Thanks JD.

The natural consquence of the DV obsessives agenda will be to criminalise any disagreements couples have, effecitively, making it practically impossible for men and women to live together or raise families under the same roof..

Is everyone here too fucking dense to realise that?

What do you want?

CCTV in everyhome monitoring every intereaction for "abuse"?

DV is always "under-reported"..

Get real losers..

As ever, extreme examples are used to justify the interevention of the state on the most minor of issues..

This is the road to real gender appartheied and state control of every aspect of interpersonal relations..

Drex, are you an anarchist? Like it or not, government is always going to be involved in our personal lives. The best we can hope for is that it be unbiased. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

Quote from KellyMac

Drex, are you an anarchist? Like it or not, government is always going to be involved in our personal lives. The best we can hope for is that it be unbiased. There's the ideal, and then there's reality.

Bollox! How the hell can you expect a Gov to be unbiased? they serve themselves and their own paymasters..

The plebs want state control in order to give up their own responsibilties for sorting their own shit out.. They are too thick to see that they are inviting their own destruction.. They will fall foul of the state with greater negative consequences than what they had before with their "partner"..

As long as men are propping the feminazi's up and demanding the same state abuse to be heaped on women as in now heaped on men, we are going to find that more and more we are all in fear of the state and all unable to have any disagreements between ourselves without some fucking sad cunt claimining "Abuse!! help me nanny!!"

And I will tell you one more thing, the bias is more to do with social class than gender..

The ideal is, according to the statist utopians..

"we can all exist and thrive without any need to aggress or disagree or argue with others, and the state can ensure that this is done by means of its excellent unbiased police forces and social services.."

The reality is, the state is corrupt and wishes to socially engineer the lower classes into compliance and accepting the dictates of the higher classes..

By attempting to eliminate all gender disagreements, the state will criminalise both genders, reduce the social status of those criminalised and claim a moral high ground and superiority on the basis of the resulting criminalised status..

Sick social engineering and the MRM is walking striaght into the arms of the statis oppressors..

There are already many factions of the MRM who reccomend court adverseriality to suppress women and mothers, they also reccomend the use of surveliance technology in order to gather "evidence"..

Sick fucks..

Why not just advocate the full 1984 solution..?

cameras in every room, no privacy, state endorsed relationships only..

Count me out of that sick shit..

Losers are unable to ever win anything, the born loser will always find that even when a victory seems achieved, they find they have actually somehow managed to put ball in the back of their own net..

I hear what you're saying, Drex. I agree with you that bigger is rarely better. I'd like to see private charities take over most of the human services stuff, with maybe gov't oversight to monitor abuses. The problem is, who defines "abuse"? It's a very vague term.

I'd also like to see an end to affirmative action. Let the employer hire the person most qualified. If that person happens to be a white male, it doesn't mean there was any discrimination involved.

I don't know the answer. Revolution? I don't know how you make bureaucracy (that's a hard one to spell; had to look it up!) smaller.

I learned something in my tax class though. Alimony payments are deductible for the payer and have to be reported as income by the receiver. Child support doesn't count at all for income tax purposes.

Quote from KellyMac

....Child support doesn't count at all for income tax purposes.

Not entirely true KM. He who... or should I say SHE who has the child gets the child tax credit and deductions.

So, sure SHE may not have to claim the CS as income, but that 1-2K child dependancy credit and the other goodies having an under aged, in school child in the home gives is just as good as an extra few bucks (on top of the CS) in the pocket....


TMOTS

Quote from themanonthestreet

Not entirely true KM. He who... or should I say SHE who has the child gets the child tax credit and deductions.

So, sure SHE may not have to claim the CS as income, but that 1-2K child dependancy credit and the other goodies having an under aged, in school child in the home gives is just as good as an extra few bucks (on top of the CS) in the pocket....


TMOTS

True that. Unless she signs a waiver allowing him to claim the exemption (like that's gonna happen), but he still can't get most of the credits. The child tax credit and the dependent care credit pretty much go to the custodial parent. The system sucks, no doubt about it.

I've never been divorced, so I didn't find this stuff out until just recently. I just thought it was cool about how the alimony has to be reported. And you KNOW the IRS double-checks that one.

Quote from Drex

The natural consquence of the DV obsessives agenda will be to criminalise any disagreements couples have, effecitively, making it practically impossible for men and women to live together or raise families under the same roof..

Actually, the agenda speaks for itself. Equality under the law. Men who fight back against female abusers are deemed batterers and are criminally prosecuted, often placed into brainwashing programs. The agenda is not to criminalize "disagreements," but rather to criminalize physical violence by both men and women. Do you think this is just an issue of husband and wife? A violent wife hurts not only her husband, but also her own children. However, studies show that a violent husband correspondingly only hurts his children 6 percent of the time. Focusing on the existence of the problem of domestic violence does not necessarily lead to statism, nor does your active participation on this forum and its discussions lead to statism.

Quote from Drex

Is everyone here too fucking dense to realise that?

Translation: "Is everyone here too fucking dense to agree with me????"

Quote from Drex

What do you want?

CCTV in every home monitoring every intereaction for "abuse"?

I think that one was directed at me, because of my site, DontMakeHerMad.com. The point of using surveillance is to give cohabiting men a means to smoothly exit an abusive relationship by documenting a pattern of the woman's abuses prior to the split (or at least daily documenting the man's non-abuse, taking into account the fact that false criminal allegations often include mention of specific times and places, which can be undermined by well-placed surveillance).

You don't just put up video cameras in your home when you're living in peace and in a faithful relationship. You do it when you want to get out, or when you suspect that she wants YOU to get out. It's a means of establishing your credibility in the endgame of divorce and restraining order "kick-outs."

Quote from Drex

DV is always "under-reported"..

I suspect your use of quotes denies the premise. The reason why we know DV is under reported is because this claim refers to reports to law enforcement. It most certainly is "reported," on confidential surveys, in hospital emergency rooms, to shelters for victims, etc. The question is whether the "reporter" stands to gain something in the act of reporting, or not.

Quote from Drex

Get real losers..

As an admin, I'll give you some reality: Keep it up, and you'll find out just how real this can be.

Quote from Drex

As ever, extreme examples are used to justify the interevention of the state on the most minor of issues..

Translation: Intervention of the state is always unjustified, because DV itself is a minor issue.

Quote from Drex

This is the road to real gender appartheied and state control of every aspect of interpersonal relations..

The article focused on the FACT that women abuse men about as often as the reverse. That is all. When violence in the home is used as a tool (a tool of intimidation, or a tool of venting anger), all kinds of people suffer. Retaliatory violence, and the threat thereof, does not always produce the happy home that you predict. The one legitimate purpose of government is national and local security. Arresting someone for putting bruises and gashes in someone's head is not akin to establishing a totalitarian regime. You need to get some perspective, my anarchist opponent.

Quote from John Dias

Actually, the agenda speaks for itself. Equality under the law. Men who fight back against female abusers are deemed batterers and are criminally prosecuted, often placed into brainwashing programs. The agenda is not to criminalize "disagreements," but rather to criminalize physical violence by both men and women. Do you think this is just an issue of husband and wife? A violent wife hurts not only her husband, but also her own children. However, studies show that a violent husband correspondingly only hurts his children 6 percent of the time. Focusing on the existence of the problem of domestic violence does not necessarily lead to statism, nor does your active participation on this forum and its discussions lead to statism.

DV has always existed and always will. Physical violence, mental villenec, whatever, its a matter in my opinion of where does one draw the line?

I think I bit of "violence" is acceptable in close personal relationships. Iam not talking about breaking bones and such things, just, well, "reasonable chastisement"..

End of the day, the state WILL impose violence with impuniity and the state cannot be aware of all the background in any case..

I do not think that the state should monoplise violence.

Translation: "Is everyone here too fucking dense to agree with me????"

I am merely stating the obvious. Criminalisation of all forms of DV to the ludicrous extent (as seems to be expected by the DV lobby) will make close personal relationships practically impossible apart from the few vulcans amongst us.. (Fortunately, I have very vulcan like tendancies, but even I get mad when dealing with idiots, usually of the female variety!)

I think that one was directed at me, because of my site, DontMakeHerMad.com. The point of using surveillance is to give cohabiting men a means to smoothly exit an abusive relationship by documenting a pattern of the woman's abuses prior to the split (or at least daily documenting the man's non-abuse, taking into account the fact that false criminal allegations often include mention of specific times and places, which can be undermined by well-placed surveillance).

You don't just put up video cameras in your home when you're living in peace and in a faithful relationship. You do it when you want to get out, or when you suspect that she wants YOU to get out. It's a means of establishing your credibility in the endgame of divorce and restraining order "kick-outs."

It was not actually directed at you personally, but I was aware of your site (after I typed the statement I wondered if you would take it personally, well, it was not directed at you alone as I know MANY folk how use the same methods, they dont usually go down very well with the elite feminazi courts..) and my view is that such methods should not be needed and the fact that they are used suggests to me very strongly that men are pandering to the feminazi and playing their games, should not be needed..

I suspect your use of quotes denies the premise. The reason why we know DV is under reported is because this claim refers to reports to law enforcement. It most certainly is "reported," on confidential surveys, in hospital emergency rooms, to shelters for victims, etc. The question is whether the "reporter" stands to gain something in the act of reporting, or not.

Of course it is under reported. I would guess that some form of DV or other occurs daily in most relationships.. (usually , as you mentioned, not an issue till someone thinks they can "gain" by reporting it..) Pervers incentives as ever..

As an admin, I'll give you some reality: Keep it up, and you'll find out just how real this can be.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Unless its one of your oft reported bullying tactics, using your admin status to threaten the lesser mortals..

I shall take it as a threat shall I? Looks like "DV" to me!!

Translation: Intervention of the state is always unjustified, because DV itself is a minor issue.

What book are you reading translations from?

The statement was quite clear, the DV obssesives always use extreme examples (and the bullshit "emotional harm" flannel to try and justify intervention on the most petty levels..)

The article focused on the FACT that women abuse men about as often as the reverse. That is all. When violence in the home is used as a tool (a tool of intimidation, or a tool of venting anger), all kinds of people suffer. Retaliatory violence, and the threat thereof, does not always produce the happy home that you predict. The one legitimate purpose of government is national and local security. Arresting someone for putting bruises and gashes in someone's head is not akin to establishing a totalitarian regime. You need to get some perspective, my anarchist opponent.

I am not particularly anarchistic, I do however wonder what good is done by the state sticking its snout into minor domestic disagreements that the DV lobbyists use as a weapon in order to obtain the resources they seek. The DV lobbyists create perverse incentives, they create a situation whereby an individual BENFFITS greatly by provoking an attack upon themselves or engineering a situation.. My perspective and sense of reality are just fine thank you..
Now, its well known that the classic female provocation is to commnit adultery and then tease her partner about it..
And, a classic male provocation is to deny attention to the whore, smirk and pull faces, etc..
All that the DV lobby really achieve is the infantilisation of couples in my view.
And, I suspect they may actually INCREASE levels of DV by creating the perverse incentives in that the "Victim" benfits from being "abused"..
Now, tell my how a person avoids DV?
The only way is to AVOID being in a co-habitting relationship..
And that, is precisely the point I am making..
The DV obsessives are making relationships too risky and handing all the power to the state (which cant stop DV anyway)..