Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
He did not suggest that men who were already likely to be abusive were more likely to be abusive when out of work. I that is a reasonable and logical thing to say.
Thats not what he said though. He made a blanket statement about men and it is disgraceful. 99.99% of men don't engage in domestic violence when employed or not employed.
You could very easily make the statement that single mothers who are out of work are more likely to abuse their children.
Blanket statements are seldom wise. He was clearly making a connection between not passing the jobs bill and women and kids being beaten by their fathers and for the leader of the US Senate and one who represents several million men from Nevada, should be ashamed of himself
I think the percentage of people who engage in domestic violence is much higher than .01%. I'd also bet that most violence never gets a call from the police.
What this guy said is essentially correct. Putting emotions aside, it makes perfect sense. Guys have an instinctual need to provide for their family. Women will nag on guys to provide as well. When a man can't provide food for his family, he tends to go primal. Do I think it's right? Hell no, but that doesn't mean I can deny the fact that this probably happens fairly regularly.
