When you consider the toll that emotional abuse has on a person, and some law courts are accepting it as a form of domestic violence, then you factor in how much more common it is for women to leave, take the kids and not let the men see them, than the other way around, then you could assert that women perpetrate domestic violence at least as much as men.
This kind of emotional abuse often leads to male death by suicide. It certainly breaks many men and leaves them devastated.
When you also consider the definition of domestic violence hinges on violence either in the home or violence against a family member:
“Domestic violence is violence or other abuse that occurs in a domestic setting, such as in a marriage or cohabitation. Domestic violence is often used as a synonym for intimate partner violence, which is committed by one of the people in an intimate relationship against the other person, and can take place in relationships or between former spouses or partners. In its broadest sense, domestic violence also involves violence against children, parents, or the elderly. It can assume multiple forms, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic, religious, reproductive, financial abuse, or sexual abuse.”
On top of this, you consider how much more often abortions are the sole decision of women and this act is a committed against a family member, the child, and the father who often has no say, then you have to conclude women are far more likely to commit domestic violence but are protected both legally and socially from being held accountable.
This is a profound level of privilege that women have in society. They can violently – and abortion is violent because it actually involves dismembering the child – abort their own son or daughter and the state will not just protect them, it will provide the services and laud their act as a health decision.
This is a level of privilege akin to that which nobles had over their peasants in some eras of the past. A remarkable power, if wicked. A power over the life of a child that no person should have. But have it they do.
Red pill men, though ultimately stuck in a poisonous ideology (the male equivalent of feminism) have some basis for grievances against society. Women are incredibly privileged and protected in that privilege by law. Our society protects violence against children in the womb, when committed by the mother and often protects women when they take their children from their husbands.
This cannot be denied. But, be that as it may, a male form of feminism is not the solution. A more Christian approach to marriage, while not being a perfect as people are flawed, will be far more successful.
One problem is that the men’s rights movement is filled with men who complain publicly, a lot. This is not going to help anyone. For one, as Martin Van Creveld says, women are the complaining sex*, they have a lock on this strategy for change. He did not really mean this as an insult, just as an observation that women air their grievances a lot more and a lot more successfully.
From a young age, everyone in society is trained to be sympathetic towards a woman’s complaints in life, and the men especially are trained and equipped to make life as comfortable for their women as possible, which is a net good, its necessary for the survival of humanity. So when all of society is geared towards being accepting of women voicing their issues by way of complaint, there is not much use in men seeking to change this and take this same approach.
Both men and women look down on men who complain. A woman who complains too much will also begin to wear down sympathy, but a man who complains even a little will never get much, if any sympathy. He might get pity, he will get scorn. Men complaining publicly about their issues is a losing strategy. Society does not have a place for such men, or male movements of this kind. We have all learnt to see such men as losers and as those who need to be challenged to step up and stop complaining. So this strategy cannot succeed as it does for women.
Another issue is that, as far as MGTOW or many red pill men engage with women, they want to do so on a purely transactional/business basis. This might be a successful strategy for a man to protect his assets in his lifetime, but this is a losing strategy for his potential for progeny and for society in general. Women are eminently trainable because they are designed to be led by the men in their lives. If more and more men train women to just engage with them on a transactional level this is what women will do, and they will just come to dominate society more thoroughly. Because the more they can cash in on sex, the more they will come to dominate men and the more men will be diminished. Marriage is designed to restrain women’s as well as men’s sexuality. A purely sexually transactional society will be disastrous.
This strategy is also effectively a full capitulation to feminism, and is saying to women, “You can have all the power now…” What I suspect will happen to societies that fall into this trap in any large numbers is that they will be overtaken by immigrant men who come in and just take the place of the weak men who have given up on all hope in this arena. This is the ultimate losing strategy, and your log cabin in the woods will eventually suffer if you convince many of your fellow men to agree with you on this point. This is the kind of ideology that could actually kill a society, or weaken it to such a degree that it is fully overrun.
One other problem I will address in this piece is that so-called red-pill men are just not correct, their ideology is based on a lie. That lie is that marriage is too risky to ever engage in. This is just not true. I know countless men who have wonderful marriages, at all stages of their lives, from young married couples with kids all the way on through to people far into retirement. It is simply not true that marriage is too risky a proposition to be tried. But even if it was incredibly risky, let me grant that to a degree, when I look at those older couples and see the quality of life they live together compared to single older people, I recognize that those who took the “risk” of marriage and lasted the distance have won. So, even if you grant that the risks might be high, they still are eminently worth it. I would rather run that gauntlet than risk living alone into old age, with no children, and no more chance of progeny. What a terrible existence.
Saying you are ok with losing, is not somehow winning guys. It’s just losing without trying.
Not everyone I know with a great marriage is a Christian, I know many who are not, and they are doing well too. But a large majority of them are. Even if you grant that my circles, as a pastor, are biased towards knowing certain kinds of believers with a certain kind of Christian lifestyle, even if you grant that, and also that there are many Christians whose marriages suck and who have ended up in terrible divorces, even if you grant all of this, I look at these people who have been successful and see much more hope for the future than I have ever seen in any advocate of the red pill.
To be honest, it encourages me that though the red pFemale Domestic Violence and the Red Pillill guys might be making more YouTube videos, these conservative Christians with great marriages are making more children who have much the same worldview as them. So no matter how bleak the present may look to some, the future is looking bright. And one day we probably will have the kind of society that changes the unjust laws that allow women to have abortions and to run off with the kids. What is for certain is that redpill men are not capable of creating such a society. So why would anyone listen to them?
[*] C.f. Chapter 8 of Van Creveld’s book: The Privileged Sex.
