Gordon wrote on Jun 30
th, 2020 at 9:02pm:
After a case of DV when everything has settled down and they decide they want to work things out, the man should go to counseling where he's told, never never never hit a woman (never hit anyone while we're on the subject)
Meanwhile the woman would be with her counselor where she's asked, what was the last thing you said before he hit you. Now if that turns out to be, You've got a little dick and I slept with all your friends and I'm going to take the kids the dog and the cat and you'll never see us again, she gets just as much counseling as the bloke.
Fair?
You mistake the DV 'laws' - like so very many here - they are a civil action designed to 'prevent' violence by jumping in at ANY hint of disagreement in a personal relationship between assumed adults, and sanctioning one side but not the other, even when NO VIOLENCE HAS OCCURRED.
If violence has occurred - it is assault.... it is not legally 'domestic violence' - but if an order is in place already (on any whimsy), such violence constitutes a breach of the order. Two different things.
A person cannot be convicted of assault under 'dv' law - only under the laws of assault - that person can only be convicted under 'dv' law of breaching an order.
That is where this whole thing has been off the rails from Day One - people assume that the 'civil action' of imposing an order equals violence, when it does not. That, of course, was the whole purpose in framing these 'laws' the way they were - to fit into the feminist paradigm that all men are brutes and all women angels, that only men hit women, and to fit the narrative that all women are bashed at some time in their life by men exclusively, and therefore that women are victims of a social structure that permits this.
You're educated and intelligent enough, Gordo, to know the very real differences between this stance and reality - and what that stance has cost this nation and society over the past thirty years or more, and to understand the very real presence of lunatic feminism in all this.
Remember the old feminist slogan back in the eighties or so? The Oppressor Has No Rights!
Now indeed the 'oppressor' - as defined by them only - has no rights. Take a look around you.
Then consider the use of terms like 'racism' and the 'oppressor module' to justify revolt, violence and constant attacks on society and culture.
Then consider the likes of GregPecc, mothra, and a few others here - who continue to imagine that their never-ending attacks on our social structures are justified by such things as 'racism', 'misogyny', 'Islamophobia' (to justify the concept that Muslims are somehow oppressed here by an 'oppressive society'), Sinophobia and so forth - and even mothra's fantastical 'fanaticism' - as if any dissenter to her City Hall views is a black-shirted Nazi marching against the poor innocents of the world who are only going about tearing things down to suit themselves... poor widdle fellahs.
As I said - mothra has come full circle from being the revolutionary to being the reactionary... so have they all..... all honourable fanatics... (amazing how someone can hold to a set of views so fanatically - and yet attempt to label those who disagree as 'fanatics')