A rather interesting interpretation considering the DM says that all domestic violence is an expression of male patriarchal dominance over women as a gender.
Lol. No. Come on. It only says that the typical expression of domestic violence is the result of a patriarchal society where men are expected to control their partners. And I don't know what about that is disputable. That is certainly a common phenomenon. Half the fights I have with my father in law are about my unwillingness to control her in the way he thinks I should. That is not an uncommon phenomenon or viewpoint, and it was certainly the way the last 18 or 19 out of 20 generations were raised (when domestic violence was still nothing more than an acceptable method to achieve that).
Even if it were wrong, I don't see how it could remotely be viewed as hateful. And I do think it is sometimes wrong. Sometimes it is about personality disorders or anger management or something else. But the premise is that we shouldn't treat DV like we would otherwise treat aggravated assault (i.e., by just sending them to jail and calling it a day). And the primary reason is that where it is learned behavior, we can try to teach better behavior. But, even when it is wrong about cause, the prescription still works. Because people who have personality disorders or anger management can also benefit and be rehabilitated by treatment, patriarchy aside. Unfortunately, I know people who have been through this, and it isn't about spreading "hateful ideology" it is about teaching better ways to cope--whether it is with lack of control or anger management, and they are often inter-connected.
At any rate. It is a benefit, not a burden to men who are convicted of DV. Because the goal becomes to rehabilitate and reintegrate and to preserve parental rights where possible, instead of just resorting to jail and jail alone.
How can you honestly deny the dishonest reporting of the wage gap statistics? Not only is it false, it's egregiously false. Even the very premise is false. The statistics dont mean what hey say they men, and even using the same logic we'd have to conclude men are discriminated against. This attitude you are showing is precisely what MRA's are criticising.
This is called a conclusory argument. You just restate your conclusion over and over without proving any actual argument or substance. There is literally nothing to respond to here.
It wasn't 20 replies, and you were given these examples 2 days ago.
Yeah, that wasn't mean literally, I didn't count them. But it was quite a few. You will have to show me where you said that, if so I missed it.