Female Violence is Hilarious

Most women are smaller and have less physical strength than men, and a man can usually fend off her blows without suffering serious injuries to himself.
However, some women are athletic and strong. The man who is sexually attracted by large and physically strong women sometimes find out just how dangerous the combination of Herculean strength and female emotions can be.
And with weapons, any women can commit murder.
However, I believe the reason for the gender discrimination in the legal system is motivated by the profits to be made with the plunder the breadwinner model of family law.
Criminal convictions of domestic violence assault require proof beyond reasonable doubt to a jury, but a restraining order only requires a female telling a judge (who as likely as not profited himself from the plunder the breadwinner practice of family law, or is unwilling to be a threat to those who do) that she is “afraid” of a man.
And restraining orders further serve the plunder the breadwinner model of family law for its practicioners.
It is not that they don’t believe that women are the aggressors in 50% of the domestic violence incidents and almost as many husbands are murdered by wives as wives murdered by husbands. They know.
But the easiest way for a lawyer to earn a living is to represent wives and mommies in divorce. No wrongdoing need be proven to obtain property division, alimony and child support that takes everything a man worked for since high school and his freedom too.
Proving wrongdoing, be it a tort, a breach of contract, a failure to pay wages earned, or a crime, is hard work and risky.
With family law, we just dispense with the due process of law and go straight to the deprivation of property.

Most women are smaller and have less physical strength than men, and a man can usually fend off her blows without suffering serious injuries to himself.
However, some women are athletic and strong. The man who is sexually attracted by large and physically strong women sometimes find out just how dangerous the combination of Herculean strength and female emotions can be.
And with weapons, any women can commit murder.
However, I believe the reason for the gender discrimination in the legal system is motivated by the profits to be made with the plunder the breadwinner model of family law.
Criminal convictions of domestic violence assault require proof beyond reasonable doubt to a jury, but a restraining order only requires a female telling a judge (who as likely as not profited himself from the plunder the breadwinner practice of family law, or is unwilling to be a threat to those who do) that she is “afraid” of a man.
And restraining orders further serve the plunder the breadwinner model of family law for its practicioners.
It is not that they don’t believe that women are the aggressors in 50% of the domestic violence incidents and almost as many husbands are murdered by wives as wives murdered by husbands. They know.
But the easiest way for a lawyer to earn a living is to represent wives and mommies in divorce. No wrongdoing need be proven to obtain property division, alimony and child support that takes everything a man worked for since high school and his freedom too.
Proving wrongdoing, be it a tort, a breach of contract, a failure to pay wages earned, or a crime, is hard work and risky.
With family law, we just dispense with the due process of law and go straight to the deprivation of property.

Most women are smaller and have less physical strength than men, and a man can usually fend off her blows without suffering serious injuries to himself.
However, some women are athletic and strong. The man who is sexually attracted by large and physically strong women sometimes find out just how dangerous the combination of Herculean strength and female emotions can be.
And with weapons, any women can commit murder.
However, I believe the reason for the gender discrimination in the legal system is motivated by the profits to be made with the plunder the breadwinner model of family law.
Criminal convictions of domestic violence assault require proof beyond reasonable doubt to a jury, but a restraining order only requires a female telling a judge (who as likely as not profited himself from the plunder the breadwinner practice of family law, or is unwilling to be a threat to those who do) that she is “afraid” of a man.
And restraining orders further serve the plunder the breadwinner model of family law for its practicioners.
It is not that they don’t believe that women are the aggressors in 50% of the domestic violence incidents and almost as many husbands are murdered by wives as wives murdered by husbands. They know.
But the easiest way for a lawyer to earn a living is to represent wives and mommies in divorce. No wrongdoing need be proven to obtain property division, alimony and child support that takes everything a man worked for since high school and his freedom too.
Proving wrongdoing, be it a tort, a breach of contract, a failure to pay wages earned, or a crime, is hard work and risky.
With family law, we just dispense with the due process of law and go straight to the deprivation of property.

I just watched the videoclip. No, I did not laugh, assault for no reason does not amuse me.
Is it just me or is the actor who played the woman a man in drag?

I just watched the videoclip. No, I did not laugh, assault for no reason does not amuse me.
Is it just me or is the actor who played the woman a man in drag?

I just watched the videoclip. No, I did not laugh, assault for no reason does not amuse me.
Is it just me or is the actor who played the woman a man in drag?

It’s not called the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY for nothing: a fellow convicted of even the lowest level misdemeanor for domestic battery represents a nice cash cow for the parasites whose livelihoods depend upon the national DV hysteria scam.

Just to mention the obvious extortion, he can expect to pay an attorney ($2k), court costs ($500), probation fees ($250), and then the big payola for mandatory DV “psycho-dynamic education” classes lasting from 6-24 months depending on the state’s system.

These feminist “shame-and-blame” brainwashing rituals cost around $60 per weekly session – i.e. a cash-out of $1,400 – $5,700.

So a simple DV take-down yields something between $4k – $8k.

Not to mention the guy has been exiled from his home via a Restraining Order, his soon-to-be-ex will have raided his bank account, if kids are part of his scenario, there’s child support to be garnished, and many more thousands in attorney fees during the divorce litigation.

All this calculated extortion can be accomplished by dialing three numbers and stating four words:

9-1-1 … “I’m afraid of him.”

Ca-ching!

It’s not called the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY for nothing: a fellow convicted of even the lowest level misdemeanor for domestic battery represents a nice cash cow for the parasites whose livelihoods depend upon the national DV hysteria scam.

Just to mention the obvious extortion, he can expect to pay an attorney ($2k), court costs ($500), probation fees ($250), and then the big payola for mandatory DV “psycho-dynamic education” classes lasting from 6-24 months depending on the state’s system.

These feminist “shame-and-blame” brainwashing rituals cost around $60 per weekly session – i.e. a cash-out of $1,400 – $5,700.

So a simple DV take-down yields something between $4k – $8k.

Not to mention the guy has been exiled from his home via a Restraining Order, his soon-to-be-ex will have raided his bank account, if kids are part of his scenario, there’s child support to be garnished, and many more thousands in attorney fees during the divorce litigation.

All this calculated extortion can be accomplished by dialing three numbers and stating four words:

9-1-1 … “I’m afraid of him.”

Ca-ching!

It’s not called the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY for nothing: a fellow convicted of even the lowest level misdemeanor for domestic battery represents a nice cash cow for the parasites whose livelihoods depend upon the national DV hysteria scam.

Just to mention the obvious extortion, he can expect to pay an attorney ($2k), court costs ($500), probation fees ($250), and then the big payola for mandatory DV “psycho-dynamic education” classes lasting from 6-24 months depending on the state’s system.

These feminist “shame-and-blame” brainwashing rituals cost around $60 per weekly session – i.e. a cash-out of $1,400 – $5,700.

So a simple DV take-down yields something between $4k – $8k.

Not to mention the guy has been exiled from his home via a Restraining Order, his soon-to-be-ex will have raided his bank account, if kids are part of his scenario, there’s child support to be garnished, and many more thousands in attorney fees during the divorce litigation.

All this calculated extortion can be accomplished by dialing three numbers and stating four words:

9-1-1 … “I’m afraid of him.”

Ca-ching!

Physical size is irrelevant in ambushes and sucker-punches. As shown in the videoclip, a petite woman can catch a large, powerful man unawares and knock him out. Then, she can call 911 and use the VAWA-standard line: “I was afraid and acted in self-defense.” Upon hearing that, the police are required to arrest the man.

As Yakov Smirnoff, the Russian comedian, used to say: What a country!

Physical size is irrelevant in ambushes and sucker-punches. As shown in the videoclip, a petite woman can catch a large, powerful man unawares and knock him out. Then, she can call 911 and use the VAWA-standard line: “I was afraid and acted in self-defense.” Upon hearing that, the police are required to arrest the man.

As Yakov Smirnoff, the Russian comedian, used to say: What a country!

Physical size is irrelevant in ambushes and sucker-punches. As shown in the videoclip, a petite woman can catch a large, powerful man unawares and knock him out. Then, she can call 911 and use the VAWA-standard line: “I was afraid and acted in self-defense.” Upon hearing that, the police are required to arrest the man.

As Yakov Smirnoff, the Russian comedian, used to say: What a country!

I concur. A dumb, yet disturbing clip. British sit-coms are wonderful but sometimes too caustic for my own tastes.

I am not sure if anyone checks out iFeminist Wendy McElroy’s blog on Foxnews.com where she wrote a terrific piece on how feminists want to hide the truth about domestic violence. She wrote about a woman named Erin Pizzy who opened and ran England’s first battered women’s shelter, called the Chiswick Family Rescue from the mid 70s to the early 80s. She later wrote a book called “Scream Quietly or The Neighbors Will Hear” which challenged feminists back then of what were the accepted views concerning domestic violence. Apparently she faced such scorn from her book that she received death threats and bomb threats as well as her family dog being killed.

After that experience she wrote another book which challenged the accepted views of domestic violence one step further. Her three main points were:

“Disagreement #1: Of the first 100 women who entered Chiswick, Pizzey found that over 60 percent were as violent or more violent than the men they were fleeing. In short, a significant percentage of the women were also batterers or otherwise active participants in the violence.

Disagreement #2: Pizzey developed the theory that many battered women were psychologically drawn to abusive relationships and they sought them out. To PC feminists, such analysis was tantamount to ‘blaming the victim.’

Disagreement #3: She explained why the existing model of domestic violence shelters was ineffective. PC feminists were attempting then (and now) to secure ever greater financing for these operations. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick in 1992, reportedly complained, “if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding.”

The article was fascinating and here is the link for anyone who wants to read it further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.html

I think Wendy’s piece dovetails with Marc’s new discussion topic perfectly.

I concur. A dumb, yet disturbing clip. British sit-coms are wonderful but sometimes too caustic for my own tastes.

I am not sure if anyone checks out iFeminist Wendy McElroy’s blog on Foxnews.com where she wrote a terrific piece on how feminists want to hide the truth about domestic violence. She wrote about a woman named Erin Pizzy who opened and ran England’s first battered women’s shelter, called the Chiswick Family Rescue from the mid 70s to the early 80s. She later wrote a book called “Scream Quietly or The Neighbors Will Hear” which challenged feminists back then of what were the accepted views concerning domestic violence. Apparently she faced such scorn from her book that she received death threats and bomb threats as well as her family dog being killed.

After that experience she wrote another book which challenged the accepted views of domestic violence one step further. Her three main points were:

“Disagreement #1: Of the first 100 women who entered Chiswick, Pizzey found that over 60 percent were as violent or more violent than the men they were fleeing. In short, a significant percentage of the women were also batterers or otherwise active participants in the violence.

Disagreement #2: Pizzey developed the theory that many battered women were psychologically drawn to abusive relationships and they sought them out. To PC feminists, such analysis was tantamount to ‘blaming the victim.’

Disagreement #3: She explained why the existing model of domestic violence shelters was ineffective. PC feminists were attempting then (and now) to secure ever greater financing for these operations. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick in 1992, reportedly complained, “if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding.”

The article was fascinating and here is the link for anyone who wants to read it further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.html

I think Wendy’s piece dovetails with Marc’s new discussion topic perfectly.

I concur. A dumb, yet disturbing clip. British sit-coms are wonderful but sometimes too caustic for my own tastes.

I am not sure if anyone checks out iFeminist Wendy McElroy’s blog on Foxnews.com where she wrote a terrific piece on how feminists want to hide the truth about domestic violence. She wrote about a woman named Erin Pizzy who opened and ran England’s first battered women’s shelter, called the Chiswick Family Rescue from the mid 70s to the early 80s. She later wrote a book called “Scream Quietly or The Neighbors Will Hear” which challenged feminists back then of what were the accepted views concerning domestic violence. Apparently she faced such scorn from her book that she received death threats and bomb threats as well as her family dog being killed.

After that experience she wrote another book which challenged the accepted views of domestic violence one step further. Her three main points were:

“Disagreement #1: Of the first 100 women who entered Chiswick, Pizzey found that over 60 percent were as violent or more violent than the men they were fleeing. In short, a significant percentage of the women were also batterers or otherwise active participants in the violence.

Disagreement #2: Pizzey developed the theory that many battered women were psychologically drawn to abusive relationships and they sought them out. To PC feminists, such analysis was tantamount to ‘blaming the victim.’

Disagreement #3: She explained why the existing model of domestic violence shelters was ineffective. PC feminists were attempting then (and now) to secure ever greater financing for these operations. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick in 1992, reportedly complained, “if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding.”

The article was fascinating and here is the link for anyone who wants to read it further.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.html

I think Wendy’s piece dovetails with Marc’s new discussion topic perfectly.

What is really needed is for the tables to be turned in a sitcom or perhaps a public TV spot.
I propose taking a standard sitcom where the man is kicked in the balls, slapped, or otherwise demeaned, and do EXACTLY the same thing to the woman — using the same words, the same props, the same kick to the groin, etc – and play this to the public.

It will create outrage!

And then, the producers just need to state very clearly that “this is a rerun of an episode of “kick your daddy” only we’ve changed the roles slightly.”

Something like this is very very badly needed.
Because “they just don’t see it” until you reverse the roles.

We need to do it.

What is really needed is for the tables to be turned in a sitcom or perhaps a public TV spot.
I propose taking a standard sitcom where the man is kicked in the balls, slapped, or otherwise demeaned, and do EXACTLY the same thing to the woman — using the same words, the same props, the same kick to the groin, etc – and play this to the public.

It will create outrage!

And then, the producers just need to state very clearly that “this is a rerun of an episode of “kick your daddy” only we’ve changed the roles slightly.”

Something like this is very very badly needed.
Because “they just don’t see it” until you reverse the roles.

We need to do it.

What is really needed is for the tables to be turned in a sitcom or perhaps a public TV spot.
I propose taking a standard sitcom where the man is kicked in the balls, slapped, or otherwise demeaned, and do EXACTLY the same thing to the woman — using the same words, the same props, the same kick to the groin, etc – and play this to the public.

It will create outrage!

And then, the producers just need to state very clearly that “this is a rerun of an episode of “kick your daddy” only we’ve changed the roles slightly.”

Something like this is very very badly needed.
Because “they just don’t see it” until you reverse the roles.

We need to do it.

It would be nice if someone were to make that other video and reverse the roles. Then tack it onto this video and shoot it across the web. At the end you could toss in the tag line “why aren’t you laughing anymore ladies?” or “I guess it’s only funny if a man gets hit”

It would be nice if someone were to make that other video and reverse the roles. Then tack it onto this video and shoot it across the web. At the end you could toss in the tag line “why aren’t you laughing anymore ladies?” or “I guess it’s only funny if a man gets hit”

It would be nice if someone were to make that other video and reverse the roles. Then tack it onto this video and shoot it across the web. At the end you could toss in the tag line “why aren’t you laughing anymore ladies?” or “I guess it’s only funny if a man gets hit”

Roger,

As much as I understand and agree with your point, I don’t like the idea of using even more violence to prove it.

I’d prefer to see a woman on TV go to jail for hitting a man. People need to see that.

Bottom line: SOMETHING must be done!

Roger,

As much as I understand and agree with your point, I don’t like the idea of using even more violence to prove it.

I’d prefer to see a woman on TV go to jail for hitting a man. People need to see that.

Bottom line: SOMETHING must be done!

Roger,

As much as I understand and agree with your point, I don’t like the idea of using even more violence to prove it.

I’d prefer to see a woman on TV go to jail for hitting a man. People need to see that.

Bottom line: SOMETHING must be done!

This double standard even gets into such strait-laced publications as Taxation, a professional magazine for those in, you’ve guessed it, the tax profession in the UK. Their supplement about careers in tax has a photo on the front where a man and a woman are in mock combat using coatstands. He’s aiming just above her head, she’s aiming unambiguously at his crotch.

This double standard even gets into such strait-laced publications as Taxation, a professional magazine for those in, you’ve guessed it, the tax profession in the UK. Their supplement about careers in tax has a photo on the front where a man and a woman are in mock combat using coatstands. He’s aiming just above her head, she’s aiming unambiguously at his crotch.

This double standard even gets into such strait-laced publications as Taxation, a professional magazine for those in, you’ve guessed it, the tax profession in the UK. Their supplement about careers in tax has a photo on the front where a man and a woman are in mock combat using coatstands. He’s aiming just above her head, she’s aiming unambiguously at his crotch.

While I will agree that in reality violence of any sort is not funny, the videoclip is NOT REAL and is therefore funny to those of us who have traditionally and historically been deemed “the weaker sex”. At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle. Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious. So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)

While I will agree that in reality violence of any sort is not funny, the videoclip is NOT REAL and is therefore funny to those of us who have traditionally and historically been deemed “the weaker sex”. At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle. Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious. So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)

While I will agree that in reality violence of any sort is not funny, the videoclip is NOT REAL and is therefore funny to those of us who have traditionally and historically been deemed “the weaker sex”. At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle. Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious. So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)

jforreal, so you think the dramatization of domestic violence is funny because it is the woman whacking her man with a FRYING PAN while his back is turned to paint the wall?
Never mind that is a good way to kill a person or leave the person with permanent brain damage.
Would you laugh if she used a knife to stab him in the back? How about shooting him with a gun?
If you think that is funny, watch when he wakes up in the hospital with no idea what happened or how he got there, only to be served with the restraining order accusing HIM of domestic violence and prohibiting HIM from going to HIS home, the one he PAID for with HIS PAYCHECKS!
Lotsa yucks there!
You have an interesting theory jforreal: mere fact that most men have greater physical strength and more muscular development than most women makes ASSAULTING SUCH A MAN WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHILE HIS BACK IS TURNED funny!
“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”
Since that is no longer true (if it ever was), what the Hell does that have to do with a dramatization of deadly violence perpetrated by a woman against a man being allegedly funny?

jforreal, so you think the dramatization of domestic violence is funny because it is the woman whacking her man with a FRYING PAN while his back is turned to paint the wall?
Never mind that is a good way to kill a person or leave the person with permanent brain damage.
Would you laugh if she used a knife to stab him in the back? How about shooting him with a gun?
If you think that is funny, watch when he wakes up in the hospital with no idea what happened or how he got there, only to be served with the restraining order accusing HIM of domestic violence and prohibiting HIM from going to HIS home, the one he PAID for with HIS PAYCHECKS!
Lotsa yucks there!
You have an interesting theory jforreal: mere fact that most men have greater physical strength and more muscular development than most women makes ASSAULTING SUCH A MAN WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHILE HIS BACK IS TURNED funny!
“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”
Since that is no longer true (if it ever was), what the Hell does that have to do with a dramatization of deadly violence perpetrated by a woman against a man being allegedly funny?

jforreal, so you think the dramatization of domestic violence is funny because it is the woman whacking her man with a FRYING PAN while his back is turned to paint the wall?
Never mind that is a good way to kill a person or leave the person with permanent brain damage.
Would you laugh if she used a knife to stab him in the back? How about shooting him with a gun?
If you think that is funny, watch when he wakes up in the hospital with no idea what happened or how he got there, only to be served with the restraining order accusing HIM of domestic violence and prohibiting HIM from going to HIS home, the one he PAID for with HIS PAYCHECKS!
Lotsa yucks there!
You have an interesting theory jforreal: mere fact that most men have greater physical strength and more muscular development than most women makes ASSAULTING SUCH A MAN WITH A DEADLY WEAPON WHILE HIS BACK IS TURNED funny!
“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”
Since that is no longer true (if it ever was), what the Hell does that have to do with a dramatization of deadly violence perpetrated by a woman against a man being allegedly funny?

JForreal,

Only a weak, self-loathing, destructive woman would find female-on-male violence to be funny. People who love themselves never wish harm on others.

Read my article “If Women Were Happy.” http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/03/if-women-were-happy_07.html

What a pity you have so many miserable sisters.

JForreal,

Only a weak, self-loathing, destructive woman would find female-on-male violence to be funny. People who love themselves never wish harm on others.

Read my article “If Women Were Happy.” http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/03/if-women-were-happy_07.html

What a pity you have so many miserable sisters.

JForreal,

Only a weak, self-loathing, destructive woman would find female-on-male violence to be funny. People who love themselves never wish harm on others.

Read my article “If Women Were Happy.” http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/03/if-women-were-happy_07.html

What a pity you have so many miserable sisters.

Jforreal, your comments indicate that you are CLUELESS.

“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”

That’s quite a common bit of falsehood.

In reality, women were typically PROTECTED and SUPPORTED, going back centuries.

The myth that women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle” is the stuff that feminazi propaganda tries to foster among you.

For example, when the Titanic went down in 1913, if women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle”, then why were the MEN left to drown and the women provided with access to the relatively few (in comparison to the need!) lifeboats.

“Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious.”

If women can be expected to take violence seriously, why would you believe that men would behave any differently?

Violence is THREATENING to women…. and men alike. Just ask anyone who faced an armed foe intent on killing – do you believe that simply because one is born with a penis instead of a vagina that the threat of violence is taken lightly?

“So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)”

And to all of the women who believe that violence toward men is only committed by “pecs and quads”, please pull your head out of whichever bodily orifice you have had it stashed for your adult lives.

Violence against men by women includes use of knives, guns, scalding liquids, automobiles, poison, fire, and other lethal forces, not simply fists and feet.

And if abuse of women even with fists or feet is taken as “domestic abuse”, then so ought to be abuse of men, in plays, skits, movies, commercials, or any other form of visualization.

Start reading mensnewsdaily.com stories about violent acts committed by women on men and children and see if you retain your sense of humor on the subject…….. and please let me know if that’s the case and I will try to explain with shorter words.

Jforreal, your comments indicate that you are CLUELESS.

“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”

That’s quite a common bit of falsehood.

In reality, women were typically PROTECTED and SUPPORTED, going back centuries.

The myth that women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle” is the stuff that feminazi propaganda tries to foster among you.

For example, when the Titanic went down in 1913, if women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle”, then why were the MEN left to drown and the women provided with access to the relatively few (in comparison to the need!) lifeboats.

“Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious.”

If women can be expected to take violence seriously, why would you believe that men would behave any differently?

Violence is THREATENING to women…. and men alike. Just ask anyone who faced an armed foe intent on killing – do you believe that simply because one is born with a penis instead of a vagina that the threat of violence is taken lightly?

“So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)”

And to all of the women who believe that violence toward men is only committed by “pecs and quads”, please pull your head out of whichever bodily orifice you have had it stashed for your adult lives.

Violence against men by women includes use of knives, guns, scalding liquids, automobiles, poison, fire, and other lethal forces, not simply fists and feet.

And if abuse of women even with fists or feet is taken as “domestic abuse”, then so ought to be abuse of men, in plays, skits, movies, commercials, or any other form of visualization.

Start reading mensnewsdaily.com stories about violent acts committed by women on men and children and see if you retain your sense of humor on the subject…….. and please let me know if that’s the case and I will try to explain with shorter words.

Jforreal, your comments indicate that you are CLUELESS.

“At one time, women were not even considered citizens in our country and were treated only a little bit better than the cattle.”

That’s quite a common bit of falsehood.

In reality, women were typically PROTECTED and SUPPORTED, going back centuries.

The myth that women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle” is the stuff that feminazi propaganda tries to foster among you.

For example, when the Titanic went down in 1913, if women were “treated only a little bit better than the cattle”, then why were the MEN left to drown and the women provided with access to the relatively few (in comparison to the need!) lifeboats.

“Since men have always been the dominant force in our world, I would not expect them to take the clip so serious.”

If women can be expected to take violence seriously, why would you believe that men would behave any differently?

Violence is THREATENING to women…. and men alike. Just ask anyone who faced an armed foe intent on killing – do you believe that simply because one is born with a penis instead of a vagina that the threat of violence is taken lightly?

“So to all of the men who are offended by the videoclip, I say to you not to worry, your pecs and quads are still a lot stronger than anyone in a skirt (excluding the bagpipe players in Ireland !)”

And to all of the women who believe that violence toward men is only committed by “pecs and quads”, please pull your head out of whichever bodily orifice you have had it stashed for your adult lives.

Violence against men by women includes use of knives, guns, scalding liquids, automobiles, poison, fire, and other lethal forces, not simply fists and feet.

And if abuse of women even with fists or feet is taken as “domestic abuse”, then so ought to be abuse of men, in plays, skits, movies, commercials, or any other form of visualization.

Start reading mensnewsdaily.com stories about violent acts committed by women on men and children and see if you retain your sense of humor on the subject…….. and please let me know if that’s the case and I will try to explain with shorter words.

Marc, I always love reading what you write because you do not placate anybody and you do not candy coat anything to make it more appealing or tasty to any person or group.

‘Female Violence is Hilarious’ and all your articles make me sad and frustrated. I know that the things you write about influence the way men view and treat me, and even make some men fear me. There is extreme unbalance in our society which, more and more, gives unfair advantages to me… to all women.

Men need to stand up to women. Men also need to stand up and protest the system that favors women and speak clearly and loudly about the favoritism and demand change. Letters outside this box can make a difference. I hope everybody that reads your articles will write at least one letter, make one phone call or send one email to a Senator, a radio show, a news show or anyone they can think of who might be able to help level the field.

Marc, I always love reading what you write because you do not placate anybody and you do not candy coat anything to make it more appealing or tasty to any person or group.

‘Female Violence is Hilarious’ and all your articles make me sad and frustrated. I know that the things you write about influence the way men view and treat me, and even make some men fear me. There is extreme unbalance in our society which, more and more, gives unfair advantages to me… to all women.

Men need to stand up to women. Men also need to stand up and protest the system that favors women and speak clearly and loudly about the favoritism and demand change. Letters outside this box can make a difference. I hope everybody that reads your articles will write at least one letter, make one phone call or send one email to a Senator, a radio show, a news show or anyone they can think of who might be able to help level the field.

Marc, I always love reading what you write because you do not placate anybody and you do not candy coat anything to make it more appealing or tasty to any person or group.

‘Female Violence is Hilarious’ and all your articles make me sad and frustrated. I know that the things you write about influence the way men view and treat me, and even make some men fear me. There is extreme unbalance in our society which, more and more, gives unfair advantages to me… to all women.

Men need to stand up to women. Men also need to stand up and protest the system that favors women and speak clearly and loudly about the favoritism and demand change. Letters outside this box can make a difference. I hope everybody that reads your articles will write at least one letter, make one phone call or send one email to a Senator, a radio show, a news show or anyone they can think of who might be able to help level the field.

KateM, it’s women like you that are the hope for a better future for America’s men and women, in my opinion.

KateM, it’s women like you that are the hope for a better future for America’s men and women, in my opinion.

KateM, it’s women like you that are the hope for a better future for America’s men and women, in my opinion.