So apparently domestic violence laws are a crime against nature. Who knew?
Well, the repellent “game” guru and all-around human stain Roosh Valizadeh knows, or thinks he knows, and he devoted a long and strange post yesterday to explaining just why. Oh, and why laws forbidding bees from attacking ants are a bad thing.
We’re going to skip the bugs — they’re the main characters in a bizarre fable Roosh uses to start off his post — and move right on to the part of Roosh’s post that deals directly with human beings.
Here is his thesis, baldly (and badly) stated:
Creating laws to prop up the weak is like playing a game of musical chairs. … Domestic violence laws are a great example of this phenomenon. Assault and battery is already outlawed, but by creating a new class of laws that create privilege for a specific group, a new immunity is formed. The ecosystem is damaged, unprepared to take on the unintended consequences of misguided intervention.
Of course, by this logic, you could argue that pretty much all laws interfere with the “ecosystem.” Interesting that he only applies this argument to female victims of domestic abuse. (He seems unaware that male DV victims even exist.)
In Ukraine, I witnessed a man slap his girlfriend on a crowded pedestrian street. Over 20 men must have witnessed the event, but no one rushed to her aid. She also did nothing, not screaming or running away. With primitive (i.e. rarely prosecuted) domestic violence laws in Ukraine, you’d think that this sort of thing would happen all the time, but it was the first time I had seen it in a country that I had spent 6 months in. Men show surprising restraint when it comes to violence against their women, something that may be a shock to people living in countries with advanced domestic violence laws.
So … a guy hitting his girlfriend in public is proof of the restraint of Ukrainian men?
In the USA, with nearly two decades of such laws on the books, what do you see? Women hitting men and women attacking men they don’t even know. I’m sure you’ve seen many such videos on Youtube and LiveLeak, which make it seem like women are warriors, completely fearless of men.
Really? Argumentum ad YouTube? On YouTube, you can find videos of dudes farting on other dudes’ heads, dudes shooting bottlerockets out of their own asses, women climbing into plastic bags for no reason, and, well, these ingenious masochists.
I’m really not sure you can attribute any of these activities to specific pieces of legislation.
With their elevation as a special victim in need of state protection, there is usually no punishment for hitting men, even if the man hits back only to defend himself. Girl hits man, man pushes girl away, girl calls cops, man goes to jail.
The idea that a mere accusation from a “girl” will send a man to jail is simply not true. Yesterday, George Zimmerman’s estranged wife accused him of threatening her and others with a gun, and punching his father-in-law in the nose. He did not go to jail.
If she’s married, she gets an additional bonus of monthly cash payments once the divorce is settled. Encouraging a man to fight has become financially beneficial for women.
She may get awarded child support, which she’ll be lucky to collect. Very few women get alimony.
Like the ants, women know that the laws give them a pass. They are taking full advantage of it, predictably conforming to their environment. Men are demoted to second class citizens and live in fear of going to jail while women have impunity to act in any way they want. The result? Less marriage, more violent marriages, unhappy relationships, and more single parent households.
Yes, that’s right. Roosh is seriously arguing that domestic violence laws lead to “more violent marriages.” Never mind that, in fact, domestic violence has fallen dramatically in the US in the last two decades, in part because of laws like the Violence Against Women Act (which also protects male DV victims). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “the overall rate of intimate partner violence in the United States declined by 64%” from 1994 through 2010.
But Roosh doesn’t let things like facts get in the way of his rant.
Nature, while not perfect, has spend hundreds of thousands of years optimizing sex roles through trial and error to facilitate human reproduction. … Recent utopian schemes to “protect” women have ushered in policies that have no proven effectiveness, whether increasing the happiness of women, protecting the family unit, or advancing society in any form. They might as well have been pulled out of a top hat, an experiment done on the masses by those in power.
Yeah, “no proven effectiveness” — aside from the fact that they actually seem to have cut DV in half in less than 20 years.
Progressives, through their tinkering, are introducing disincentives that destroy even basic relationships instead of stabilizing them. Their policies have helped create men such as myself, who see absolutely no incentive to pursue a relationship in a country where I can go to jail and be robbed blind from a failed relationship or from a woman lying about how I treat her.
I don’t know what creates men such as yourself, but I’m pretty sure it’s not feminism.
Roosh goes on to note that in Ukraine, the kids he sees walking around with their parents “seem quite happy.” Oh, the kids you observe at a distance and know nothing about “seem happy?” That settles it! Top notch social science research work, dude!
Moreover, he adds,
In a place where women are not considered protected, some may even be surprised to never see women with bruises and black eyes, or see them getting beat up every day, screaming for help.
Yep, that’s right, so long as women aren’t walking around with visible bruises and/or getting beaten up in public, all is well and we can assume that domestic violence is not a problem at all.
In fact, as even a quick visit to useful web site known as “Google” will reveal, domestic violence is in fact a huge problem in Ukraine. Indeed, according to one 2009 survey cited here, a staggering 44% of Ukrainians have been victims of DV; 75% of them never sought help for it — not altogether surprising, for while the country does in fact have laws against it, they are generally fairly ineffective.
As Amnesty International noted in a recent report on the subject,
Perpetrators of domestic violence in Ukraine act with impunity. The Law on the Prevention of Violence in the Family does not provide adequate protection to victims of violence and perpetuates the myth that women are to blame for the violence that is perpetrated against them. Police often fail to take action when women report domestic violence and sometimes react inappropriately. Women who attempt to take the perpetrators to court are hampered by widespread corruption or find that the punishments imposed are inadequate.
And while DV in the US is down, government officials in Ukraine warn that DV rates there may be rising.
Roosh, if he knows any of this, doesn’t really give a shit.
There will always be an unfortunate level of violence between man and woman, but any attempt to fix it through random laws and policies, as has been done in America, will only make it worse. Nature, in spite of its flaws, is more often right than wrong.
Forgive me, but I really hope that Roosh is eaten by a bear.
“I think that ant/bee/worm parable is just screaming out to be illustrated.”
Death to all Ants, Bees and Men!
Feminist Warrior Worm Forever!
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/05/e3/36/05e336ee7e295ee6277c2bea7c593953.jpg
@Cloudiah
Thank you. When I saw it, it screamed ‘Manboobz’ at me. I couldn’t wait to show you all.
Oh, I see. The worms are feminism. Now it clicks.
@grumpycat
Everything Evil is feminism (in mra/pua land)
And? I’ve lived in the US for 29 years, and I’ve never seen that sort of thing in public. While Roosh is concluding that it must never happen at all, I’ve seen plenty of that shit in private, or on the news, or heard about it from survivors.
Yeah, because there are no videos out there of men hitting women. There isn’t a /beatingwomen subreddit, either.
And he knows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that of all the various ways humanity has, and has had, for structuring gender relations, the one he’s most familiar with/most wants to believe in is the “optimal” one.
If they’re not protected, legally or socially, why would they bother asking for help? Who would they ask? Back when that shit was legal in the US, people would just tell victims to keep it to themselves, that it was a private matter and no one else’s business. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same is true in the Ukraine.
Oh look, another asshole who thinks that women having the right to leave violent relationships means that men have no rights.
“Recent utopian schemes to “protect” women have ushered in policies that have no proven effectiveness, whether increasing the happiness of women, protecting the family unit, or advancing society in any form.”
Notice that he avoids mentioning violence against womem. So either he knows the actual effectiveness in reducing violence against women and is weaseling out of lying (and also implying that less violence doesn’t make women happier), or he simply doesn’t regard violence against women as detrimental to their happiness.
So much wrong with that picture, and that’s beside the phallic imagery of the worm she’s killed and is straddling.
Also, every time I look at that picture of Roosh, I think he looks like a scruffy, disreputable George Harrison.
Which reminds me I could be listening to Beatles rather than looking at Roosh. Perhaps I ought to do that.
Aren’t worker ants and worker bees all females? So, in the beginning of his weird fairy tale, he’s basically describing an all female paradise that is disrupted when a little boy (male) enters the equation?
And I’m still confused how domestic violence laws are like musical chairs?
This is almost like the same crap they say about rape; that a certain “level of violence” is perfectly natural and normal (so raping and hitting are just men being men?) so women are just going to have to deal with it; that women lie about cosmetic violence the same way they make false rape accusations in order to lord power over men; and this is (somehow) going to destroy civilization because it inverts the “natural” power hierarchy of men over women. And, of course, completely denying things like reality and facts and stuff like that.
“Also, every time I look at that picture of Roosh, I think he looks like a scruffy, disreputable George Harrison.”
At first I thought it was a bad Dave Grohl costume.
It’s telling that Roosh claims to know the truth of nature’s design and laws but can’t think of a better predator for bees and ants than worms.
I thought the V stood for 5. And I was confused. Now that I’m not, I’m repelled by his ‘logic’. Pretty sure I’d rather just be confused by his name .
Does Roosh actually regard himself an MRA, as well as a PUA? This essay and several others oh his sound very much like “The Worst of MRM” and not at all like pick-up artistry. Just like that recent screed by LaidinNYC sounded very MGHOW-ish (what with being ritualistic negging targeted at nobody in particular).
Surely Roosh must be aware of the MRM since he picked up all these talking points from somewhere. Then again, he seems to be framing the issues more like the classic conservative “feminism is ruining family and society” than the MRM “feminism is oppressing the men and ruining family and society”. Oh well I just realized it’s a minimal difference…
Creating laws to prop up the weak is like playing a game of musical chairs.
How nice of Roosh to give us a lovely sum-up of ableism, topped with a broken simile. I suppose he must not care for the laws protecting welfare of children, either, seeing as they’re among the weakest in society.
RE: sparky
women lie about cosmetic violence
The BEST typo.
Arctic Ape, Roosh doesn’t consider himself an MRA but he is very much aware of MRAs. The MRAs and PUAs I write about have similar, in many areas almost identical, ideas about women and feminism.
Arctic Ape, yeah. There are differences, but when you sort through it, they are either minimal or not that important to those they want to subject their ideas to.
Bwahahahhaha…. cosmetic violence!
Sorry Sparky, but that is a really great typo. But yes everything you said is good. I’m not laughing at you, trust me.
From the Roosh picture with this post it really looks like he’s having… a very private moment…
Ugh. Every time I look at that picture, my treacherous, evil brain goes, ‘So what’s he doing with his hands?’ And then I need a bottle of tequila to kill the brain cells that try to answer.
@Freemage:
Exactly.
Roosh is a cockbite of the most nonconsensual variety. That is about all I care to know about his personality or politics.
No.
No.
No, fuck ignoring his wonderful fable about bees and trees and ants and plants. augochlorella has the right of it.
It doesn’t even make any fucking *sense*.
Bees are picking up ants and dropping them from great height, so the tree passes a law to stop ALL VIOLENCE AGAINST ANTS.
Now ants gang up on lone bees and bury them in the ground, and the bees react by…. thickening the walls of their hives?
What? What the fuck? Why did the fucking bees abandon fucking due judicial process when due judicial process had fucking shown to fucking fix the fucking problem of fucking bee on fucking ant fucking violence fuck.
fuck.
Fuck those bees, man. Fuck them and their insistence that laws are stupid and don’t work, fuck them for abandoning an entire society that fucking relied on them for protection, fuck them for being the first to go “I’m going my own way, because, shit, trying to act like a decent bee being is too much effort, and all ants suck!”.
I don’t have a lot of rage buttons, but fuck! FUCK. You can’t write fiction like this! You can’t use a fable to that distinctively disproves your original thesis to underline that same thesis! Roosh’ story isn’t about the ineffectiveness of laws against nature, it’s about how if he doesn’t get his fucking way, he’s just going to walk out and leave you to die, in the cold, eaten by a worm.
AAAAAAR—
I’m going to go make tea.
Freemage & Hyena Girl (I want a buddy-cop movie named that RIGHT NOW!)…
Why, why.. why do you want to give me more nightmares?