Mens Rights: Do we need a movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

KingsGambit:

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".

That article is from 2003 and is out of date. But you already knew that.

Silvanus:

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.

But people like that are helping to teach a generation of people that it is OK to hate white men. It isn't.

image

evilthecat:

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

Statistically, no.

If you are caught, I mean, including conviction.

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

Except prison terms.

Not Lena. Not Mattress girl. Not the Duke Lacross accuser. Not Twanna Brawley. Though I do read this is starting to change.

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?

"Research reviews have concluded that the majority of women's physical violence against men is in response to being abused by those men.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Gender_aspects_of_abuse

These types of studies can be gamed to fit a narrative. In this case, I would think it is as women engage in violence at rates on par with men. They can be just as controlling and abusive. They do not tend to be AS effective in unarmed physical violence.

I recently watched a Bane666au toxic femininity video that had a young journalist stating that MRAs do nothing about actual issues while a website she contributes to is... you go to the site and there is a tab for men not for women asking you to click there is you are the abuser. Then another if abused. When a beaten, abused man, frightened of shame and losing his children clicks there, the first sentence reads something to the effect that most abuse is by men. Great first thing for a man like this to see.

It matters to me for a number of reasons. I work with people who have suffered such abuse. (I'm close to a pension after which, I want to donate my time to helping such people. Men and women. I do not want the men ignored). I have a son I love and if he is ever in trouble, I want justice for him. I am a man living in a society in which I think we're seeing this sort of thing to help create a narrative: that we do not have to care about men.

The MRAs, MGTOWs... at a minimum, they're starting to be heard. According to people like Paul Elam, society wouldn't even acknowledge male pain. People like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey suffered death threats for acknowledging male pain.

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

A guy in particular I'm thinking of suffered continual abuse and lived in fear of losing his kids.

One thing MRAs are accused of is saying women are just lying and should not have protections. They are not. They are saying due process matters when a man is accused of something. The ability to accuse an innocent man of abuse and thereby gaining the upper hand in, say, divorce proceedings is incredible power. You'd better believe it will be abused a lot.

But that is not a statement that women shouldn't have protections. It is a statement insisting upon recognizing male pain too.

ITMT, I did think this timely.

In these times where there are so many options and protections, I had wondered this.

Gorfias:

But people like that are helping to teach a generation of people that it is OK to hate white men. It isn't.

Right... at this point, the argument just keeps shifting and transforming. Originally, my point was that feminists do not use the phrase "toxic masculinity" to condemn all forms of masculinity; that's what I asked for an example of. That line appears to have been entirely dropped.

Then, you brought up SCUM, saying that while it wasn't related to that phrase, it was still "a problem". When I pointed out that SCUM is not around anymore (and arguably never even existed as a functional organisation in the first place), you showed me that video. When I pointed out they were actors, again the original point of that discussion was dropped, and now you're talking about how what the actors are doing is bad instead.

Yes, sure, it is. But this has nothing to do with the phrase "toxic masculinity", and it has nothing to do with SCUM. You have a tendency to merely shift the discussion onto a different topic when you're challenged on a specific error.

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

But people like that are helping to teach a generation of people that it is OK to hate white men. It isn't.

Right... at this point, the argument just keeps shifting and transforming. Originally, my point was that feminists do not use the phrase "toxic masculinity" to condemn all forms of masculinity; that's what I asked for an example of. That line appears to have been entirely dropped.

Then, you brought up SCUM, saying that while it wasn't related to that phrase, it was still "a problem". When I pointed out that SCUM is not around anymore (and arguably never even existed as a functional organisation in the first place), you showed me that video. When I pointed out they were actors, again the original point of that discussion was dropped, and now you're talking about how what the actors are doing is bad instead.

Yes, sure, it is. But this has nothing to do with the phrase "toxic masculinity", and it has nothing to do with SCUM. You have a tendency to merely shift the discussion onto a different topic when you're challenged on a specific error.

??? Stated to you earlier...

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:

Silvanus:

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.

But people like that are helping to teach a generation of people that it is OK to hate white men. It isn't.

image

You know the President is a sexist sex offender, right? How the hell is some woman with a shirt more 'influential' than the fucking bigoted President? How about those tiki-torch Nazis chanting 'Jews will not replace us'?

Generations have been taught that hating blacks and women and Jews and gays is ok, how about having some concern for that?

Gorfias:

??? Stated to you earlier...

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.

Ohh yep, fair enough, I had overlooked that. Apologies.

Also, kudos for being willing to revise your view as well-- a rare characteristic on the internet indeed!

Silvanus:

Gorfias:

??? Stated to you earlier...

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.

Ohh yep, fair enough, I had overlooked that. Apologies.

Also, kudos for being willing to revise your view as well-- a rare characteristic on the internet indeed!

I hate that this site is in trouble. I've been coming here since 2009 and seeing a very different point of view from what I usually see. I learn a lot here.

Saelune:
You know the President is a sexist sex offender, right? How the hell is some woman with a shirt more 'influential' than the fucking bigoted President? How about those tiki-torch Nazis chanting 'Jews will not replace us'?

Generations have been taught that hating blacks and women and Jews and gays is ok, how about having some concern for that?

I think the President a pig. Dunno that he is a sex offender and very hard to tell if a woman comes out now about it. An untruthful accusation could still harm him politically and there are many with the motive to do so. BUT a point of the MRA is that elite men do not mind selling out the rank and file for their power.

We can walk and chew gum. We can care about Jews and care about male homelessness, increased social failure and suicide too. And that's my point and making it seems to have launched a heck of a lot of hostility.

Gorfias:
BUT a point of the MRA is that elite men do not mind selling out the rank and file for their power.

Then why blame women?

Saelune:

Gorfias:
BUT a point of the MRA is that elite men do not mind selling out the rank and file for their power.

Then why blame women?

It isn't all women's fault but they are, as a class, not blameless for some of the problems men are having, including movements to continually exclude evidence from sexual assault trials. Paul Elam is often taken to task for stating, if on a jury and knew the accused to be guilty of rape, he would vote to acquit anyway as he claims that there is a due process problem and he would be duty bound to do so. It isn't that he is cool with rape. It is that he has a problem with the accused not being allowed to display evidence that could exonerate them.
That's just an example.
There are objections to the whole, "Patriarchy has always oppressed women" narrative. There are plenty of gender kapos like Michael Kimmel to help pile on to men, but there is a movement of women that is pushing this narrative.
Could start a whole other thread on that too.

Gorfias:
Not Lena. Not Mattress girl. Not the Duke Lacross accuser. Not Twanna Brawley. Though I do read this is starting to change.

Obstruction of justice is a crime.

If you think these people committed it, report them to the police, and see how it works out for you when you have to prove it.

Gorfias:
"Research reviews have concluded that the majority of women's physical violence against men is in response to being abused by those men.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Gender_aspects_of_abuse

Wikipedia is lying. The source doesn't actually say that.

Gorfias:
These types of studies can be gamed to fit a narrative.

The studies which show global warming is real can be "gamed to fit a narrative". The overwhelming preponderance of evidence nonetheless suggests very clearly that it is.

What you're doing here is dangerously scientifically illiterate, and would upset me if it wasn't precisely what I expected from MRAs. The evidence doesn't say what you want it to say, so the evidence must be wrong. If you cannot see the problem with that line of reasoning, then you have no place anywhere near a sensitive area of policy on which people's actual lives depend.

Gorfias:
In this case, I would think it is as women engage in violence at rates on par with men. They can be just as controlling and abusive.

Sadly, the evidence does not agree with you, and in a world where research expertise and science are considered important, the balance of evidence will tend to win out over personal suppositions.

Gorfias:
People like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey suffered death threats for acknowledging male pain.

Oh, for fuck sake..

Erin Pizzey suffered death threats for claiming that abused women (and specifically women) want to be abused, invite abuse from men and are in large part responsible for their own abuse.

I think if there was ever a case where the genuine irredeemable evil of a person was demonstrated cleanly and succinctly, it would be in someone who perceives what we now know as vulnerability, what we now know as the symptoms of complex PTSD, the signs of a suffering too great for the human mind to bear, and concludes that it is all an act to satisfy some perverse sexual desire to be hurt, sexually abused and murdered which magically manifests in only half the population. Erin Pizzey would have looked at shell shocked soldiers in the trenches of WW1 and hauled them in front of a firing squad for cowardice.

There is no hell deep enough, save perhaps the obvious one.. which I can't even bring myself to wish on her.

Gorfias:
A guy in particular I'm thinking of suffered continual abuse and lived in fear of losing his kids.

It's not enough.

You don't get into a shelter because you're frightened you might lose custody of your kids in the divorce. You get into a shelter because your partner has held a knife to your child's throat and told you they will gut your kids if you ever try to leave them.

Once again, you seem to have no idea about the kind of DV cases women's services exist to deal with.

Gorfias:
.

What evidence is Elam so upset about not being presented that he'd even allow someone he knows to be a rapist to go free and offend again?

Thing about domestic violence is, If a woman hits me it doesn't really hurt and at worst it stings. Im sure that a woman with a weapon or training could fuck me up but that isnt the average person in domestic violence right? So I have to wonder if the amount of injuries are less for men involved in domestic violence. And if the harm is less, doesnt that justify more action being directed to the demographic that gets injured more?

Firstly, you really should listen to evilthecat.

Secondly:

Gorfias:
There are objections to the whole, "Patriarchy has always oppressed women" narrative. There are plenty of gender kapos like Michael Kimmel to help pile on to men, but there is a movement of women that is pushing this narrative.

The patriarchy has always oppressed women. But it's not an intentional construct, it wasn't designed by some all-knowing oppression master, so there are going to be odd things cropping up.

Anyway, you can;t really talk about the genders as classes responsible for oppression like that. People can be, and systems and idea can be responsible for oppression.

In regards to gender traitors, there are some people who would seem to fit the label, but usually it's not that simple. If you have a society telling a boy that males have to be tough, and by extension, that he's not allowed to have any problems, he just needs to "man up", then that child will be harmed by it. But if you tell him that long and hard enough, he'll accept it as truth to the extent that he will not acknowledge any over way things could be. He'll resist any attempts to change things for the better, either for himself or for anyone else, because any challenge to that threatens his worldview, it's scary, and he's been brought up to only view incoherent rage as a possible response. There was a lot of that in response to the "masculinity, so precious, so fragile" thing a little while ago, just saying those five words on the net caused a serious problem for lots of men who saw no other option but threats of violence.

Now, we've all been brought up in a society that's pushing terrible ideas on us, and nobody is immune to that, but it is something we can work to minimise. Men and women oppressing men and women because of that...you could say that they are last generations victims who've become this generations abusers in turn. That's not an excuse, of course.

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Not Lena. Not Mattress girl. Not the Duke Lacross accuser. Not Twanna Brawley. Though I do read this is starting to change.

Obstruction of justice is a crime.

If you think these people committed it, report them to the police, and see how it works out for you when you have to prove it.

Filing a false police report is a crime. It is up to the authorities to prosecute if they so choose. They often do not do so. You can argue about the reasons but it happens. That leaves the "victim" tort. Defamation is a tort. Lena retracted her accusation. Mattress Girl likely has no money, which is likely true of most accusers. But Columbia settled. Rollingstone lost its defamation suit as did Twanna and Sharpton. Donations paid up on that one.

Gorfias:
"Research reviews have concluded that the majority of women's physical violence against men is in response to being abused by those men.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Gender_aspects_of_abuse

Wikipedia is lying. The source doesn't actually say that.

And if they, Wikipedia can do it, so can and do others. And it isn?t necessarily the stat itself that bothers me. It is the use. If men initiate 25%, women 25%, and 50% you cannot really tell as it was a conflagration between the 2, than you could argue that 75% of the time, women are responding to violence (including what on balance is their own). And so would men for a 150% total. Why is this statement here? To create a false narrative.

Gorfias:
These types of studies can be gamed to fit a narrative.

The studies which show global warming is real can be "gamed to fit a narrative". The overwhelming preponderance of evidence nonetheless suggests very clearly that it is.

What you're doing here is dangerously scientifically illiterate, and would upset me if it wasn't precisely what I expected from MRAs. The evidence doesn't say what you want it to say, so the evidence must be wrong. If you cannot see the problem with that line of reasoning, then you have no place anywhere near a sensitive area of policy on which people's actual lives depend.

How many times has the ?gender pay gap? been debunked, but it keeps coming up? TFM recently carefully reviewed a study announcing women make better single parents than men. He found that it was only about 0-6 year olds. Was anyone arguing otherwise? It is teens that become a problem. In the comments where he said he would never bother with this kind of study again, someone notes that while men make up 95% of work place deaths, the vast majority are not in dangerous jobs but office dwelling jobs. Without looking at it I can predict it takes a snapshot. Sure, today I have a cushy job. But at times I did not. And plenty of jobs that do not even get included in the study. If, like Global Warming, there are powerful interests in one narrative over another, and the results of these studies make no sense, you have to take them with a grain of salt.

Gorfias:
In this case, I would think it is as women engage in violence at rates on par with men. They can be just as controlling and abusive.

Sadly, the evidence does not agree with you, and in a world where research expertise and science are considered important, the balance of evidence will tend to win out over personal suppositions.

My lived experience and the positions of MRAs like Warren Farrell say otherwise. Even in this highly politicized against men arena, the stats suggest WF is right and you are wrong:

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/2015NISVSdatabrief.html

Oh, for fuck sake..

Erin Pizzey suffered death threats for claiming that abused women (and specifically women) want to be abused, invite abuse from men and are in large part responsible for their own abuse.

That isn?t what she is saying. She says she went against the narrative that men are abusers and women the abused and got the death threats for her observations. You are also likely misrepresenting what she said or meant. She had 2 abusive parents. Their violence fed on each other. She opened a women?s shelter and found that many of the women WERE the abusers themselves and wanted help for men too.

It's not enough.

You don't get into a shelter because you're frightened you might lose custody of your kids in the divorce. You get into a shelter because your partner has held a knife to your child's throat and told you they will gut your kids if you ever try to leave them.

Once again, you seem to have no idea about the kind of DV cases women's services exist to deal with.

And if a Phil Hartman does realize the danger he is in and has no where to go, he can stay and get his head blown off, or, as stats show, be 10x as likely to be homeless as a woman.

It isn't about saying women do not deserve compassion. It's about saying men deserve compassion as well. And they're not going to get it from those particular (not all) Feminists that are myopic and self serving. And sadly, I don't think they are going to get it from elite men that see rank and file men as competition either.

Smithnikov:

Gorfias:
.

What evidence is Elam so upset about not being presented that he'd even allow someone he knows to be a rapist to go free and offend again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law

I've read of accusers (minors only?) not having to face those they would accuse. Past history, character observation, etc. Most upsetting recently: barring social media which I think very probative.

Thaluikhain:
snip

The idea of an oppressive patriarchy that holds down women... could be its own thread. The idea that we live in accordance with the rule of the father's today when a large amount of homes no longer even have dads in them?

ITMT:

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
"Research reviews have concluded that the majority of women's physical violence against men is in response to being abused by those men.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Gender_aspects_of_abuse

Wikipedia is lying. The source doesn't actually say that.

To be more precise :

From the abstract
Anger and not being able to get a partner's attention were pervasive themes. Self-defense and retaliation also were commonly cited motivations, but distinguishing the two was difficult in some studies. Control was mentioned, but not listed as a primary motivation.

From the introduction discussing earlier results

In a meta-analysis of studies comparing men's and women's use of IPV, Archer (2000) concluded that women were significantly more likely to have ever used physical IPV and to have used IPV more frequently. The majority of studies included in Archer's (2000) meta-analysis measured IPV as the number of IPV acts over a designated time period. However, counting the number of IPV acts does not provide information about why women used IPV.

Myriad theories explaining women's motivations for physical IPV have been proposed. Feminist theory-based research emphasizes the importance of gender inequity, and posits that women use IPV in self-defense or in response to their partner's pattern of abuse (Dasgupta, 2002; Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Swan & Snow, 2006; Worcester, 2002). Family conflict research argues that men and women have similar motivations, which include anger and the desire to resolve disagreements (Straus, 2005). Still other research contends that, like men, women use physical IPV to exert power and control (Buttell & Carney, 2005). Michael Johnson (Johnson, 1995; Johnson, 2006) has attempted to integrate these theories, proposing that the underlying reasons for IPV differ depending on the type of IPV relationship (intimate terrorism, situational couple violence, violent resistance, or mutual violent control).

And finally from the results
This review reflects the complexity of women's motivations for using IPV and reveals several important trends. Specifically, women's motivations tended to be more closely related to expression of feelings and response to a partner's abuse than to the desire for coercive control. This review also highlights methodological limitations of the current research, thereby emphasizing the need for further research.

Women therefore are unlikely to be successful in controlling their partners, even with the use of physical IPV. It follows that the desire for coercive control was not endorsed in any study as the most frequent reason for IPV. However, control cannot be ignored as a motivation given that women listed it in two-thirds of included studies.

Women in the included studies discussed micro-system factors influencing their use of IPV. Specifically, women reported feeling angry after futile attempts to get their partner's attention. In a review paper about women and anger, Thomas (2005) similarly found that women felt powerless when significant others ignored them, and that this powerlessness commonly provoked anger. Adhering to female gender expectations, some women may stifle this anger (Flemke & Allen, 2008; Thomas, 2005). Suppressed anger generally does not dissipate, and may eventually lead to overt aggression (Thomas, 2005).

In addition to anger, self-defense and retaliation were common motivations described by women in the included studies. However, this review demonstrates the difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation.

And again a short version of the findings of the article :

Existing studies on women's motivations for using intimate partner violence (IPV) have the following methodological limitations: 1) most recruit subjects from IPV shelters, jails or batterers' treatment programs which represent only a small proportion of women involved in violent relationships; and 2) data come predominantly from small qualitative studies or from author-created questionnaires without comprehensive psychometric validation; social desirability bias was rarely measured.
Evidence suggests that women commonly use IPV in response to their partner's violence either in self-defense or in retaliation. However, the definition of self-defense was inconsistent between studies.
Anger expression was a recurrent theme, and women frequently stated that they used IPV because they felt ignored.
Coercive control was mentioned by women as a reason for IPV, but was not endorsed in any of the included studies as women's most frequent motivation.

Yes, seems Wikipedia is just wrong here. But i am not really inclined to start edit wars on on foreign language politic articles on another continent. But the study seems to be valid science, considering the limitations you tend to have in social sciences with sample quality and reporting biases.

Gorfias:
These types of studies can be gamed to fit a narrative.

Well, not really.

See, this is why actual scientific papers go through peer reviewed journels and the intended audience is basically scientists of the same field. Sure, you could try to doctor studies to fit a narrative. But good luck trying to do that in a way that convinces experts in the same field.

The doctoring usually happens in the next step when newspapers, blogs etc. pick up an article with results they can spin and interpret it for general audience. Which is why you always check the primary source if you find an article about something you find either significant or surprising and interesting.

Sadly, the evidence does not agree with you, and in a world where research expertise and science are considered important, the balance of evidence will tend to win out over personal suppositions.

Actually now you are wrong as most of the studies do conclude that male on female domestic violence is roughly as common as female to male and that it is even more or less equal which side starts it.

The difference is only that control seems to be a rarer reason for women to hurt men and anger and frustration seem to be more common. And that man hitting women lead more often to serious injuries than women hitting men which does extend down to deadly violence where the ratio is roughly 2:1 (trusting wikipedia this time, not enough interest to go through the Justice department numbers it cites). This is somehow despite women being more likely to use improvised weapons when beating their partner. Oh and rape is far more often part of the male on female violence than the other way around.

But mostly the association of domestic violence with a man beating a women is wrong. Violent women are not rare outlier or something that also exists but is not a main problem. This kind of violent in family agression does not seem to be very gender specific at all.

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

I'm a scientist. We don't just glance at something, airily wave our hands in its general direction and declare the matter solved. We identify causal relationships with tightly controlled studies to dissect the effect of factors within a system to that system's output, because that's the sort of thing reasoning minds actually do.

I guess we all need to crawl before we run.

Can we agree our society should be teaching both men and women to be civil to each other in their relations?

Thanks.

evilthecat:

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?

I don't have a general problem with the thrust of your argument but this. I and numerous people around the world are studying better diagnostic models for returning soldiers concerning the hidden scars of war. On the modern battlefield, soldiers are repeatedly exposed to high brisant munitions that cause blast-related TBIs and longterm cerebellum (amongst other) damages that continue to degenerate long after exposure due to axonal shearing and force pressure damages of being exposed to modern explosives.

There is a known (though still mysterious) connection to blast-related TBI, Purkinje cell death acceleration, and PTSD.

The horrors of war are not merely experienced and internalized on an emotional level (common anxiety related psychological distress), but also on a physiological degree that is incredibly hard to diagnose unless with exhaustive imaging and testing. Some soldiers literally cannot put their ordeals behind them ... I've seen way too many people I served with, good people, changed forever by a war they will have no hopes of truly recovering from.

And to make matters worse, many of them were like me. We didn't have a choice to serve. Many of them were homeless youth like me and no other avenue was available to us to earn a pay cheque and put a roof over our heads.

I kind of wish this narrative of soldiers being violent thugs would end. Yes, veteran soldiers are more likely to be violent. But you don't get a free pass to pretend like people sacrificed on the altar of victory are merely violent thugs.

It's genuinely unhelpful. Soldiers are people, and so often had no other options available to them bt military service. Yes, even in Australia, which has gone 106 financial quarters without a recessionary crisis. So many of us were youths with no other options beyond crime to actually survive.

You hear stories of people being taken off their feet, 85kg with about 55 kg of gear, transported 2 feet and slammed into a concrete barricade they were lining up behind... and that's just one exposure event to the overpressure forces faced by soldiers on the modern battlefield. Often repeatedly and unceasingly for weeks on end.

They survived because modern armour allows what would be very visible damages from multi-level injury potentialities (punctures, bloodloss, broken bones) from emerging as often... but then again those soldiers suffering that would be carted off the battlefield. But what we haven't been able to deal with is the hidden injuries concerning axonal shearing on the brain during overpressure/underpressure events. And because these injuries are longterm, and degenerative, and hidden from the eye... soldiers are often told to dust themselves off and continue the fight. Unbeknownst to section and platoon leaders, and the injured themselves, just what sort of damages they were piling on.

Exposure to high-brisant explosives physiologically changes you. Brain structure, biochemistry, and in terms of your psyche in terms of what you perceive. And that's not even including the psychological effects of the battlefield conditioning you undertake to become a combat effective soldier. Nor the emotional turmoil of active deployment.

As someone who received a severe TBI ... there is no 'golden mean' of perception of reality. After severe TBIs you have to cognitively put the pieces of reality back together, and that reality is a total fabrication but hopefully it's good enough that you don't need to go on assisted living programs.

There is no 'golden mean' of reality for which soldiers can simply return to. These injuries physiologically change you, and from personal experience reality is a fickle thing that requires belief that it still holds sway. It is terrifyingly confusing to confront a world that you cannot makesense of in any fashion. Lost in a surrealness of thought, colour and shapes for which confound your means to interpret correctly.

And from this confusion, anger and frustration in its most palpable and chaotic fashion. And that's an unfortunate reality of so many soldiers returning home... there is nothing left of that 'golden mean' of mutually shared reality. You need active rehabilitation to create a new one.

It's not something that you can 'just put behind you'... the reason why psychologists now are experimenting with exposure therapy forwar-related PTSD is precisely because it helps soldiers find thoughts and feelings they had prior to everything changing.

The problem with this is that it's no longer 'Me, I' ... it's 'They, Them' ... because there is a massive gulf that severe TBI sufferers recognize that they can never be who they were again. You're reminded of it constantly. How former friends grow distant from you because you can'tfor the life of you recognize why you liked them in the first place, and you internalize the guilt ofthat because youfindit impossible to care for them like they seem to for you.

Eventually you retreat from them because you're feeling guilty and they're too tired to try anymore. And I'm not saying it's their fault for that. It's not. It's just a common occurrence with TBIs of all sorts.

And that is an often all too frightening, yet common, example of what many veterans feel when they return home. Too damaged to fight anymore, too alien from family and friends to maintain old relationships, and too confused to make sense of life outside of the military.

It is impossible to 'put that behind you'.

Gorfias:
How many times has the ?gender pay gap? been debunked, but it keeps coming up?

It's keeps coming up because it keeps not going away. It's less debunked than denied, which isn't really the same thing.

Gorfias:
I've read of accusers (minors only?) not having to face those they would accuse. Past history, character observation, etc.

There are good reasons for those. Keeping kids away from people accused of raping them is something you obviously want to do. Likewise, while it makes a certain logical sense to allow all evidence, in any jurisdiction where the victim's clothing can be mentioned, the defence will claim that rape victim's don't dress like that. In any jurisdiction that allows past sexual history of the victim as evidence, the defence will call her a slut and thus unrapeable somehow.

Gorfias:
The idea that we live in accordance with the rule of the father's today when a large amount of homes no longer even have dads in them?

Conflating the idea of the patriarchy with literal rule by fathers is akin to condemning baseball players for animal rights abuse because they hit things with bats. The words are being used in totally different ways.

Gorfias:
Filing a false police report is a crime. It is up to the authorities to prosecute if they so choose. They often do not do so. You can argue about the reasons but it happens.

The same is true of rape, what is your point?

Gorfias:
And if they, Wikipedia can do it, so can and do others.

Not really, wikipedia is specifically vulnerable to misrepresentation due to its citation practices and lack of review or oversight.

To go further than that, we have to start alleging a secret conspiracy which seeks to intentionally distort the conclusions of peer reviewed academic texts, a conspiracy involving not just the entire research community but all the subjects of all research on this issue which was academically available at the time of writing, and which exists for literally no reason except to persecute the poor mens because that's what people want to do for some reason.

No, sorry Mulder, the truth may indeed be out there, but I'm afraid it's right in front of your nose on this one.

Gorfias:
If men initiate 25%, women 25%, and 50% you cannot really tell as it was a conflagration between the 2, than you could argue that 75% of the time, women are responding to violence (including what on balance is their own).

Even if it were that simple, which I have already explained it isn't. No, you couldn't. Your data would not bear out your conclusion, and the person peer reviewing you (because that happens with actual research) would pick that up.

Gorfias:
How many times has the ?gender pay gap? been debunked, but it keeps coming up?

That's because the people who claim to have "debunked" it are lying.

Lies are very easy to spot if you know what you're looking for. Is a person willing to publish their claims in a peer reviewed format, or do they just make them in interview or middle brow books? Heck, do they only make them on a channel or format which they themselves curate? If the answer is no, well, you're off to a good start.. Secondly, are they actually challenging the evidence, or merely offering subjective interpretations of the evidence.

The gender pay gap is an extremely well evidenced statistical fact at this point, which an immense body of not only academic but public funded policy research supporting it. It's going to take more than one lobstery boi offering a weak explanation to prove otherwise.

Gorfias:
TFM recently carefully reviewed a study announcing women make better single parents than men. He found that it was only about 0-6 year olds.

Let me share a little research secret here.

If something doesn't actually say something in the text, then it doesn't say it.

Misrepresenting what something says (or "announces") in order to make it easier to "debunk" down the line is a tactic called a straw man fallacy.

On a broader note, have you asked yourself why you take the opinions of random youtubers as gospel but ignore the vast preponderance of peer reviewed evidence?

Gorfias:
My lived experience and the positions of MRAs like Warren Farrell say otherwise.

How much of Warren Farrell's work have you actually read?

Dig out a little book called The Liberated Man. You might find it quite eye opening.

Gorfias:
That isn?t what she is saying.

Yes, it very literally is.

The reason she was harassed was because of the immense public outcry against her book Prone to Violence, in which she claims that a significant proportion of women who use domestic violence services are what she termed "violence prone". She argued that, for women, being abused as a child creates a neurochemical response in the brain which functions as an "addiction", causing those women to seek out and invite violence against them as a way to replicate the high they achieved from being abused as children.. It is all there, if you care to read.

Gorfias:
She says she went against the narrative that men are abusers and women the abused and got the death threats for her observations.

Then she lied. It's that simple.

She began recieving death threats after the publication of Prone to Violence. She received round the clock police protection during promotional events for the book. Everything that has happened to her has stemmed from the claims she made in Prone to Violence.

Gorfias:
And if a Phil Hartman does realize the danger he is in and has no where to go, he can stay and get his head blown off, or, as stats show, be 10x as likely to be homeless as a woman.

You know that being in a DV shelter doesn't mean you aren't homeless, right?

Heck. Get a knife. Go to your local hospital and threaten to slash your wrists in front of staff unless they section you. If they won't put you in a psych ward, they probably wouldn't put you in a shelter.

Gorfias:
It isn't about saying women do not deserve compassion. It's about saying men deserve compassion as well.

People deserve compassion according to their needs.

You're arguing that need doesn't matter, and that because we try to give support to some of the most desperate and vulnerable people in society we have to give the same level of support to everyone.

And if that's how you feel. Take that knife. Go to a hospital and threaten to kill yourself. Then you too can experience the awesome power of being institutionalised..

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
How many times has the ?gender pay gap? been debunked, but it keeps coming up?

It's keeps coming up because it keeps not going away. It's less debunked than denied, which isn't really the same thing.

Gender pay gap is another of those things that is simply very complicated and pretty much every narrative about it is plain wrong due to oversimplification and biased picking of some aspect to overblow. Add in numbers that are old or plainly wrong and you have an idea about the general quality of the gender pay discussion.

We all have heard the various arguments about how the pay gap as average over the whole population is not the same as a gap in pay for equal work because of work experience, hours worked, different job distribution etc. and how actually equal work is payed equally.

But is it true ? Well, to know if equal work is actaully paid equally, you can't just take the salaries of a whole country and know the answer. You somehow also need data about qualification, working hours, profession and so on and this information is harder to come by. Which is why you hardly get any comprehensive studies on equal work and equal pay, you only get studies that concentrate on particular careers and findings that are dangerous to extrapolate from.

And you get another problem. What if the results differ in different sectors ? What if (theoretically) male teachers get paid the same as female teachers, male bankers get more than female bankers and female journalists get more than male ones ? How could you average that ? How can you take into account that certain jobs are vastly filled with only one gender ? How do you take into account that certain jobs are far more numerous than other jobs ? How do you take into account that the average salaries between different jobs differ vastly ?

While you can do average pay over a whole region or even country, it is very hard to get really good results about qual pay for equal work country wide.

And just to highlight how difficult that whole topic is, i invite you to take a look into Germany again. Suppossedly the Germany wide pay gap is a ridiculously high in favor of men. But Germany, being a federal republic also has numbers for the L?nder and smaller regions. And the pay gap varies wildly.

image

Yes, most the dark green is where women earn more than men which is also true for the average of the L?nder there.(It would have been better to make a color switch at zero, but that is the picture i have, wasting most of the detail on the high gap in mens favor. But the results really do stretch from -17 to 38)

I admit, that is mostly the former East, but culture is not actually that different. Instead further investigation showed that the poorer the region the higher the pay of women compared to men. Because women are more likely to be public employees than men and/or otherwise employed in contracts subject to collective agreements which tend to lead to equal salaries over bigger areas and institutions, raising wages for poor regions, but suppressing them for rich ones.

There is also the thing that "rich regions" comes automatically with higher numbers and higher spread resulting in them being overrepresented when taking total averages over the whole country.

Just another rarely discussed wage gap detail.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The horrors of war are not merely experienced and internalized on an emotional level (common anxiety related psychological distress), but also on a physiological degree that is incredibly hard to diagnose unless with exhaustive imaging and testing. Some soldiers literally cannot put their ordeals behind them ... I've seen way too many people I served with, good people, changed forever by a war they will have no hopes of truly recovering from.

I think you misinterpreted my tone as suggesting that people can easily "put things behind them". That's not even true of emotional trauma, let alone the kind of physical injury you're talking about. Some of the first accounts of dissociative disorders came from observations of holocaust survivors. Those people were never the same people they were before, they never got over it or came back. I'm sure it's the same for many veterans.

And this isn't even touching on child abuse or trauma, which as mentioned is often an underlying factor in domestic violence cases. It's becoming increasingly clear that there is a neurodevelopmental component to the effects of childhood trauma which makes it impossible to ever fully recover from.

In short, my point wasn't that people just get over things. I guess if anything I was pointing out that intimacy of the domestic settings in which abuse happens carries the risk that normal everyday situations may be intensely frightening to abuse survivors. Eating, for example, is a very common trigger or source of anxiety for abuse survivors, either because abuse happened around mealtimes or because they were abused by having things put in their mouths. For those people, every mealtime is retraumatizing.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I kind of wish this narrative of violent thugs would end. Yes, veteran soldiers are more likely to be violent. But you don't get a free pass to pretend like people sacrificed on the altar of victory are merely violent thugs.

Again, not really my intention. If anything, kind of the opposite. I'm pointing out that severe trauma can genuinely fuck people up to such a degree that they sometimes can't be held responsible for their own actions.

The comparison between abuse and military service was intended to illustrate to people who might not otherwise understand how deep the psychological impact of abuse can be.

KingsGambit:

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.

I have a good number of sources here, as I happen to volunteer for a Domestic Violence shelter.
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
http://domesticviolencehomicidehelp.com/statistics/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538518569/cdc-half-of-all-female-murder-victims-are-killed-by-intimate-partners
http://www.academia.edu/23960505/Differentiating_Male_and_Female_Intimate_Partner_Homicide_Perpetrators_A_Study_of_Social_Criminological_and_Clinical_Factors
http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
https://ncadv.org/statistics
https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/vaw.pdf
https://nypost.com/2017/10/29/these-shelters-help-male-victims-of-domestic-violence/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/domestic-violence-statistics_n_5959776.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779018/
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009001/article/10781-eng.htm
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf;jsessionid=5F1B04B3B5FD569E69C6760B9D3670A2?sequence=1
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1004&context=usjusticematls
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178904000618

From the current Data, we have approximately 9 to 12% of calls made to Domestic Violence Hotlines are male, Even if we assumed that every single one of the people calling needed to seek shelter ( they do not most people calling do not need actual shelter rather they just need someone to talk to) But even if we assumed they actually needed Shelter, that is still only 9-12% of the total that need such help. If you had the same amount of shelters for both males and females, you would have empty male shelters and massively overcrowded female shelters. In many areas, it is still much more cost efficient to use the hotel system as they have been for men. Of course in metropolitan areas, I would think shelters would be needed, but not so for the majority of rural areas.

(quoted from above article)

Before opening the 21-bed shelter in a two-story home in May, Flink?s organization, like many others, housed male victims in hotels. But Flink said that not only was that becoming costly as the numbers grew, it also wasn?t an ideal arrangement for victims to get support.

There is also the other issue of needing more space and privacy for males than is needed for females. The women in the shelter here sleep in the same bed with up to 3 other children in the same bed with the mother. Even teenage daughters sleep in their mother's bed as it is usually one bed per family up to 3 children due to severe overcrowding and lack of resources. Due to current CPS restrictions and guidelines and some state laws, they would not legally be able to house a female child over the age of 5 in the same bed with a father, or house different families in the same room with males over age 5 present. Unless you could guarantee there would be "no erections, No morning wood" for the entirely of their stay, do not expect these restrictions/ guidelines to go anywhere any time soon. This necessarily means their accommodation necessarily will be more expensive to provide and will require more privacy and space than the women presently need. That was the primary reason they house the men in hotels as it is easier and less costly than trying to provide the shelter accommodations unless there is a demand for it in the area.

Since we are located in the DFW metropolex however, we do actually have a men's shelter here.
http://www.familyplace.org/home

Financial issues preventing women from leaving abuse:

Eighty-five percent of women who leave an abusive relationship return. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a significant proportion of women who return to the relationship attribute their inability to deal with their finances as a major contributing factor, which is often enhanced by the fact that the abuser often has all of the economic and social standing and complete control over the family finances.

Many domestic violence perpetrators use economic abuse to limit partners options and make them
financially dependent on the abuser. Research indicates that economic abuse is highly prevalent.
One study of 120 IPV survivors found that 94 percent had experienced some form of economic
abuse, including employment sabotage (88 percent) and economic exploitation (79 percent;
Postmus, Plummer, and Stylianou 2015). Common tactics include: withholding access to or
information about finances, generating credit card debt, destroying property, committing identity
theft, or purposefully ruining credit scores (Adams et al. 2008; Postmus et al. 2012). Some
perpetrators prohibit survivors from working, interfere with their jobs, manipulate vital resources like
child care and transportation, or increase abuse in response to survivors? employment (Borchers et
al. 2016; Brush 2003). Economic abuse is correlated strongly with other forms of IPV and is
associated with a decrease in survivors? economic self-sufficiency (Postmus et al. 2012).
IPV also affects survivors? economic security by leading to negative health outcomes and housing
instability. One in five (20.0 percent) female survivors report one or more PTSD symptoms due to
abuse (Breiding et al. 2014), which can affect their ability to maintain employment or complete an
education. In addition, survivors may have to relocate to establish safety, be unable to pay other bills
after paying rent, or face eviction due to the abuse or lack of economic resources (Baker, Cook, and
Norris 2003; Pavao et al. 2007), and 38 percent of all survivors become homeless at some point in
their lifetime (Baker, Cook, and Norris 2003). Survivors may also face significant out-of-pocket costs
from having damaged or destroyed property, obtaining security equipment, and securing new
technology, accounts, and routines

https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/B362-Domestic-Violence-and-Economic-Security-1.pdf

These women's options are further limited by the fact that many who leave often face one or more additional barriers including having at least one dependent child, not being employed outside of the home, possessing no property that is solely theirs, and lacking access to cash or bank and credit accounts.

https://www.forbes.com/2010/09/02/women-money-domestic-violence-forbes-woman-net-worth-personal-finance.html#7be7c7891047
https://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/workshops/2014-abuse.pdf

Women are far more likely than men to be killed by their intimate partner:

The decline in these homicides took place among all race and gender groups, although they were greater for men and for blacks and less pronounced for white women.1 These declines, while truly significant, mask the important fact that women are substantially more likely than men to be murdered by their intimate partners. The findings presented in the accompanying articles examine which women are most at risk for being a murder victim and consider policies that may help to explain the declines or to result in further declines.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250.pdf

Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)Males were most likely to be victims of drug-related (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).

"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.

No, "Toxic Masculinity" is a term created by a Man (Shepherd Bliss) working to improve men's rights. As Already linked in this thread, but will link again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoetic_men%27s_movement

It should benefit you to learn about the earlier Men's rights movements to gain a better understanding of why this is so important rather than attack that which you do not understand. Feminists who have helped further their cause are not " against men" they are trying to help them as they have done so numerous times already.

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

This is not and has never been a "womenz vs Men" issue. It has always been about both men and women trying to make the world we live in better for both. That means addressing the very things causing this in the first place, which happens to be " Toxic Masculinity". Of course you have the outliers, both men and women taking counterproductive actions to this, but that happens regardless of issue, not just a matter of equal rights and is to be expected. Those are the exception, not the rule. It is a misrepresentation to use the few in an attempt to demean the good works of the many.

EDIT: BTW, My posts ARE based on Facts, not ignorance of what is actually happening here. Actually read the sources, they are quite informative and will help you gain a better understanding of the situation as a whole.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
How many times has the ?gender pay gap? been debunked, but it keeps coming up?

It's keeps coming up because it keeps not going away. It's less debunked than denied, which isn't really the same thing.

You cannot have a smart, savvy business person hire one person over another at a 30% premium because of bigotry. That?s silly. And the US has had equal pay laws for ? a Century. The 30% is due to real differences. Again, its own topic but you are defending the indefensible.

Keeping kids away from people accused of raping them is something you obviously want to do.

Tell that to Gerald Amirault. While his conviction was never over-turned to my knowledge, he did decades in prison because, it appears, he changed a kid?s pants after the kid wet himself.

Likewise, while it makes a certain logical sense to allow all evidence, in any jurisdiction where the victim's clothing can be mentioned, the defence will claim that rape victim's don't dress like that. In any jurisdiction that allows past sexual history of the victim as evidence, the defence will call her a slut and thus unrapeable somehow.

People are odd. They like sex in ways I find? well example. S&M. Pain hurts me. I would not ask someone to hit me. Were I on a jury and told the ?victim? had been spanked, my 1st instinct is, hang that bastard that spanked her! My opinion would change if I found out she?s asked and had people spank her in the past. Go figure. Today, that type of fact would be excluded. It shouldn?t be.

Conflating the idea of the patriarchy with literal rule by fathers is akin to condemning baseball players for animal rights abuse because they hit things with bats. The words are being used in totally different ways.

That is literally a version of the definition of the term. A charge against those that would derogatively use the term is that they will not settle on a definition to avoid having to defend their position for charging that an issue has been caused by it.

evilthecat:

Gorfias:
Filing a false police report is a crime. It is up to the authorities to prosecute if they so choose. They often do not do so. You can argue about the reasons but it happens.

The same is true of rape, what is your point?

Easily understood from what I wrote that you did not quote. You tasked me with further litigation to prove there are times women lie about sexual abuse. I did so pointing out that it needed to be done in ways other than you suggested and that had been done successfully.

I think you need a rest from this topic. Granted.

ITMT: Reviewing http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

Gorfias:
You cannot have a smart, savvy business person hire one person over another at a 30% premium because of bigotry. That?s silly.

What, business owners (or hell, anyone else), function perfectly logically and without mistake? I don't think you've quite grasped what "bigotry" means. People are going to hire/promote who they feel is best for the position. If their views on what sort of person is best for the position is questionable, they'll make questionable decisions. If lots of people share the same view, entire demographics are affected.

(As an aside, one thing that often is overlooked when talking about the (absolutely true and proven fact) of gender pay gap is that usually people are comparing white men and white women. Things change when you stick race in there as well.)

Gorfias:
And the US has had equal pay laws for ? a Century.

It's also had laws against physically abusing men, or falsely accusing people for a while. You going to say those aren't real issues?

Gorfias:
Tell that to Gerald Amirault. While his conviction was never over-turned to my knowledge, he did decades in prison because, it appears, he changed a kid?s pants after the kid wet himself.

Not familiar with the case, but I feel safe in assuming that him physically being in the same room as the alleged victim during the trial would not have altered things.

Gorfias:
People are odd. They like sex in ways I find? well example. S&M. Pain hurts me. I would not ask someone to hit me. Were I on a jury and told the ?victim? had been spanked, my 1st instinct is, hang that bastard that spanked her! My opinion would change if I found out she?s asked and had people spank her in the past. Go figure. Today, that type of fact would be excluded.

Yes, because someone consented to something once, does not mean they are required to consent to it forever after. You don't get to rape someone just because they agreed to have sex with you sometime in the past.

Gorfias:
That is literally a version of the definition of the term. A charge against those that would derogatively use the term is that they will not settle on a definition to avoid having to defend their position for charging that an issue has been caused by it.

A word having more than one usage is not something that is strange or confronting to most people.

Anyone talking about the patriarchy in any remotely meaningful way knows which definition they are using, because obviously.

Gorfias:
Easily understood from what I wrote that you did not quote. You tasked me with further litigation to prove there are times women lie about sexual abuse.

Bollocks. I pointed out that you were wrong in your absurd claim that women can legally ruin men's lives with malicious rape or sexual abuse accusations (you know, because people accused of sexual crimes are social pariahs, it's not like there's one in the fucking white house, how insane would that be!) That was simply not true.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. Many people have gone to prison for it, including many women who probably were sexually assaulted but withdrew from their trials due to trauma or threats. What you said was simply wrong.

Now you're trying to claim that a handful of high profile cases in which women are rumoured to have lied or wrongfully identified a suspect, the lack of a criminal prosecution indicates that we live in a society that tolerates malicious accusations. Well, if that's true, Gorfias, then we also live in a society that tolerates rape.

Gorfias:
I think you need a rest from this topic.

I don't.

You literally want to gamble with human lives, the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I think any anger or negative feeling I've shown in this thread is quite reasonable, given that. I mean, what exactly do you expect when you compare rape and torture to being nagged or getting divorced?

Do dig out The Liberated Man. Seriously, it's a bit out of date, but it's at least amusingly so, and will serve you far better than the youtube trash you seem to be basing your opinions on now..

evilthecat:

I think you misinterpreted my tone as suggesting that people can easily "put things behind them". That's not even true of emotional trauma, let alone the kind of physical injury you're talking about. Some of the first accounts of dissociative disorders came from observations of holocaust survivors. Those people were never the same people they were before, they never got over it or came back. I'm sure it's the same for many veterans.

And this isn't even touching on child abuse or trauma, which as mentioned is often an underlying factor in domestic violence cases. It's becoming increasingly clear that there is a neurodevelopmental component to the effects of childhood trauma which makes it impossible to ever fully recover from.

In short, my point wasn't that people just get over things. I guess if anything I was pointing out that intimacy of the domestic settings in which abuse happens carries the risk that normal everyday situations may be intensely frightening to abuse survivors. Eating, for example, is a very common trigger or source of anxiety for abuse survivors, either because abuse happened around mealtimes or because they were abused by having things put in their mouths. For those people, every mealtime is retraumatizing.

----

Again, not really my intention. If anything, kind of the opposite. I'm pointing out that severe trauma can genuinely fuck people up to such a degree that they sometimes can't be held responsible for their own actions.

The comparison between abuse and military service was intended to illustrate to people who might not otherwise understand how deep the psychological impact of abuse can be.

Ahhh, sorry.

Just that I hear this argument a lot from people saying that the military attracts violent thugs, and thus to explain DV in military households as if only that. It's my fault, really. I get pretty defensive about such things, because in my experience so many soldiers were people like me. And the first person I ever met that freely offered me a place to stay so I could save money was another enlistee who didn't care I was then closeted, didn't care I was living on the street prior.

It is true however, that DV should be viewed as if a communicable psychosocial disease. And past trauma or no, it's inexcusable. But I have a bit of a hair trigger when people assume just because one is in the military, that predicates itself as if likely of being an agent of DV. And I thought that was whatyou were saying, but upon re-reading it I get you weren't. So it's entirely my fault for misapprehending you and I apologize.

And you're right, in that we know from animal testing that enculturation of violence (and the restriction of access to affection), particularly when young, reduces total pro-social activity and openness to others. Which is precisely why the Safe Schools project of teaching kids it's okjay to be LGBTQ and promoting greater access to school counsellors as perhaps the 'empathetic ear' LGBTQ kids might not receive at home was such a good idea.

But then conservatives pretended it was something-something Gay Agenda and other certifiably idiotic concepts. Despite, you know ... the fact that by undermining or stigmatizing people for simply being LGBTQ ends up costing the state far more in medical costs down the road.

For spending a little on each student early, we could cut costs to healthcare to the tune of many millions.

I will say however, that it's true that the military founds itself as a culture of strength, and the mlitary does create what I guess you could call an 'alienating cultural dynamic'.

In the corporate or academic world, so often you're taking orders from people born into status and economic privilege (likely both). In a modern Western military, I've shaken hands with General Sir Peter Cosgrove whose modesty is as legendary as his accomplishments. A real soldier's soldier who went from a lowly military graduate, to personally carving his name into Australian history as the mastermind of the East Timor invasion and liberation. A master stroke of command, planning, deception, and later diplomacy... in the hands of any lesser an officer, that conflict could have carried a far higher death toll of Australians, Indonesians, and Timorese that could have spun out of control.

The military breeds a meritocracy outside the usual designs of civil society for which is the least bit meritocratic... for its own sake, a modern military must isolate itself from the corruption of civil society ... otherwise it undermines its own success at home and abroad.

In all honesty, the only job I knew 100% how to do was as an enlistee. They teach you everything. Encourage you to exceed even your own expectations of your limits. And at least in the Australian Army we harnass our individual strengths for the empowerment of the unit through the codices of warfare and discipline laid down by Australian generals and noted 'war humanists' like General Sir John Monash and the aforementioned General Sir Peter Cosgrove.

And the problem with all of that is soldiers experience it once they have also been damaged by the modern battlefield. That readjustment to civil society is compounded by not only an alien culture than they'reused to, but the damages (social, psychological and physical) they may have accrued by the time they're rotated out.

General Sir John Monash put it best; "Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs--the Australian Army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline..."

And there's a problem with that because civilian life is the least bit disciplined or interested in individualism. If it were, artists of all stripes and fashions would be the ruling caste.

The extraordinary lack of empathy that so many display when soldiers are rotated out of the service is noisome at best and downright egregiously wrong at worst.

The psychological distress is profound, because by dint of necessity military life must be alien to the parent culture. The success of the military must be founded on harnassing individual talent for the sake of collective results which exceed the cost of deployment and the purely consumption-driven narrative concerns of the parent culture. Th military must strive to be beyondsexist, racist, homophobic or transphobic ... and must strive to promote from within the very best of the best, and give abundant resources to achieve for all its membership, regardless of socioeconomic background.

If it fails to, well ... just look at how well Saudi princelings and friends of the ruling family lost an entire armoured column to Houthi resistance fighters who live on peanuts in comparison.

Houthi rebels outmaneuvred them, and they eyeballed targets with thirty year old Iranian hand-me-downs. No Saudi defensive screens to improve total visibility, no effective air reconnaissance, no pre-mission briefing and intelligence to expedite gunlaying of main guns to quickly sight likely areas of attack. Primary difference in terms of comparative strengths? Houthi resistance elect their own section leaders, who elect their platoon leaders, who elect their company leaders, and so on.

If a military fails to provide opportunities to excel based on merit, it simply fails. And that culture is pretty strong at least in most Western military forces.

It annoys me when people complain about that, when the ideal military is in such a form by necessity alien to what is an insipidly consumerist society. People pretending as if that enculturation is not wholly undermined by the ridiculous paradigms of the'home front' devoid of the suffering and expectations of military life.

I will say there is also the problem of the flipside of the dialogue, that as if soldiers should be pitied. Soldiers don't need or want pity, merely recognition the environment and the necessity of those alien cultural dynamics is what makes a military strong. In the same way we don't pity athletes who are injured and require a doctor, you shouldn't pity a soldier requiring counselling to readjust to civilian life or rotated out of active deployment.

It is a necessity of their human condition and should be given as an aforementioned acceptance they are human, not victims beyond the political failures and weaknesses of politicians to find concession and conciliation.

It's a pretty touchy subject for me because of personal connections, but if we want to reduce DV and suicide in military families I've always believed the first step is to beat it into people's heads that military life is necessarily different and has unique qualities as pertaining to the human condition.

I find it interesting that MRA's/MGTOWS actually came up with MORE insults for men than the radical feminists did, not to mention they don't mind judging men based on how many women they slept with.

Any reason for this?

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
People are odd. They like sex in ways I find? well example. S&M. Pain hurts me. I would not ask someone to hit me. Were I on a jury and told the ?victim? had been spanked, my 1st instinct is, hang that bastard that spanked her! My opinion would change if I found out she?s asked and had people spank her in the past. Go figure. Today, that type of fact would be excluded.

Yes, because someone consented to something once, does not mean they are required to consent to it forever after. You don't get to rape someone just because they agreed to have sex with you sometime in the past.

We lean towards NOT convicting people just in case.

If I'm accused of bank robbing, you have to prove I did so this time. It isn't enough to say I'd done so in the past.

This is just the opposite. A Defendant is supposed to be able to offer any evidence that is more probative than prejudicial. The accuser is not on trial. She gets to leave regardless of the verdict. She still has the ability to testify that she likes to be spanked but did NOT consent this time. But as this is currently excluded (along with not being allowed to face your accuser and the fight to exclude social media) jurors can be left with biases that would otherwise be dealt with which is a failure to provide the accused with due process. Innocent people will go to prison. And Paul Elam will continue to reasonably state these are reasons a juror should always do his duty to acquit when due process is violated.

As for the gender pay gap, I would deal with it by finding the 1st Amendment, with its guarantee of a right to association, over-rides any attempt at closing the "gap". Just hire who you want at a bargain for exchange. Women have, control and spend much more than men. If they find they're being irrationally discriminated against, form their own companies and hire who they like.

Why is this an MRA issue? Because I think "closing the gap" is actually about exploiting and encouraging discrimination against men. It has to be fought.

Gorfias:
Women have, control and spend much more than men.

Yeaaa, it's not like marketing or the pink tax has anything to do with that.

Smithnikov:

Gorfias:
Women have, control and spend much more than men.

Yeaaa, it's not like marketing or the pink tax has anything to do with that.

Like DoctorRandomercam says: girls may want the pink helmet and are willing to pay for it but little boys are told, "you're getting the cheap one."

While I find the entire video amusing, the helmet part is at 11:30

Gorfias:

Like DoctorRandomercam says: girls may want the pink helmet and are willing to pay for it but little boys are told, "you're getting the cheap one."

Or, like Elliot Rodger, another popular YouTuber, says, 'Why do girls hate me so much?'. I wonder what he's up to now, hasn't posted in ages?

Of course women spend more. Bras, makeup and tampons/pads cost money that men don't have to spend to interact with society

undeadsuitor:
Of course women spend more. Bras, makeup and tampons/pads cost money that men don't have to spend to interact with society

Found out recently that my wife let my daughter spend $300 on our credit card having a hair cut and coloring. That is what my g-d damn Xbox One cost!!!

Women spend money for a lot more reasons than a simple need to interact with society.

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

Like DoctorRandomercam says: girls may want the pink helmet and are willing to pay for it but little boys are told, "you're getting the cheap one."

Or, like Elliot Rodger, another popular YouTuber, says, 'Why do girls hate me so much?'. I wonder what he's up to now, hasn't posted in ages?

I'm curious: Bane666au has done a series called, "The Propaganda of Toxic Feminism" that is years on. Each episode is about an hour and he's completed 61 so far. A huge topic and what launched this series is his outrage that he states people are though negligence or bad faith, calling Elliot Rodger an MRA, stating he subscribed to a number of MRA channels. He holds the guy belonged to zero. None. He was at best an Incel, not an MRA or MGTOW. Your thoughts? Might make for another thread if Bane could do 61 hours on it!

Gorfias:

A huge topic and what launched this series is his outrage that he states people are though negligence or bad faith, calling Elliot Rodger an MRA, stating he subscribed to a number of MRA channels. He holds the guy belonged to zero. None. He was at best an Incel, not an MRA or MGTOW. Your thoughts? Might make for another thread if Bane could do 61 hours on it!

My thought is that I have absolutely zero idea who Bane is and that I don't use YouTube to get my news. And, not to be difficult, but what kind of proof is 'he holds the guy belonged to zero'? At the point it's just an opinion, and currently we have 'people are' (plural) vs 'He holds' (singular), which suggests Bane is kind of outvoted on this one.

But imagine an incel being the best you can be?! Is that not like winning a chronic diarrhoea‎ competition?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked