the root of their problems.


And they offer feminism as the solution before the first session is booked.


Some tidbits from their site include some detailed hype about the fundamentals of feminism and some reassurances that not all feminists are lesbians.


I suppose they figure heterosexual women need such basics. And it’s good pre-sell to overcome objections before they are raised. Ask any used car salesman.


They even have a nifty section promoting a new masculinity. These Freudettes have the key to re-engineering men for the better, with the implication, of course, that the way men are now is defective and in need of an overhaul.


Part of that overhaul is a gag. This is just one of the standouts, as it appears word for word on the site.


Openness- To others (especially to women) criticism of our behaviors and attitudes, listen, listen some more, and only speak if the critic wants feedback.


This isn’t even speak when spoken to. It is shut up and take it. Speak with permission only, from whichever woman is attacking you at the moment.


Ah, the finer aspects of mental health.


They have much more there. Enough bogus stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse for a N.O.W. convention, and staunch defenses of feminism tied in directly with the counseling message. Their ultimate point is clearly that sound mental health for women depends on embracing feminism, and with it the hatred for men.


Sound advice for those seeking love and intimacy if I ever saw it.


At this point, the grease board is showing more grease than board.


I wish I could say that this was the bottom of the pit; that the infection stopped there, but we are still dealing more with the symptoms than the actual disease.


Enter the American Psychological Association, and it’s Division 51 group The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. (SPSMM) You can pronounce the acronym spasm if you want to. I do. And it fits.


Here are two of the bullet points of from the Mission Statement on their home page, out there for the world to see.


Endeavors to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which have historically inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, and have contributed to the oppression of other people.
Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship, and commits itself to support groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.
Aye, there‘s the rub, and with it goes the last remaining bit of room on the grease board. Men are defective, pernicious banes to civilized society. And feminism is the answer.


Even our most revered experts in human nature are saying as much.


And this is how it worked in the old Soviet Union. It is wise to consider that in the Solzhenitsyn era of gulags and iron fisted reaction to political dissent, that most of the dissidents were imprisoned in “mental health facilities,” the logic being that if you disagreed with the state, there must be something wrong with your mind.


It was also a strategy of, and yes, I will say it without reservation, the Hitler regime, to poison the minds of the populace with disinformation about Jews, prepping the people to look the other way while they were dispatched in the name of a master race.


The plans for men may be less extreme and of longer duration, but it is happening nonetheless. Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning. 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji.


It’s hell having all this power. It is a wonder how we find time to oppress the world with it, much less twirl our moustaches and snicker while we do it.


But the anti-male hate machine keeps grinding away. Spasm would no doubt classify the MRM as a mass shared psychosis, and MRA’s individually as antithetical to humanity.


I used to remember that social worker who threw the tantrum in my class with a smile. It was a funny image. But that was some years ago. At the time, I knew the sexism was there, but it was not entrenched as deeply as it is today. And I naively thought it would go away.


I am not smiling about it any more.

The Myth of Women's Oppression Video

The Myth of Women's Oppression

The Myth of Women's Oppression


Forty some odd years ago, feminists bellowed their way into mainstream attention, launching a major offensive on what they called a patriarchal system that had oppressed women for centuries.


Painting women as downtrodden and powerless, they railed against men with the missionary zeal of abolitionists and with largely the same message.


In short, women were slaves and men were their masters. They demanded liberation and have been making demands every since.


They did a magnificent job of pitching all this. That could be a testament to the inherent truth in their ideas. Or it might be something else, like the fact that they already had so much power that few were willing to question anything they said in the first place.


You can put your money on the latter, because even a remotely objective examination of the facts leads to a far more reasonable conclusion.


Women were never oppressed to begin with. Not even close.


I’m no historian, but I did attend some history classes before I finished middle school. So, by the time I was 13, I knew what oppression was. And lucky for me I was 13 in a time when people still knew what it wasn’t.


Oppression has some pretty obvious tell tale signs. Like torture and death; like bullwhips and chains; gas chambers and death camps. Oppression is a roadmap of scars on the back of a field hand that was purchased at an auction. It is the rope that gets strung over a tree branch in broad daylight and used to choke the life out of someone convicted of being the wrong color.


It is an indelible stain on humanity, void of compassion, dehumanizing both the oppressed and the oppressor. And the evidence of it is so offensive to modern sensibilities that we preserve proof of it as lessons for the coming generations.


Now, when we compare those things to the historical world of women, which was largely one of being protected and provided for, we get an entirely different picture. It is a portrait not of the oppressed, but of the privileged. And it begs a good many questions that need to be answered.


For instance, how many times in history did we have slaves with the first rights to a seat in the lifeboat? Which slave masters were compelled to go off to war to protect the lives of their slaves? How many oppressors tore their own bodies down with brutal labor so that they could provide food and shelter for those they oppressed?


Zero sounds like a good answer.


It also makes one wonder, or should, how many slave masters had to get on their knees before their prospective slaves, bearing gold and jewels to ask permission to be their master? How many slaves could say “no” and wait for a better deal?


How about another goose egg?


It’s not coincidental that feminists pointed to marriage as an oppressive institution. Pointing at nothing and making a lot of noise has worked pretty well for them. And so, in a collective fit of neurotic activism they attacked the one institution that had served as the source of more support and protection for women than any other in history. They became obsessed with depicting a walk down the wedding isle as the path to oppression; each woman’s personal Trail of Tears.


You couldn’t buy this kind of crazy if you were Bill Gates.


“Hey!” some feminists are shrieking by now, “What about voting rights? Women were not allowed to vote! That’s oppression!”


Well, no, it’s not. And all we need to do is look at the history of voting in America to prove it.


In the beginning, almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a few older white males who owned land, which left almost all men and a lot of other people out of the picture. This doesn’t say anything particularly special about women. So if this constituted oppression, then it meant that nearly everyone was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch on to that one because they were too busy celebrating their new found freedom.


Anyway, as time passed, because men of good values wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to the men who didn‘t own land, then later to other ethnic groups, then still later to women. Even further down the road the voting age was lowered bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today we are debating the voting rights of illegal aliens.


Formerly oppressed hamsters may be next.


And we should consider that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Like exclusion from combat and men compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors and to die for them at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, mainly to the men. But proof of women’s oppression? Comedians pay for material that isn’t nearly this funny.


The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to…for a while, anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that it was men who had to have land on which to build women homes, or perhaps they figured that men who were expected to face bullets in order to protect that land might be better, more deserving keepers of it.


Who knows what insanities plagued us before feminism restored us to reason.


Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long lived. Besides, not being able to own land was pretty much softened by the fact that women could choose men to provide it for them through that oppressive institution of marriage, and the phallocentric, linear thinking alleged tyrants that they married.


I am old enough to remember well the older rules for men. Work hard and take care of your woman. Be prepared to lay down your life for her. Watch your mouth in the presence of a lady. Offer her your seat, even if she is a stranger. The same for opening doors and lighting smokes.


Disrespect her and risk a beating. Touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man.


This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benefit from these kinds of standards.


Royalty. We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason.


With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the gold standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put the brakes on doing a lot of things out of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot. Accidents happen, especially self inflicted wounds, to people that play with guns when they don’t know what they’re doing.


Still, I have to hand it to feminists in their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skullduggery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would have buckled under the oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.


Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in every aspect of life. Women are now more educated than men and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggests this is going to do anything but favor women even more in the future.


All that from an ideology that resides a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.


I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work and a job well done, but winning a race is easy when you start with one foot already across the finish line, and everyone else pretends not to notice.

Dr. Paul- How to Tell if He Hates Your Fucking Guts Video

Dr. Paul- How to Tell if He Hates Your Fucking Guts

Dr. Paul- How to Tell if He Hates Your Fucking Guts


There is an incalculable amount of advice in the world for women on relationships with men. Scarcely an issue of COSMO or any other women’s magazine has been printed that doesn’t contain articles by some woman or another claiming to give you all the “how’s” on the man in your life. How to snag and keep a man, how to get him to pop the question, how to drive him wild with desire, how to catch him in a lie, how to get him to treat you like a queen or how tell if he is cheating.


And it is not just women’s rags, it’s almost everywhere. You can’t even check your email any more without some headline grabbing your eye that is also pitching the now ubiquitous “how to get what you want from a man” advice. Almost all of it written by and for women.


The fact that so many of you are still reading this stuff might point to the idea that whatever you are reading isn‘t doing a lot of good.


Sarcasm aside, I thought I would offer up some self-help magic for the ladies about men, from a man’s point of view.


Let’s call it “How to Tell if He Hates Your Fucking Guts”


Catchy, eh?


I know, I’m just a man, and as such not as sympathetic to the need for both constant approval and unconditional tolerance for bullshit that has likely left you batting squat in the man department. But I do know that love, at least as far as emotions go, is more conducive to a healthy romantic life than, say, loathing. And I happen to be an expert on how to prevent that hate monster from eating up your dreams of the future.


I won’t leave you hanging by just pointing at the problem, either. For each sign of infectious hate that I identify, there will be a clear cut plan of action to ensure you will ameliorate the problem and move forward with a more loving relationship. You can trust Dr. Paul to cover all the bases.


Your advantage here, ladies, resides in the fact that men are quite simple. You won’t need to buy a study guide or hire a relationship coach to ferret out the truth about how that hombre in your life feels. You just need to be willing to observe and digest what is right in front of you. Your man isn’t prone to subtlety. He doesn‘t hint at hating, he radiates it if you are just paying attention.


That being said, let’s get to work. Here are the most common signs that your man spits upon the ground on which you walk, and what you can do about it.


Sign number one:


He quits fucking you and/or starts fucking someone else.


If your man isn’t fucking you there is definitely something wrong, and there are only a three possible explanations for it. One, he’s gay and has been hiding it. Two, he has a physical problem that needs medical intervention. Or three, the thought of touching you makes his dick wilt like a boutonnière in a blast furnace.


Since number three is the only one that can possibly apply to you, my solution will be confined to that problem. First, you may need to consider that four hours of bitching is not foreplay. Now, some guys are so sex driven that they will actually fuck you while you’re bitching, but you should also know they’re imagining you’re someone else while they’re doing it. Maybe your younger sister.


There are, however, a lot of other guys that lose the amorous mood by the time you have reached bitch #17 on your much longer list of complaints. To them, there is a big difference between whispering sweet nothings in his ear and yelling “You’re nothing,” at him, from across the room.


What you can do about this is simple, assuming you can’t shut up. Organize! Take a minute or two out of each day to make a list of the things about him that dissatisfy you, and then heap them on him all at once. You will find the list reusable because it will only contain things you have been repeating since three months into the relationship. As he continues to reveal his imperfections you can just add to the list.


Oh, and try to get it all out in 7 minutes or less. Brevity is bliss, in the bedroom and out.


Timing is also important. Give him an hour or so to unwind after coming home from work. Then, after you decide where he is taking you for dinner, you can use the car ride to get in your digs. It is a great place for you to say what needs to be said. He is trapped with you next to him, you can keep the nagging out of the home, and, if you finish your tirade before you get to the restaurant, you can set about taking the evening in a more pleasant direction.


Additionally, you may have to skip a day of berating him here and there. Also, and this is the hard part, you will need to occasionally point out some things he does right. You know, just to make things look balanced.


Sign number two:


He does anything, anything he can, not to come home.


If you met your man at a Sierra Club convention and he suddenly takes an interest in hunting wild hog with a crossbow, 300 days a year, well, that is one of those not so subtle signs I was talking about.


As you have surely heard from some of the women writers, men like to retreat into their caves. Whatever your man likes to do for an outside interest, his favorite spot in his home is something sacred to him. So if he finds all manner of reasons not to be there, then there is a problem. And most likely the problem, at least for him, is you.


Ostensibly, you can just refer to the solutions to problem number one. After all, being present is one of the few hard prerequisites to having sex. If you can modify your behavior enough that it will induce him to walk in the door in the first place, it will solve problem number two and go a long way toward helping problem number one as well.


So, the next time you find yourself wanting to ask your man why he doesn’t want to spend more time at home, first take a quiet moment and ask yourself “Why should he?”


Oh, and answering yourself honestly would be a plus.


And by the way, here is a link to some more support. It’s some more detailed advice on how not to nag. There is some good stuff there, but I encourage you to skip over the parts that of course blame him for everything you do and just focus on being less of a pain in the ass.


Sign number three:


He hauls off and smacks the living shit out of you.


This far from subtle sign that your man hates your fucking guts comes generally one of two places. One, he is an abusive asshole and hates everyone, most of all himself. Or two, you are an abusive asshole and he got one too many rounds of your mouth and snapped.


Now if your situation is the former, and you are really sure of that, then your solution is a better man.


But if your situation is the latter, then your only solution is to be alone. Why? Because you are either physically, verbally or emotionally such a complete ass wipe that anyone around you will eventually turn mean. His main mistake was that he didn’t wise up and dump you before things went too far. He was likely just trying to do the right thing, but with the wrong person. And your treatment of him and of the other men in your life leaves you in a position that self help articles sandwiched between lipstick ads aren’t going to help.


The premise is simple. If you want respect, be respectful. If you want to be treated well, treat him well. If you want love, then give it. The only relationship tools that are worth anything are the ones found in the mirror, and ten thousand issues of COSMO ain’t getting anyone around that.


Ever.


And you should drop the COSMO anyway. Articles on how to get what you want from relationships aren’t what anyone needs. In fact, running around trying to scheme and manipulate ways to get what you want from someone else is the problem. It is the chosen, narrow minded path of the selfish and undeserving.


It’s all about what you have to give, baby, and what you’re willing to. Take it from Dr. Paul.


(Authors note: I am not a real Doctor, but I play one on the internet)

Dr. Paul- Your Feelings and Why They Don't Matter Video