Here's another brief thought on the domestic violence issue.
When I see what has happened with the White Ribbon Day campaign, I'm reminded of just how the left manages to set the framework of politics to their advantage.
It goes like this. The left makes a claim that men as a class are violent toward women because they enjoy an unearned privilege in society. The anti-domestic violence cause seems like a good one, so a lot of men unthinkingly sign on to the message.
But straight away these men are caught in a trap. Once you accept that men as a class are perpetrating an injustice and an oppression to defend an unearned privilege, you lose moral status as a man in society.
And it's exactly the conscientious, politically active type of men who can't bear to lose moral status. They will desperately want to win it back somehow. How can they do it?
The message that is delivered to them is that they can redeem themselves by breaking ranks with other men. They can continue to speak with moral authority if they separate themselves from the other men and if they identify against the tradition of masculinity.
This solves (for a time anyway) the problem of moral status - but at a tremendous cost. It means turning against your own, thereby forfeiting an aspect of your self-identity and your group loyalty.
Something like this also happens with the issue of race. Whites are told that there is no racial equality because whites have oppressed others and discriminated against others in order to enjoy an unearned privilege. Once you accept this as a white person, you lose moral status. If you want to reclaim moral status you have to break ranks and identify against your own race. But this means forfeiting a part of your self-identity and your own larger communal tradition.
So the trap is in accepting the original negative appraisal of whiteness or masculinity or whatever else the left has set itself against.
The aim, then, is to reject the original vilification of men (or whites) as a class of people. But it matters a great deal how you do this.
It's no use trying to plead with liberals that men/whites should be accepted as good by the standards of liberalism. There's little point, for instance, in arguing that whites aren't racist oppressors because they are accepting of diversity, of open borders, of mass immigration and so on. This is asking to be allowed to identify positively with something, by taking away the conditions for its future existence.
So we have to take care, initially, not to be suckered into losing moral status, and, having avoided this, not to plead for the goodness of our tradition on losing terms supplied by liberalism itself.