Excellent article, thanks for that TE.

Indeed, interesting article, more fuel for the DV obsessives..

Whats the answer?

State subsidised refuges?

Or just folk being a bit more choosey who they shack up with..?

Men should be presumed to be heads of their families, and be able to take "effective remedial measures.."

Men who are abused should give the woman a real good smacking to put her back in her rightful place. If the law didn't interfere, male victims would rarely be a problem. The state has ruined the natural balance of powerbetween men and women, so stupid bitches attack men knowing the law is on their side. If the law fucked off out of my business when I was younger, I'd have give my sisters a real good smacking when they tried to abuse me, or my parents. Problem fucking solved, without any outside interference.

Indeed fs.. and one would hope that the femal in question would learn a valuable lesson that would help her avoid repeats in future!!

Well nature gave men the strength to over power uppity women. The law has basically taken away the powers which nature gave us. Men, myself included, don't want to smack women around, but we should be able to administer a good back hand when it's needed.

Also, another problem is, if men were given the power back by the state to smack women when they step out of line, the percentage of male DV victims would drastically lower. The ideal situation is for the violence to be kept to a minimum as much as possible, but sometimes I think MRAs would be happier with men being the victims 50% of the time. If women being the victims more often than men means that the number of DV victims lowers over all for both men and women, then that is clearly the best case scenario, surely?

Quote from Feminist_Scum

Also, another problem is, if men were given the power back by the state to smack women when they step out of line, the percentage of male DV victims would drastically lower. The ideal situation is for the violence to be kept to a minimum as much as possible, but sometimes I think MRAs would be happier with men being the victims 50% of the time. If women being the victims more often than men means that the number of DV victims lowers over all for both men and women, then that is clearly the best case scenario, surely?

You are so right. Real MEN don't need no stinkin' "shelters" and "DV" pigs messing with our lives. What real MEN need is for the femernment and their blue suited Gestapo pigs to bet the f' out of our lives and out of our homes. Time was, not so long ago, before feminism, that a man ruled his home. Time was, not so long ago, when the government didn't mess with a man's home without proven crime.

All the "I'm a victim too" crapola will not do the Men's Movement or real men any good at all. Even if men "win" and prove they are also "victims" they have succeeded in nothing but validating the evil femiernment interference in our lives. By arguing that "men are victims too" you have VALIDATED the whole feminist dogma of "DV," victims, and gun thug control of our lives.

Like you say, real MEN don't want any part of that crap.

Blessings

Bob

DV shelters for men is a joke. The man who buys the house should be kicking the woman OUT of HIS home when the woman steps out of line. Maybe if we had something like this happening, women would stop being such bitches because they would be held accountable for their actions, held accountable by the man who puts food in their ungreatful fucking mouths!!