Right....except, don't know from the video what transpired completely, except(again) it appears she was placed in custody....So....

I agree with pretty much everything else you've said. The problem is that any kind of mens "liberation" movement has been hijacked by the idiotic "mens rights" groups. It's not that there isn't some inequality against men that needs to be addressed (specifically around things like child custody), but more often these groups have confused not getting their way 100% of the time with being oppressed.

Regarding assault (sexual or otherwise), I think the overwhelming point there is that we should view from a gender blind perspective. It's feels ridiculous to even have to say this, but assault is bad, mmm'kay? The gender of those involved is irrelevant.

But there are some fairly deeply ingrained societal attitudes that will have to change. Picture the following scenarios:

Bob says something misogynistic to Alice. She slaps him.

Dave the evil kidnapper is finally caught and sent to jail. Someone makes a remark about not dropping the soap.

Both of those are stock standard fictional comedy tropes. The first is that when a man gets hit by a woman, he deserves it. The second is that male prison rape is implicitly funny, because the guy in prison deserves it. Can you imagine the outcry if a writer reversed those roles?

Just to contribute a little bit (I am neither here nor there). Here is something on the piece outside of Russian Times, not much more credible, however has some quotes from the police:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/brandon-j-raub-marine-detained_n_1817484.html EDIT: Guess I cant post links on this site heh, Huffingtonpost is the site, guys name is Brandon J. Raub [admin edit: url restored]

Article Snippets:

•"In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads.""

•"Police – acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional"

•"One of his Facebook posts, ... pictured the gaping hole in the Pentagon and asked "where's the plane?""

•"Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency. "We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints.""

•"Authorities say it wasn't an arrest because Raub doesn't face criminal charges."

•"Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers. He said the action was taken under the state's emergency custody statute, which allows a magistrate to order the civil detention and psychiatric evaluation of a person who is considered potentially dangerous.
He said Raub was handcuffed because he resisted officers' attempts to take him into custody."

I'm afraid you can lump me in the same group. I don't understand why it is offensive to tell women to smile. I'm also in the same boat as others here in that i have literally never, in my existence, heard a male tell a woman to smile in any way that wasn't contextual. Thirdly, i'm struggling to imagine a way in which the directive to "Smile!" is offensive.

You say "stop making it about YOU!" yet you're speaking about a video that is trying to personalise an issue. I hate to even get involved in this argument, because i believe modern day feminism is more about finding an issue than it is about correcting any number of issues that really exist and need attention (ie. wage inequality).

I think you'd serve the cause a lot better if you tried to understand why people make those comments instead of chastising them for making it. You're missing an opportunity to explain the problem better - you've engaged people, people are interested and talking about it. Now is the time to explain it so that those who don't understand can understand. And if you can present it in a believable way, you will convince me.

However if you stand there, fold your arms and say "ugh, guys!" then i'm going to insist that you're behaving in a sexist way.

In my upbringing, i was subject to women abusing their advantageous legal position when it comes to custody of children and such (i was the child). I was witness to women who claimed abuse when there was no abuse, and thankfully only saw a very small effect of what can happen when such false accusations are made. I've seen a close male relative go through divorces in which he made his best attempt to share the assets of the divorce, whilst the female partner did what they could to claw as much profit as possible, eventually taking a completely unfair share (all of it) in one case.

However, i am rational enough to understand that not all people are like that, and that my experiences are not common. If i was given the opportunity to campaign about father's rights, i'd do it clearly and in a way that people could empathise and sympathise with. I wouldn't generalise and i certainly wouldn't tell them not to personalise, because empathy is all about being able to personalise an issue.

If men are arguing with the point, perhaps the point is not being explained well enough. And if it keeps happening, perhaps that's an even stronger message. I wouldn't argue with videos that campaign against domestic violence - which i also haven't seen happen! - and that's because the campaign is well presented so that i am able to grasp the problem.

I don't understand why what this video refers to is a female issue. Add to that the fact that i have never seen it happen with such frequency that it was notably a female-only issue.

Until i am able to understand why this is specifically a female issue, i'm afraid i will consider this video to be sexist in that it addresses a universal issue as a solely female problem.

enoch I'm not going to go into your personal story, because that's what it is yours and everything I saw is wrong because I don't know jack about it.

I do know that the idea that women can just claim things and your children will be taken away from you is now bullshit. If you get a lawyer and fight the courts DO want you to have joint custody. You have a very high burden of proof to contest custody. That's just a fact of the Law these days and I think it's a good change.

This edited video, which consider the source of where it came from, and your personal story does not close the book that all women who work in government are man hating pieces of shit.

Also look up the last famous incident of a guy wielding a knife on a bus in Canada. Only a couple of years ago a guy used a knife to cut off another passengers head. He then stayed in the bus, surrounded by police for several hours, even chewing on the corpse a bit while the police watched without shooting him. The police force was able to take him into custody essentially unharmed for the justice system to serve justice. He was not convicted of manslaughter, but was instead found not criminally responsible for the murder because of mental illness. He is already receiving supervised walks and excursions in public.

The Canadian public has been shouting ever since that incident that a great many would much rather seen the killer shot on that bus, as happened in Toronto here. There is a lot more back story to this and public debate within Canada on just how to handle violent offenders.

Ok, WTF is a "hearing master"? Is that some kind of judge? Surely, they must have some legal qualification in order to preside over what is presumably a custody hearing? How are they not in trouble for this?

As for the marshall, "fired" is not good enough. He should be charged. Now, in his defence, we have no evidence other than the womans testimony, so he might be innocent, but that's why he gets a trial.

And the other guy (a bailiff?) should be fired too.

I hope this would be enough video evidence for her to lose custody

When I started watching this, I thought "meh, it's not so bad" and then he clearly crossed the line with threats of sexual violence in custody. (Not that something similar hasn't been used before!)

But thinking about it again, if a cop pulled me over and called me "boy", I would be annoyed. I try to deal with the police with courtesy and as a minimum I expect that to be reciprocated. That said, I've been lucky enough that in my few dealings with police, they have all been professional and courteous, even when I was a drunken idiot teenager

The news report and followup said that the driver was taken into custody, and that no one died in the exchange.

I'm surprised big dude's just in police custody and not the morgue after that smash-smash-suh-mash to the head with a hatchet.

Still no handcuffs?? Looks like he is under protection instead of in custody.

First feminist brave enough to comment here....

It's more a case of Statistics.... There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Talk about cherry picking the facts to create a portrait of victimhood.

That is the funniest thing about this -- the stink of victimhood from the ruling class. Sounds like neo-Nazis, going on about how they are oppressed by people of color.

Funny how the existence of baby Xs and baby Ys are left out of all these "statistics." Homelessness for women is less than homelessness for men? I suspect it is more that homelessness for custodial parents is less than homelessness for individuals. This whole video is rife with such cherry picking.

Are there inequities in our culture? Sure. There are things to fix. Let's get to work on it, shall we?

The feminists that I admire most? They aren't just feminists. They are humanists.

If they aren't also humanists, then they are no different than "male chauvinist pigs", if I might resurrect a term from the 70s.

And humanists are heartsick at how boys are falling behind in school, for example. Our education system is broken for so many children.

Listening to this made me feel ill. Such distortion. Such victimhood. Such a budding Mein Kampf to justify further, continuing inequities against women with zero self-reflection.

I hope that anyone who listens to this and thinks that something profound has been revealed about the oppression of men by women and by society in general will take just a moment and think about the situation more deeply than this cartoon.

OK, again I'm not an American. But I have an opinion.
And the technology already exists to do this.
Let them keep the guns ... but...the bullets!

All bullets to be coded!
~ Ownership of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

Only Coded bullets can be sold.
~ Selling of Non coded bullets - LIFE Sentence.

When coded bullets are bought, the serial number of the gun, the coded bullets are to be fired from, must be declared.
~ Selling of coded bullets without proper declaration. - LIFE Sentence.

After bullets are fired the user must declare where the bullets were fired, and at what they were fired at.
~ Owner not declaring - up to 10 years custody.

Silencers illegal!
~ Ownership of silencer - LIFE Sentence.

Hidden weapons including shoulder and ankle holsters. illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Automatic Weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Any modifications made to a firearm. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

NON USA manufactured weapons. Illegal!
~ Ownership of such. - LIFE Sentence.

Mind you I can be a bit flexible on all this........just a starting point.

Fortunately my country does not let me own a firearm.

September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.