Over the past few decades when there was a domestic dispute; it normally was assumed that the fellow was guilty. Why is this? What is the gist of what is going on here? Surely men are not always “guilty” in these situations.
Notice the quotation marks around guilty. What does it man in a domestic dispute? Is the the one that is the root cause of the dispute? And what does root cause mane in the typical dispute? Often they are so complicated, with lots of events happening over the course of time making it difficult to untangle.
When matters escalate the situation gets interesting. Men and women often have different approaches when this happens. Women use words that bite, often taunting men. Men sometimes are tempted to react in a physical manner. These differing approaches are the key, for this is where women individually and as a whole gain much power.
The basic idea is that men who react physically, or men who maybe even tempted to react physically, need to be locked up; or at a bare minimum need to have a restraining order placed upon them. There is no consideration of what led the situation, rather it is required for the power of the state to be brought to bear against the fella.
The assumption is that if a fella has the state come down on him, then he must surely be the guilty party. For the state is operates in a just manner (justice is blind, innocent until proven guilty, and such). So guilty he is.
The conflating of the application of the power of the state with guilt is purely intentional.