Domestic Violence Reality – the exception vs the rule.
February 192010
This issue needs more attention!!!
A list of some common problems with bureaucracy (wikipedia)
- Overspecialization, making individual officials not aware of larger consequences of their actions
- A phenomenon of group thinking, zealotry, loyalty, and lack of critical thinking regarding the organization which is perfect and always correct by definition, making the organization unable to change and realize its own mistakes and limitations.
- Disregard for dissenting opinions, even when such views suit the available data better than the opinion of the majority.
- A phenomenon of Catch 22 – as bureaucracy creates more and more rules and procedures, their complexity rises and cooperation diminishes, facilitating the creation of contradictory and recursive rules.
- Not allowing people to use common sense as everything must be as is written by the law.
We need to take steps to prevent officials from using these inherent flaws in bureacracy to advance thier own ideology, or for financial gain.
For the full video visit canadacourtwatch.com
for more info on this issue have a look at “Legalizing Misandry: from public shame to systematic discrimination against men” by Paul Nathanson & Katherine K. Young
Duration : 0:10:30
[youtube CWp_PtlsJu4]
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
by “tunnel vision” …
by “tunnel vision” walter is refering to the bizzare belief that the experiences and stories of the women at the shelter can be generalized to the entire population as if it were a random sample.
They do actually claim that If o1 in 4 women at the shelter were assaulted, then that must mean that 1 in 4 Canadian women are assaulted.
Walter only generalizes from his own male DV clients who tend to have no priors, to male DV clients in Ontario, which is probably warranted.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
This is one area …
This is one area where what you might call the “middle ground” or the majority opinion is missing the boat.
His point is not so much about the men, as to how the system is structured in a way that makes it immune to reality.
If you learn more about this particular issue, I think that you will see how it is not a mere over reaction, but a full fledged witch hunt, which is not capable of solving the problem of domestic violence due to its ideological bent.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I do believe the …
I do believe the attorney in the video IS correct about his assessment of who “is riding the bull” right now in terms of policy and enforcement – his ideological adversaries, the “shelter movement”, etc.
I believe here in Canada (and from what I know, the situation is pretty similar in most of the U.S.), there has been (in some ways) a hysterical “over reaction” to what had long been a real but ignored problem (wife battery.)
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Speaking of “tunnel …
Speaking of “tunnel vision”, is it possible that this defense attorney has a little of his own? I mean, he see’s nothing but men swearing up and down that they’ve been wronged by the system. Not completely unlike the people he speaks of who got “shell shocked” by seeing nothing but battered women and real bad “hard luck” cases.
That said, I tend to think the “truth” is somewhere between the extremes in rhetoric.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I hope they lock …
I hope they lock her up and throw away the key, ALVHUN. Women like that should be punished harshly.
And thank you for understanding how I feel.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
@amymichellestone I …
@amymichellestone I refer to what happened to your boyfriend in your relationship with him as “Second Hand Divorce.”
YOU are feeling the effect of the wrath of ill minded women many of who should be behind bars or in an asylum! Instead the men they intentionally harm are getting cuffed! That me off deeply.
My ex-wife attempted to frame me for sexually arousing my child, that never happened. I will be seeking charges being laid in due time for public mischief and perjury!!!
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
The PARS business …
The PARS business is also a protection racket, and the only reason that they get away with it is due to the social stigma against the accuzed, which the government is also promoting. Participation is not really voluntary.
You also have the promotion of a strong bias against men, along with a strong bias against the accuzed. There is also a thriving PARS industry that has sprung up recently (not mentioned in this video) to meet the extremely high demand created by this zero tolerance policy.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
You know it amazes …
You know it amazes me, that with all the things the government tries to gurantee people now, we still have to pay out of our own pocket for justice. I’m all for free market lawyers but court fees should be handled by the state. If society imposes an expense, they should cover it.
I’m a small government fiscal hawk but people shouldn’t have swallow their pride and say “no contest”, just because they can’t afford to be exonerated.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
No, you just jump …
No, you just jump on the bandwagon and point your finger at these radical, man-hating feminists and think you’re saying something profound. You’re vastly over representing them. It’s the same bullshit O’Reilly pulls.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
You must be getting …
You must be getting sleepy.
You are reacting to nothing.
Yes there are many different feminists with different ideas.
Wow.
I get it.
Never say anything bad about feminism. that would be generalizing.
But if you want to say something good about it, that is perfectly acceptable.
Feminism can take credit but not blame.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Really? Because you …
Really? Because you jump on my comments, but don’t seem to have much to say to, “Durrr feminists are ugly”.
Do I really have to do this again? Really?
Google Annie Sprinkle, for the love of fuck.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I do not refuse to …
I do not refuse to acknowledge that most people are not extremists.
Especially if by “extremist” you mean only those people who take direct, violent, or criminal action in the name of thier cause.
By definition, most people can not be extreme, most people must be moderate.
But labeling or dismissing people as “radials” does not mean much or advance the discussion. That is a very glib strategy IMO to use that word to cherry pick amongst the members of any ideological movement.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I resent your …
I resent your implication that I am trying to hide my true opinions. I am not.
Please tell me what you think is the real difference between a so called “radical” and a “moderate”?
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I think this …
I think this comment pretty much exposed your tru opinions. You refuse to acknowledge that most people in this world aren’t extremists. They’re moderate. Including feminists, Muslims, Jews, and Animal Rights activists.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“Radical Feminism” …
“Radical Feminism” doesn’t mean much… much like “Radical Islam”.
On the other hand, “Feminism” does not stand for “Equality” any more than “Islam” stands for “Peace.”
For one thing, Walter probably wants to distance himself from the stigma of being an anti-feminist (becaues most people will just ignore him and his message). Clearly not all feminist individuals or groups either support this, or deserve the blame for it… there is no need to take on the world. Only World Communitarianism.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
The “shelter …
The “shelter movement” idea – that one battered woman represents all women – has everything to do with Radical Feminism. The two are not dissimilar.