I made a comment in the "Former MRA" article on Jezebel, and predictably I got a bunch of replies about how men are the real oppressed gender because of the draft blah blah blah.
However, one reply got me thinking...
The second paragraph is bullshit (gosh, you mean that when the problem is caused by a near total absence of women in any position of power, feminists try to fix it by helping reducing the gender imbalance in positions of power???), but the part about the "Predominant Aggressor Policy" got me curious and I googled it. And the google results do seem to show that this policy makes it disproportionately more likely for the guy to be arrested in a domestic violence situation even if he is the victim.
Now, my immediate reaction was a "duh, we live in a society that regards women as weak and helpless and sometimes that backfires on men, it's patriarchy's fault." But some of the results on google showed that the policy does seem to be inherently biased (for example, age and weight and height of the parties are taken as indication of guilt, and men are almost always older and heavier and taller than their wives/girlfriends).
So now I'm confused. Did the MRA who replied to me actually have a point, "even a broken watch is right twice a day"? Did feminists really push for this Predominant Aggress Policy that appears to be inherently biased against men?