Mens Rights: Do we need a movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Speaking as a man who has had to deal with toxic masculinity bullshit, the shitty and terrible systems that hurt men tend to be put up by men. I speak from experience as someone who was hurt by them. Now, do you want to fix them or do you care more about pretending someone else caused the problems?

undeadsuitor:

Mothro:

undeadsuitor:

As opposed to saying it's women's fault?

Are you saying women are perfect?

Are you saying men are?

Nope, but men are also not 100% of the problem as is commonly believed. This form of misandry is harming men and boys. Screaming patriarchy and toxic masculinity isn't helping, it's hurting.

erttheking:

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Speaking as a man who has had to deal with toxic masculinity bullshit, the shitty and terrible systems that hurt men tend to be put up by men. I speak from experience as someone who was hurt by them. Now, do you want to fix them or do you care more about pretending someone else caused the problems?

Oh, do tell me how to fix it with your infinite, misandric wisdom.

I am going to bed but let me just leave you with this double standard.

People who have been taught to hate MRA's complain: 'They blame everything on feminists'

Feminists actually do blame everything on men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity but you wouldn't dare criticize them.

Mothro:

erttheking:

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Speaking as a man who has had to deal with toxic masculinity bullshit, the shitty and terrible systems that hurt men tend to be put up by men. I speak from experience as someone who was hurt by them. Now, do you want to fix them or do you care more about pretending someone else caused the problems?

Oh, do tell me how to fix it with your infinite, misandric wisdom.

Care more about pretending someone else caused the problem it is.

And for the record, I was going to go with focusing on teaching men to not be ashamed of feminine attributes from a young age, teach them that emotions aren't anything to be ashamed of, let them now that there's support if they're feeling suicidal, and overall push them away from harmful machismo.

Now what did you have in mind for fixing men's problems, aside from nonstop complaining about feminists? Oh yeah, that's right. Fuck all. Now then, I really would like to say what you calling me misandric feels like when you're supporting people who don't give a shit that I wanted to kill myself while my "misandric" feminist friends were far more supportive, but I'd rather not attract mod attention.

But please tell me more about how all of men's problems were secretly caused by women.

Gorfias:

I have literally, never, ever read a feminist piece describing positive aspects of masculinity. Do they even know that there are supposed to be such juxtaposed to this original phrasing of the term linked by Lil D?

You haven't looked very hard, then, frankly.

Gorfias:

So, I'll review further. At a minimum, most Feminist sources I've experienced simply want to label male behaviors as toxic.

And I've never seen any feminist source refer to male behaviours in general as toxic. Can you give me an example?

Mothro:
[quote="Lil devils x" post="528.1055458.24244108"]
The problems won't be resolved listening to feminists telling men how fucked up they are. Sorry.

They won't be resolved by intentionally misrepresenting any criticisms of specific behaviours, either.

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

I have literally, never, ever read a feminist piece describing positive aspects of masculinity. Do they even know that there are supposed to be such juxtaposed to this original phrasing of the term linked by Lil D?

You haven't looked very hard, then, frankly.

Gorfias:

So, I'll review further. At a minimum, most Feminist sources I've experienced simply want to label male behaviors as toxic.

And I've never seen any feminist source refer to male behaviours in general as toxic. Can you give me an example?

Mothro:
[quote="Lil devils x" post="528.1055458.24244108"]
The problems won't be resolved listening to feminists telling men how fucked up they are. Sorry.

They won't be resolved by intentionally misrepresenting any criticisms of specific behaviours, either.

This did not happen in a vacuum.

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Hmm, so what does hurt men then? How are men being hurt, and by whom?

Mothro:

Lil devils x:

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Why do you think that is? People, both men and women are saying that for good reason. Why else did a man coin and define the term "Toxic masculinity" to be able to address the problems facing men in an attempt to solve them in the first place? The problems will not be resolved until Toxic masculinity is addressed.

The problems won't be resolved listening to feminists telling men how fucked up they are. Sorry. The best thing men can do for themselves is to stop letting others define them.

So pray tell, what is aided by telling women how fucked up they are?

And keep in mind what I've said already here and elsewhere; a move to actually address the issues facing men and boys, especially in mental health and yes, legal issues, is something I can and have gotten behind.

Problem is, what we have currently seems more intent on showing how shit women are than in helping men.

trunkage:

That being said, it probably should be a focal point of feminists to declare it more often. Sometimes, when the message isn't heard, you need to work harder.

What would be the point, for a feminist organisation or magazine, to write a piece solely dedicated to the virtues of men?
They write critical pieces because there are issues that need to be addressed. I don't see what purpose would be served writing an article that just goes, "hey, [aspect of masculinity] is kinda cool. Good job, men!", especially not in an organisation originally and primarily dedicated to feminist issues.

Personally i think modern feminists are wrong and misguided about many things. And i think the main reason for that is that certain feminist narratives have devolved into things that less and less resemble the real world leading to policies and actions based on those narratives that are plain stupid and harmful.

I also believe there are a lot of actual justified grievances other feminists often bring up. But whenever there is no workable or obvious solution they turn around and simply blame men for the continued injustices. Which is more than a tad annoying as men can't do anything more about those grievances than the complaining women themself.

Both of those things are why i really don't like modern feminist movements even if i support most of the traditional feminist ideals. And yes, i do think people should challenge feminist narratives and arguments if they disagree with them.

Sure, there do exist topics feminist groups bring up where i do agree with them. But nearly all of them are not actually understood by me as particularly "feminist", just regular issues of equality, power abuse or bad rules. And in those cases feminists are hardly alone, then they have all the regular civil rights groups, employer rights groups, corruption watchdogs etc. on their side.
It is particular the issues where the non gender based NGOs and groups are missing because they really don't want to be dragged into it or don't see it as problem, that are seen as particularly "feminist" by virtue of nearly only feminists supporting them.

That said, i don't think we need MRAs. MRAs are some kind of countermovement that take everything that is bad about feminists, just genderflip it and take it as their own position.
If you ever thought that this talk about the Patriarchy is mostly baseless, you should see that the complaint about our Matriarchy is even more stupid. If you did find offense with how some feminists are way too eager to identify harmful tendencies in males and beneficial tendencies in females, you should stand up against gender essentialism instead of just assigning attributes differently and in a way that men now look like the better sex.

MRAs is just taking the spudid gender war concept of some of the more extremist feminists and accepting it as a truth. That is so wrong it is not even funny.

Tayh:
What would be the point, for a feminist organisation or magazine, to write a piece solely dedicated to the virtues of men?
They write critical pieces because there are issues that need to be addressed. I don't see what purpose would be served writing an article that just goes, "hey, [aspect of masculinity] is kinda cool. Good job, men!", especially not in an organisation originally and primarily dedicated to feminist issues.

If they want to write about gender instead of sex and about how they are unhappy with our concept of masculinity (and by contrast femininity), they could and should discuss what they think masculinity and femininity actually are. And no, the meaning of those things are neither obvious nor agreed upon.

But no, instead of actually discussing gender they are far more willing to highlight harmful behavior that they claim to be masculine or even believe so and then blame the male power structure suppossedly in place for enforcing it (and so just blaming even men that don't behave this way for the continued existance of the problems). How is that supposed to be helpful ?

Mothro:

Lil devils x:

Mothro:
Trying to talk about mens rights usually results in being told that it's men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity that hurts men.

In other words, more man blaming.

Why do you think that is? People, both men and women are saying that for good reason. Why else did a man coin and define the term "Toxic masculinity" to be able to address the problems facing men in an attempt to solve them in the first place? The problems will not be resolved until Toxic masculinity is addressed.

The problems won't be resolved listening to feminists telling men how fucked up they are. Sorry. The best thing men can do for themselves is to stop letting others define them.

That is exactly what the man who created the term "toxic Masculinity" did. He was not a feminist, he was a man trying to help men. That is what this is actually about here, just many are not realizing that is what is happening.

This is not nor has it ever been about women defining what it means to be a man, it is about men being able to decide that for themselves without other men trying to impose their will upon them by pressuring them to not show their emotions.

Although I linked this in the thread already here it is again in case you missed it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement

I also think you may misunderstand a bit of what is being said here. It isn't about " feminists blaming men for everything" it is actually about taking the first step to address what needs to be changed in society for men's rights to advance. People often just look at something that does not seem fair, but what they really need to look at is "why is this the way it is and how do we go about changing it?".

Having men actually address Toxic Masculinity and Patriarchal structures that are causing this unnecessary pressure to be placed on them isn't to just " man blame" as you may seem to think it is, it is for men to finally realize they do not need these things there to keep them down and realize they were just put in place by other men to impose their will upon other men for their own benefit and to elevate themselves alone, not for the benefit of those who are having this done to them. The reason it must be discussed and addressed is that is the first battle that must be fought for men to move forward. Men as a whole have to stop putting up with it being done to them and reinforcing these things upon other men to finally put an end to it and remove it's "authority" over them. The same standards in society that say that "a woman is weak" is the same thing telling men that they are weak for partaking in anything that is considered "like a woman". Changing that you will then be able to change the other issues that are built upon that such as "men have to support women because women are too weak to take care of themselves" and the many other burdens placed on men due to this.

You should also realize that Your initial assessment that men's rights are not resolved by Feminists " attacking the patriarchy", when in reality, many of them actually have been, and continue to be:

https://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men

Feminism =\= against men. The same people pushing the narrative that feminists are bad are the ones preventing men's rights from advancing.

Gorfias:

This did not happen in a vacuum.

This is not an example of someone arguing that all masculinity is toxic.

Can you provide any examples?

Gorfias:

I have literally, never, ever read a feminist piece describing positive aspects of masculinity. Do they even know that there are supposed to be such juxtaposed to this original phrasing of the term linked by Lil D?

Given that a great deal of feminists seem to want to challenge the notion of distinct "feminine" and "masculine" traits, it might make sense that they wouldn't write about virtues being masculine or feminine. They're just virtues, with no qualifying gender adjective required.

What they are likely to refer to with "masculine virtues" and "feminine virtues" are traditional notions of virtues, relating to a world where men were providers and decision-makers and women were mothers and carers. These traditional masculine virtues might cover things like intellect, independence, will, strength, etc. But implicitly, feminism is surely partially about claiming these virtues as virtues for women too. They might however argue that the past social dominance of men has caused societal undervaluing of traditional feminine virtues, such as interdependence, community, emotion, sympathy etc., which are likewise also virtues for men.

Toxic masculinity would be an overexpression of traditional male traits leading to desire to dominate, humiliate and destroy (often other men). But what would overexpression of traditional feminine traits be - traditional feminine virtues are geared towards compliance, harmony and care. How is that going to make life miserable for others? At worst, we might be talking about excessive passivity, but this doesn't usually trouble others: it's the doormat that gets upset, not those walking over it. Obviously, real women can be deeply unhelpful or unpleasant in various ways, but for breaching their traditional virtues.

The thing is, traditional feminine and masculine virtues don't truly represent actual men and women. They are social constructions made up to fit gender roles in past society. To say that certain exaggerated behaviours according to a made-up view of men are problematic where exaggerated behaviours according to a made-up view of women are not means precisely sod all. The spurious made-up gender conventions are the reference for toxicity, not the instrinsic nature of real men and women.

Satinavian:
Sure, there do exist topics feminist groups bring up where i do agree with them...

So, in short: "I think feminists are wrong about this stuff, except when I agree with them in which case it's not feminism."

This would be a variant of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

The thing is that it's all under the umbrella of feminism. You're just arbitrarily denying the "good" or "reasonable" stuff as part of feminism because of... whatever reason that I'm not going to bother guessing at and you can mull over or discuss in your own time.

Mothro:

Feminists actually do blame everything on men, the patriarchy and toxic masculinity but you wouldn't dare criticize them.

You might be amazed how little my feminist wife, my feminist mother, and all my feminist colleagues, friends and relatives blame anything on "men". There was one woman I knew about 20 years ago, I guess, although she was mentally unstable. They might blame the patriarchy occasionally; toxic masculinity, once in a blue moon.

In practice, the vast majority of feminists are nothing like the screaming activist nonsense on Tumblr or wherever. Frankly, unless your entire social life is on 4chan, you've probably met dozens of them without noticing. They don't object to your existance as a man, believe you need to be held back from success due to your gender, or secretly think "fucking male scum" when they interact with you.

Agema:
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.1055458.24244056"]
The thing is, traditional feminine and masculine virtues don't truly represent actual men and women. They are social constructions made up to fit gender roles in past society.

What exactly are you saying here? It sounds like you are claiming gender roles are purely socially determined, which would be incorrect.

Agema:

Satinavian:
Sure, there do exist topics feminist groups bring up where i do agree with them...

So, in short: "I think feminists are wrong about this stuff, except when I agree with them in which case it's not feminism."

This would be a variant of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

The thing is that it's all under the umbrella of feminism. You're just arbitrarily denying the "good" or "reasonable" stuff as part of feminism because of... whatever reason that I'm not going to bother guessing at and you can mull over or discuss in your own time.

While certainly not completely wrong i don't think that fits.

There are issues where i find myself in agreement with some feminists or even feminist organizations among many thers. Does that automatically make them feminist agenda and feminist topics? I really don't think so.

I am also not denying that those people actually are feminists. Just that everytime when feminists are just one voice among many others the issue is not understood by me as a feminist one and i don't give feminists credit for the work of the larger civil rights/equality movement.

And no, that is not arbitrarily. While writing the former post i tried to remember feminist cases i agreed with. But nearly all of them were things of the past, mostly second wave topics. Or stuff in other countries. I coudn't even find one feminist topic i agree with that is both new and relevant here. The last one was from the nineties (and would thematically also fit 2nd wave).
But i did remember some other things where some feminists also voiced an opinion where i did agree. That is pretty much all.

Agema:
In practice, the vast majority of feminists are nothing like the screaming activist nonsense on Tumblr or wherever. Frankly, unless your entire social life is on 4chan, you've probably met dozens of them without noticing. They don't object to your existance as a man, believe you need to be held back from success due to your gender, or secretly think "fucking male scum" when they interact with you.

Isn't that exactly what fourth wave feminism is supposed to be about ? Feminism in and via social media and the occassional blog ? The screaming activist nonsense seems to be a pretty important part of that.

Blood Brain Barrier:
What exactly are you saying here? It sounds like you are claiming gender roles are purely socially determined, which would be incorrect.

There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to firmly show the extent gender roles are societally determined or biologically inherent.

But they only need to be partially socially determined to say that gender roles in a society are a social construction. Any two societies may vary in gender roles, and thus will have different ideas about what masculine and feminine virtues are.

Satinavian:

I am also not denying that those people actually are feminists. Just that everytime when feminists are just one voice among many others the issue is not understood by me as a feminist one...

Sure. But as said, sounds to me like you're underestimating what feminist concerns are. Feminism can and does readily overlap with other ideologies such that they will have a shared cause.

And no, that is not arbitrarily. While writing the former post i tried to remember feminist cases i agreed with. But nearly all of them were things of the past, mostly second wave topics.

It might be a feminist campaign you associate with 20 years ago, but that's still feminism. It doesn't magically stop being feminism just because it was more yesterday's battle than today's.

Agema:

Blood Brain Barrier:
What exactly are you saying here? It sounds like you are claiming gender roles are purely socially determined, which would be incorrect.

There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to firmly show the extent gender roles are societally determined or biologically inherent.

But they only need to be partially socially determined to say that gender roles in a society are a social construction. Any two societies may vary in gender roles, and thus will have different ideas about what masculine and feminine virtues are.

Personally i am leaning towards "gender roles are purely social constructs and should also be fought/abolished wherever possible"

But yes, there is not really good proof either way. Even if recent studies hint at least at some biological influence as i grudgingly have to admit.

Agema:
It might be a feminist campaign you associate with 20 years ago, but that's still feminism. It doesn't magically stop being feminism just because it was more yesterday's battle than today's.

I am pretty sure i did explicitely specify modern feminists several times in the original post. I am well aware of that.

But maybe it is just a case of me getting old and "when i was young, everything was better and feminists were still sensible".

Satinavian:

Agema:

Blood Brain Barrier:
What exactly are you saying here? It sounds like you are claiming gender roles are purely socially determined, which would be incorrect.

There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to firmly show the extent gender roles are societally determined or biologically inherent.

But they only need to be partially socially determined to say that gender roles in a society are a social construction. Any two societies may vary in gender roles, and thus will have different ideas about what masculine and feminine virtues are.

Personally i am leaning towards "gender roles are purely social constructs and should also be fought/abolished wherever possible"

But yes, there is not really good proof either way. Even if recent studies hint at least at some biological influence as i grudgingly have to admit.

That's because the vast majority of people writing about this stuff are feminists or psychologists. Listen to biologists and you will hear a different story.

Gorfias:
And I've noted examples of women avoiding responsibility in such cases apparently without such support. The ability to get out of jail free by claiming they'd been battered is power. I think people need to be aware that this happens.

If you want to go down this line, I could say that the ability to rape someone and get out of jail free by claiming they're a slut is power.

Even if we accept that you are able to offer judgement on court cases you weren't present for, one can find all kinds of "examples" of bad applications of the law. It doesn't mean the law is bad. The fact that people are sometimes falsely imprisoned for murder doesn't mean murder should be legal.

Gorfias:
I would think just the opposite. Because we see similar rates of DV in same sex couples as straight, gender appears to have nothing to do with who can be violent and controlling.

Noone ever said it did.

Literally noone.

I mean, maybe some crazy-ass TERFs, but who the fuck cares about them?

Gorfias:
"A woman's tongue is the only weapon that gets sharper with use" According to FBI and CDC stats, women engage in this kind of coercive control as often and at every level as men.

You literally have no idea what I am even talking about.

If you ever, ever want to be taken seriously in this issue, you will not compare occasionally being yelled at for not doing the dishes or whatever to literally being afraid every day.

That is what coercive control is. That is why it functions as a legal defence. Because being constantly afraid has an effect on people. Knowing that someone can beat you into unconsciousness, or torture you, or rape you, or hurt your children and there is nothing you can do to stop them, knowing that if you try to stop them it will get worse, or they might try to kill you. That is coercive control.

The inability of men to understand this, to understand that this is something which happens to women constantly, that women's shelters are full of people who have been raped hundreds or thousands of times, who have been forced into prostitution, who have had attempts made on their lives and who have been conditioned against their will to be so frightened that often they cannot talk to men at all is exactly why "men's rights activists" are not taken seriously on this issue. None of you have seen a fucking fragment of what domestic abuse is actually like and none of you have any genuine interest in finding out.

I'm sorry, I don't want to get angry.. but if you had the slightest, slightest clue what you were talking about, maybe you'd be angry too, and maybe that would be a start towards actually changing something which matters instead of whining about who you think gets the most toys.

Gorfias:
Please see the videos of Jordan Peterson. Huge topic in and of itself. Example:

Okay, in response please see this promotional film for the movie "Hackers", starring Johnny Lee Miller and a young Angelina Jolie in her first major film role.

image

Or maybe, this cover for the Gamemaster's Guide of the (originally parodic) fantasy RPG "Hackmaster", produced by a Kenzer and Company.

image

Or hey, what about the pretty rad box art for 1988 Satanic panic B-movie "Hack o' Lantern".

image

I mean, I agree, it's a huge topic in and of itself, but since it apparently isn't necessary to actually discuss, I think in a way I've said all that needs to be said or indeed has ever need to.

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

This did not happen in a vacuum.

This is not an example of someone arguing that all masculinity is toxic.

Can you provide any examples?

That is incorrect. They are yelling, "This is What Men's Rights Looks Like" the implication that it is bad because men are bad. I object.

I don't know or care if the #killallmen movement specifically says anything about toxic masculinity. Nor the "Society of Cutting Up Men". But it's a problem.

Reviewing further as most of my links are critiques of the war on boys rather than the kill all male types themselves... so, reviewing.

evilthecat:

If you want to go down this line, I could say that the ability to rape someone and get out of jail free by claiming they're a slut is power.

Even if we accept that you are able to offer judgement on court cases you weren't present for, one can find all kinds of "examples" of bad applications of the law. It doesn't mean the law is bad. The fact that people are sometimes falsely imprisoned for murder doesn't mean murder should be legal.

The risk/reward to rape isn't there as opposed to the power one gets lying about men. You get caught raping, you're screwed. You get caught lying about rape, ala Lena Dunham, no repercussions. It's a different problem. And is anyone saying men should just be believed? We're seeing lives harmed through accusation alone. And I'm reading, uncritically that sure, 1/3 of DV homicides are men but that most of those men were abusers. I want to be vocal about this before we come to the day when women can kill men without anyone critically examining what even happened.

If you ever, ever want to be taken seriously in this issue, you will not compare occasionally being yelled at for not doing the dishes or whatever to literally being afraid every day.

That is what coercive control is. That is why it functions as a legal defence. Because being constantly afraid has an effect on people. Knowing that someone can beat you into unconsciousness, or torture you, or rape you, or hurt your children and there is nothing you can do to stop them, knowing that if you try to stop them it will get worse, or they might try to kill you. That is coercive control.

The inability of men to understand this, to understand that this is something which happens to women constantly, that women's shelters are full of people who have been raped hundreds or thousands of times, who have been forced into prostitution, who have had attempts made on their lives and who have been conditioned against their will to be so frightened that often they cannot talk to men at all is exactly why "men's rights activists" are not taken seriously on this issue. None of you have seen a fucking fragment of what domestic abuse is actually like and none of you have any genuine interest in finding out.

I'm sorry, I don't want to get angry.. but if you had the slightest, slightest clue what you were talking about, maybe you'd be angry too, and maybe that would be a start towards actually changing something which matters instead of whining about who you think gets the most toys.

I know men who have been sent to the hospital for stitches, afraid to leave abusive wives for fear of losing their children. I'm sure you've heard the line, "better hope if she stabs you, she doesn't break a nail. Otherwise, you are the one going to jail." I've had to attend a course on DV just to keep my job at which I was told that violence against men doesn't matter as men don't have the types and amounts of fear of women as vice versa. Phil Hartman wasn't afraid of his wife. He should have been.

I do want women educated about their options but I want men knowing those options too. Those men can find themselves with someone using coercive control against them too.

ITMT: I'll check this ASAP

evilthecat:

Okay, in response please see this promotional film for the movie "Hackers", starring Johnny Lee Miller and a young Angelina Jolie in her first major film role.

You know, for quite some time I thought that was Lori Petty in that role. Presumably I'd seen Tank Girl but never read the credits for Hackers. Am also unlikely to be used as a template for facial recognition AI.

Blood Brain Barrier:
That's because the vast majority of people writing about this stuff are feminists or psychologists. Listen to biologists and you will hear a different story.

Speaking as a professional biologist myself, I'd suggest they've (we've) got barely any more of an idea than anyone else, really.

With evidence like Simon Baron-Cohen talking about "male" and "female" brains despite 30% of men and women apparently having brains of the opposite sex, we're hardly talking about devastating, mystery-eliminating proof.

Gorfias:
We?re seeing lives harmed through accusation alone.

Absolutely. I mean, there was that guy who was accused of sexually assault by 12 or so women that became PotUS and is making things worse for men all across the US.

Lil devils x:
One of the primary reasons that there are not as many males looking to stay in domestic abuse shelters is men usually have a place to stay or financial means to stay somewhere of their choosing.

Cite a source.

Lil devils x:
Women are frequently held captive by men in their homes and prevented access to any financial resources to allow them to flee.

Cite a source.

Lil devils x:
The men's and the women's situations are usually very different, so do not require the same resources to address.

Cite a source.

Lil devils x:
Due to actual demand there would never be need for as many male domestic abuse shelters as there are need for women's. It would instead create a situation where men's shelters would be empty and they would still be leaving many women to be killed in the process who were turned away due to lack of space.

Cite a source.

Lil devils x:
The other issue is that the condition the women arrive at the shelter is usually far worse than men.

Cite a source.

You voice an opinion above without any basis in reality or understanding of domestic abuse on a nationwide scale. Feeling something doesn't make it true. Also, I take particular issue with "It would instead create a situation where men's shelters would be empty and they would still be leaving many women to be killed in the process who were turned away due to lack of space." It is not a zero sum game. Resources for one do not preclude resources for another. In addition, there are already hundreds of women's shelters vs less than a handful for men, where men are victims of domestic violence in over 40% of cases. Did I say "less than a handful"? I should have said "One".

Your post is wrong on every level and has no basis in fact and I would go as far as calling borderline sexist. It belittles male victims of violence by saying "women have a problem too". The question isn't about women, it's about men.

Lil devils x:
It is harmful to men and it is Men who do not like this being done to them, thus why Men have to address Toxic Masculinity for them to be able to move forward.

"Toxic masculinity" is a vile, sexist term aimed against men, usually by the far left (SJW and feminist types) who are trying to tear down all bastions of maleness and masculinity. It is insulting, nonsense and I guarantee that if a man accused women of "toxic femininity" there would be a twitter storm like Hell had broken loose. I put "toxic masculinity" in the same category of vile, discriminatory rhetoric as "white priviledge" and "male privilidge". It's a horrible idea to be perpetuating and worse still if it's pushed on boys.

Agema:
There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to firmly show the extent gender roles are societally determined or biologically inherent.

Norway. All the evidence you'll ever need, right there. It's more than sufficient for anyone with a reasoning mind.

KingsGambit:
"Toxic masculinity" is a vile, sexist term aimed against men, usually by the far left (SJW and feminist types) who are trying to tear down all bastions of maleness and masculinity. It is insulting, nonsense and I guarantee that if a man accused women of "toxic femininity" there would be a twitter storm like Hell had broken loose. I put "toxic masculinity" in the same category of vile, discriminatory rhetoric as "white priviledge" and "male privilidge". It's a horrible idea to be perpetuating and worse still if it's pushed on boys.

Wait, don't tell me. I talk about toxic masculinity, so I'm one of those self-hating males? It's not like I regularly see men using masculinity as an excuse to do stupid and vile shit. Oh wait, I'm a substitute teacher, I see what boys who are deep in the thralls of the "be a man" mindset do on a regular basis. Namely, act like vile little shitheads and occasionally harass women based on what they're wearing and then telling them to go kill themselves. That's stuff I've had to deal with.

Also, white privilege is a thing, guess I'm a self-hating white person too. Those incidents of black men getting arrested more for crimes that white people commit at the same rates as them? Just a figment of my imagination.

Also, just throwing it out there, my mother got me through life. My dad was the old-fashioned "boys don't cry," type of shithead, a champion of the toxic masculinity you want to pretend doesn't exist. And I struggled with depression a lot during high school and college. If you had your way, if everyone just pretended toxic masculinity didn't exist, and everyone didn't dare challenge the type of bullshit I went through? I probably would've killed myself. So begging your pardon if I take issue with you acting like I'm trying to tear down all masculinity (Wait don't tell me, you think feminists are just like in that drek book Victoria where they want to make all boys stay inside and play with dolls) when I'm more interested in cutting out the toxic bits that made high school life a living hell for me because assholes kept bullying me in the hallway because they wanted to show off how manly they were against someone who wasn't very manly.

Men are SUFFERING because of this, and I care about them. Even if you don't.

KingsGambit:

Agema:
There isn't sufficient evidence for anyone to firmly show the extent gender roles are societally determined or biologically inherent.

Norway. All the evidence you'll ever need, right there. It's more than sufficient for anyone with a reasoning mind.

Goes on and on about citations and then provides none of his own. Typical.

Gorfias:

That is incorrect. They are yelling, "This is What Men's Rights Looks Like" the implication that it is bad because men are bad. I object.

That was not the discussion we were having, though. We were talking specifically about the phrase "toxic masculinity"; I was contending that the phrase (linguistically) does not indicate that all masculinity is toxic; you were contending that "most feminist sources simply want to label male behaviours as toxic" when they use that phrase.

That was the source I requested. I don't care if you've got a source showing a bunch of feminists being aggressive; that doesn't address that request. The phrase "toxic masculinity" is not used to label all masculinity, or masculinity in general, as toxic.

Gorfias:

I don't know or care if the #killallmen movement specifically says anything about toxic masculinity. Nor the "Society of Cutting Up Men". But it's a problem.

SCUM was an "organisation" with one member, from the sixties. Solanas held recruitment meetings, to which scarcely anybody turned up, and them mostly oddballs and not actual radical feminists. There's not really any good evidence it ever even functioned as an organisation in the true sense.

Truly, I think more than anything that if people have to go so far back (and to such a non-entity of an organisation) to find examples of dangerous feminism, then all that really indicates is that good examples are very, very thin on the ground.

Silvanus:

SCUM was an "organisation" with one member, from the sixties. Solanas held recruitment meetings, to which scarcely anybody turned up, and them mostly oddballs and not actual radical feminists. There's not really any good evidence it ever even functioned as an organisation in the true sense.

Truly, I think more than anything that if people have to go so far back (and to such a non-entity of an organisation) to find examples of dangerous feminism, then all that really indicates is that good examples are very, very thin on the ground.

Please see 8:40

I will write and concede that now that I am looking to Feminist posts themselves rather than just their critics posts about them, many do include language noting a difference between types of masculinity. So, point to you.

Gorfias:

Please see 8:40

Have you looked into that? It's an advert for a theatre production.

Obviously, it's goddamn disgusting and grim. But they are not members of any shadowy radical organisation from the sixties; they're actors.

Blood Brain Barrier:

That's because the vast majority of people writing about this stuff are feminists or psychologists. Listen to biologists and you will hear a different story.

No, they don't. As someone in neuroscience, when they use terms like 'socially constructed' we mean that people's relations and understanding of self, and their behaviour, is influenced by forces beyond them through psychosocial aspects. Things like neural pruning and enculturation, proof of neuroplasticity, and the radical changes in brain structure, performance and behaviour of humans on the basis of environmental causes lends credence to the idea of a socially constructed sense of self and thus an explanation of the complexity and evolving nature of human interaction.

Yes, there is a biological basis in human activity ... this came to the topic of behavioural genetics, which yes ... there is a basis of neuroses or other psychological phenomena and conditions connected to one's genes. But what it also showed was the power of environmental causes of human behaviour. Particularly noted in monozygotal twins raised together as opposed to those raised apart, but in roughly the same cultural environment.

So when people say stuff like gender roles are socially constructed ... well it's because we have proof of that.

Simply being human and sharing the human condition means that it's not in the realms of inexplicable chaos, however.

We've also seen this in terms of animal testing, the interactions of animals in different environments and observing altering social behaviour through constructed exercises and experiments... with shocking results. For one thing, we've proven love and due care for your children is socially constructed, at least. You do not want to read the lab notes of a very infamous experiment with rhesus macaques.

Plus there's always my favourite, that of looking at black swan social dynamics. The sheer range of exhibited behaviour actively throws a spanner into our understanding of animal behaviour on so many levels.

Black swans are fascinating.

There is also interesting comparative psychological examinations you can make in between humans. Like concepts of family comparing Eurocentric ideas of it, and comparing that to traditional community child-rearing practices of various people in the pre-colonized New World, or Australasia.

Which suggests even if you remove the complexities of comsuption dynamics and biological drives, different groups of humans in different places practiced and exhibited widely different ideas and aspects of community and social roles.

Gorfias:
You get caught raping, you?re screwed.

Statistically, no.

Statistically, you won't even see the inside of a courtroom.

Heck, statistically you won't even be reported. But I assume that wouldn't qualify as "getting caught".

Gorfias:
You get caught lying about rape, ala Lena Dunham, no repercussions.

Except prison terms.

Heck, until recently thousands of people were put in prison for doing things like withdrawing from prosecution during a trial, even if there was absolutely no evidence they had lied to anyone.

Gorfias:
And I?m reading, uncritically that sure, 1/3 of DV homicides are men but that most of those men were abusers.

Who is saying that?

I'm not saying that.

I will say that of those people who kill their partners, the effects of battery is more likely to be a factor in cases where women have killed than cases where men have killed. The effects of battery is a very rare legal defence and not the general rule you're trying to pretend it is.

I mean, let's say I went off and joined the army (many roles of which are only open to men, and until recently only to heterosexual men) and they sent me off to fight in a war, and the horrible things I saw in that war caused me to develop complex PTSD. I come back, and because of my mental state I start abusing my partner or family. Now, anyone familiar with this issue will know this is incredibly common. Veterans diagnosed with PTSD are 14 times more likely than the general population to use physical violence against a partner or family member.

Now, if my partner took me to court (assuming they even could, it's frighteningly common for cases involving violence by veterans to simply be buried or classed as a lesser crime than they actually are) I could plead diminished responsibility on account of my PTSD, because the experiences I'd had might have damaged me to such an extent I was no longer capable of regulating my behaviour or controlling myself like a normal person. I could plead this even if I killed my partner, and if my medical records and psychological evaluation bore it out, there is a good chance I would "get away with it".

Now, when I say the "effects of battery", what I mean, and what the term means when we break it down into medical specifics, are conditions like complex PTSD, the same conditions suffered by combat veterans or survivors of torture or genocide. The level of trauma suffered in the worst domestic violence case is comparable to the kind of thing a person might experience on the battlefield, with the exception that the abuse survivors doesn't get to come home and put it behind them. That is why we accept that their responsibility can be diminished, just as we accept that the combat veteran is not always in control of his actions. We accept that what he needs is help, not prison.

Why exactly is this a problem to you? Why should two sufferers of the same condition be treated differently because one was harmed by what they saw on the battlefield and the other was harmed by what was done to them in their own home?

Gorfias:
I know men who have been sent to the hospital for stitches,

Do you think they send women to a DV shelter because a partner gave them stitches one time?

Again, you seem to have a very, very limited imagination of how horrific and upsetting these cases can be.

I tried writing a synthetic account of experiences which have happened to people I know to illustrate what kind of a life will cause you to end up in a shelter, but I think I've given too many clues about myself on this site and I would never forgive myself if one of the people I was writing about ever saw it. Needless to say, it usually starts when you are a child.

An emotionally healthy adult whose partner gives them stitches will quickly realise after the first time, or maybe a couple of times, that this is a bad relationship and not worth salvaging. The kind of person who ends up in a shelter has been systematically robbed of that form of autonomy or self-respect, probably many many times over the course of their life, probably starting when they were very young. That is why shelters exist, they're not there to offer a nice holiday to bored wives whose husbands gave them a slap one day, they're there to protect and treat some of the most catastrophically vulnerable people in our society, and it just so happens that the vast majority of those people are women. Not all of them are, but the vast majority are, and the vast majority of those are the way they are because of men. That's why it makes sense to treat them separately sometimes, because they have been trained (quite intentionally) by men to to be terrified of men.

Gorfias:
I do want women educated about their options but I want men knowing those options too. Those men can find themselves with someone using coercive control against them too.

They could, yes.

But trust me, if they're bad enough that someone is looking at putting them in a shelter, it's not really a question of them having "options", because the alternative is either a psychiatric hospital or protective custody.

Being in a domestic violence shelter, in reality, is such a horrible, horrible experience that it can easily end up replicating the conditions of domestic abuse. Your ability to leave will be limited. Your movement might be controlled. You might be deprived of privacy and forced to undergo treatment against your will. You might be isolated or forbidden from speaking to friends and family outside the shelter or going to particular places outside. You might have to eat and sleep at particular times. Your personal possessions might be confiscated or restricted. You might be separated from children you have brought with you. This is a worst case scenario, but it illustrates the complex needs of abuse survivors who end up in shelters. They are very, very vulnerable people, they are people for whom these kinds of invasive rules may be necessary to protect them from harm, but they're also people for whom this kind of control is likely to invoke immense distress. Often, their distress is seen as a necessary price to pay.

It is not a fun holiday which men are missing out on, and the sooner you stop seeing it as such the better.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked