Hey man, I’m really hoping you have been able to get someone to speak to about your situation as well as medication to help manage your symptoms. I did not take those options, and it has taken me years to recover.
It sounds like you’re still carrying a lot of that weight, and I hope you can put it down.
We are taught from a very young age to not hit people smaller and weaker than us, even in self defense. And it happens a lot more than people realize.
Im so sorry yo hear this. Be aware that ither men can always help you! We are here united!!!
Have you tried any of the new MDMA-enhanced psychotherapy techniques for PTSD?
Even when the waters have calmed down, and a person is functional again, the shit is still there. But the shit itself can be actually cleaned up, to make space for more of the good things.
I've been looking into that here and so far it's not accepted as valid (or legal to use MDMA) and while it looks promising, me being neurodivergent has my psychiatrist and psyhcologist a bit apprehensive to experiment with it.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
Abuse victims who actively rebel or who try to help other victims jeopardize the system's access to slaves, you see. So they have their spirits driven completely into the ground to stop others rising up against them.
Why do you think things like rape or domestic abuse are seldom punished? Or even murder to an extent? Especially since the government has had access to mass surveillance for over a decade and thus has the power to end such crimes completely?
The powers that be WANT this and NEED it for their system to survive.
That is the slave racket.
This is just life in the slave racket. Abuse victims are denigrated, subjugated, and treated as the real threat to their community and not the abuser. They are treated like that because the society NEEDS most of its people to be abused and to tolerate it so they can be exploited throughout their lives without challenging their exploiters, or even worse, tearing down the system that benefits the oppressors.
This is absolutely true. It may ring strange to the ears of some people because we've had Me Too since some years ago, but what did usually happen to a woman abused by someone in a position of power 20 years ago? How often would they have gotten justice? The same happens today if you're victimized by a religious institution in a very religious community, by your boss in a workplace where everyone is scared of unionizing, or in a household in a community where most people would lean towards disbelieving you or ignoring the issue.
I'm going to go ahead and say that most people, when faced with very clear warning signs of someone else being abused, choose to do nothing about it because they're cowards. We absolutely need better systems to deal with these situations, but given that they do not exist yet, individual acts of bravery save people from getting their lives broken. Please think about this next time you think someone close to you may be suffering.
Damn that devolved into conspiracy bullshit real quick. Shame.
Is it conspiracy bullshit that megacorps and billionaires directly benefit from, and spend millions on, sowing division among the people?
It's conspiracy bullshit to think that the government has nebulous access to all listening and recording devices, has an army of goons to review every second of every piece of footage, and when murders or rapes occur they actively ignore it because the division helps them profit.
It's conspiracy bullshit to say that the billionaires and corporations are coming together to crush the spirits of the working class to have subservient slaves and that their entire existence is dependant on this apparent cycle of slavery through breaking down the hopes and dreams of the working class.
And yes, it's conspiracy bullshit to think they're directly spending money on sowing division in people. The only corporations that benefit on division work as military contractors or reporters.
In reality, they just don't give a fuck about us. Politicians want to be re-elected with the least possible work done, corporations want to make the most money with the least possible cost, and billionaires want to keep as much money as they can until the heat death of the universe. Overwhelmingly, most aren't malicious, just apathetic and trying to ascribe malice to everything, to think everyone is in the shadows conspiring against you is what sane people call paranoia.
Slave racket? That's a severe overexaggeration. Can we please not use such loaded and extremist words for the issue of male DV victims?
It applies to all abuse victims, not just males
I legit can't tell if you're trolling. lol
I was abused by my ex-wife for years. The treatment I received from government agencies was more damaging than most of what I got from her.
Certain organisations that are used to inform governments, from elected officials to social workers are based on the assumption that only men are ever abusive, that all men are abusive and the women can do no wrong. It started with the Duluth model and was followed in Australia by a study done by White Ribbon that specifically excluded straight men from participating. I know this is the case as I attempted to participate and that is exactly what I was told at the time.
Our bureau of Statistics has clearly shown that at least ⅓ of victims are men.
Eh, no. A lot of this crap is also being pushed by the latest wave of feminists who are of the "all men are rapists" type. I recall seeing this video a few years back about a guy trying to get into a meeting for those left after male suicide. Guy's brother committed suicide, he wanted, needed to talk about this and was denied entry by a bunch of feminists who literally cheered that his brother had killed himself.
Everybody deserves equal treatment, men, women, or whatever you identify as. In the past few years though, there had been a clear push against white men because they must all be racist or something? It's weird.
Either way, this is not just "toxic masculinity", way too easy to again push it on that.
It is still toxic masculinity, people just aren't prepared to acknowledge the massive role women play in propagating it.
It's toxic humanity.
So the belief by neo-feminists that all men are rapists and undeserving of sympathy is due to all men's toxic personality? Am I getting that right? Seems like victim blaming.
As all the popular things, feminism was pretty fucking great up until a certain point. Then it became a parody of itself.
I'm on the side of every woman still struggling in a man-made world. For every "feminist" of the vengeful variety I have nothing but disgust.
I think the toxic masculinity is another subject aside from domestic relationships involving man on man violence and how it’s given a pass (especially on tv) . Beavis butthead /jackass type stuff. At least that is more in context of what I’ve seen it meant to be towards.
Domestic abuse however should be considered regardless of gender. It would be better to drop the gender out of it entirely when discussing it. We should acknowledge anyone can be a victim or even an abuser. it’s actually very common that even both are abusers but that often doesn’t get addressed other than being ‘one cancels out the other’ or ‘you’re both bad for eachother’.
There is a problem here that your post is making obvious, but no one is seeing. Every form of discrimination against men is being described by feminists as "patriarchy." It seems when all you have is a hammer, everything in front of you becomes a nail. The giant blowback feminism is getting is because of this one-word-fits-all aspect of their ideology. In this case, the dangerously deluded idea that if you just get rid of Patriarchy, male disposability will just go away and so will discrimination against men.
It won't, because the common denominator is humans.
This is why you never hear feminists talk about the actual things that drive women to attack men without provocation. If they can't pin it on the Patriarchy they don't want to discuss it. Literally this excuses women from being held responsible for their actions... because when a woman does something like that, it's just her, but when a man does it, it's reflective of a bigger problem, aka "men as a class". Women don't have bigger influences that make them think they can get away with stuff unless you can blame it on the Patriarchy and not the simple fact that women can be just as evil as men and in fact can circle their wagons around an offender just like the Patriarchy can for miscreant men. Just look at how Sharon Osbourne and an entire crowd of women circled their wagons around Catherine Kieu. I can provide the video if you want. But that never matters to feminists - the idea that women have their own framework outside of "Patriarchy" by which they treat each other and men wrong is heresy to them. Patriarchy as the cause of all gender wrongs is as myopic as it is popular.
Yet it's hard to even discuss this because talking about it draws the equally fascist elements of the men's rights movement. And so myopia becomes the new 20/20.
Uh oh! Looks like somebody called out feminism on some horrible behavior. Downvotes for you sir.
I had the same issues with my first wife. At one point when we were separated she attacked me in public and tried to steal my keys so she could take my car, while I was holding my kid. I had scratches all down the arm that wasn't holding my child, and I ended up retreating into a store, where she continued to attack me. When the cops showed up I was immediately cuffed, and she was treated as a victim, despite onlookers and even her telling them that she had attacked me. I would have definitely gotten booked except that a female officer was called to talk to her, realized what was going on, and made the male cops uncuff me and arrest her instead.
At the hearing for a restraining order the judge literally laughed, and gave her partial custody of the kid with no restraining order for either of us, and the local DA let her off with anger management courses and nothing on her permanent record.
Did you keep photographs of the scratches? Even if they don’t become useful for you, they can be useful for history books when describing this problem in the future.
I did for a few years, but it's been 15 years since this all happened, and I'm sure they have been lost in the shuffle.
I've heard many horror stories like this....
Had a friend who called the police on his abusive girlfriend when she pulled a knife on him, they arrested HIM for abusing HER despite him having witnesses...
I've also knew a guy who had to leave home because of his abusive wife, and when he asked about Abuse Shelters for men, the office kept recommending him to Anger Management programs meant to rehabilitate abusers
There was rape training at one of the unis I went to, including sexual violence against men and women stats. The rape stats were pretty bad as they are, but the one that really stuck out to me was that 1 in 10 men got raped. Really fucking high, much higher than expected. And you never hear much about it until a friend of a friend got held down by several people and raped. Refused to come forward to the police or even get tested for STDs because he was afraid of what society would think.
That feeling can help us understand where women were at about 50 years ago. That’s the thing feminism was fighting originally: the total societal blind eye, alone feeling.
Women today don’t even know what it feels like, to have no one care. Which is a testament to the success of second wave feminism, at least in this domain.
I have a feeling that only scratches the surface of what is abuse. It’s a whole family dynamic. And I would prefer it if gender wasn’t part of the discussion It really slants it like you say.
I’ve seen people blame the victim of abuse simply because they aren’t the abuser and ‘should know to leave’ when it is actually a very dangerous situation they are in.
And in some of the programs on the subject of addiction it’s actually more common that you’ll get both parents are actually abusive however our way of being programmed (like in the programs you’re saying) we might side more with who shares our gender. Or worse: start thinking the person who is being abused deserves it because they are somehow annoying others into abusing them. Or even wants to stay for the abuse and people lose respect for the victim for not leaving.
In Australia (more so in New Zealand) they are at least a decade behind on what is going on in America when it comes to addressing abuse dynamics. They still struggle a lot to get cops to take abuse seriously and very behind on the training. Lots of these programs even believe that abusers think victims have evolved to take a hit. I dunno, some sort of messed up biology involving whomever or whatever the gender is they believe is the more common and whatever the gender of victim is most common.
sure, ok in worst case scenario let’s say there might be some fucked up narratives like that out there amongst why an abuser abuses, I’d like to see that (or any idealogical bases for abuse) challenged towards the individual abuser rather than confirmed to the victim.
Im sorry to hear this, remember men will always be there for you!
MASH hosted about 20 fleeing men and children in the first four months of 2013 before being shut down.
Glass half full. He probably made a massive difference in the lives of those 20 in those few short months. Maybe even turned some lives around.
glass half full with a hole in it
If your cup be full, may it be again
20 men being able to have a stable place for a few months is amazing. If every man who gets involved manages 20 saves before he gets taken out, the whole thing could still work.
It’s not the fun numbers like “helped 10,000,000 men then died happily of natural causes at a ripe old age”, but 20:1 is still pretty good.
And let’s be real here. It’s not like he would have avoided suicide for longer if he hadn’t tried to help. Dude was probably with us far longer as a result of his own stepping up.
Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.
My mother was the abuser in my home. She abused me and my father. That fact doesn't prevent me from knowing that men are statistically more likely to be the aggressor. I don't know what I'm trying to say with this comment. Life is scary and hard enough. May we all only share and receive kindness.
Xx love you.
I assumed you said that (about how men are far more likely to be abusers) to try to mitigate any reactions that take your very reasonable comment out of context. Any time someone points out that abuse or injustice can happen from the non-typical side of a binary situation, someone inevitably jumps in with a "well achually..." response. Sometimes it's said with the best of intentions. Sometimes it's just trolling our pushing a personal bias.
I disagree with others who say you are perpetuating something negative by saying that. That's clearly not what you are doing. You are just trying to provide a preemptive response to an inevitable counterpoint. Your overall point was well-made and reinforces the tragic but insightful story behind this post.
I hope you and your dad have found peace and happiness away from your abusive mom.
It's because you can't say or do anything in regards to this issue without attracting people that have an agenda that has nothing to do with helping men but is simply anti-feminist.
I've read plenty of times online how people don't even look for help because they were convinced online that help for men does not exist. But it does and it should be spread instead of people trying to persuade people it doesn't exist just because they want to spread their ideology.
This is exactly how I interpreted it
Is this Lemmy's rimjobsteve?
I know roger simon won't show up. It was always his father who would beat him with jumper cables.
I think I interpret what you are saying as that you're aware women likely need more help, but so do men, and we shouldn't assume the smaller one doesn't exist or ignore them because that group creates more issues than they have victims.
Thank you for that balanced take on this issue.
So sorry to hear that.
I read:
1 - men absolutely get abused
2 - we don’t need to entirely eliminate any of the existing narrative that women have it rough [but let’s add abuse of men to the picture]
No notes besides sending some love back, brother.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say with this comment
That despite being actual victim of abuse, and further witnessing your father be a victim of abuse, You still try to push the narrative that women are the only real victims and the only ones deserving of support.
and I dont say this to be mean, or snarky, or cruel to you. You've just got to realize how internalized you've got this shit.
Because you all constantly bring up the fact that men are abused whenever women talk about their suffering in order to invalidate what they're saying.
And now that the shoe's on the other foot, you complain.
And while you're squabbling with me over it, the slave racket will keep churning out more crushed souls.
That fact doesn’t prevent me from knowing that men are statistically more likely to be the aggressor
Right there.
He is a victim if abuse, and deserves support and understanding. He deserves to be heard without caveats. He shouldnt feel the need to have to basically hide his abuse by saying "Yeah, I was abused, but women have it so much worse" to avoid a deluge of critical comments and attacks. Which very often happens anytime a man is a victim of abuse and speaks out about it in any capacity.
He deserves support, and understanding, and resources. Same with his father. Same with all victims of abuse.
But men don't have access to such things, because societal misandry on the topic means resources for men are downright nonexistent, because if a man tries to access currently available resources, they'll be shut down and viewed as an abuser trying to get to vulnerable women, and anytime someone does try to provide resources for men separately, They are either attacked with dubious claims like trying to take resources away from women, or are just straight shut down and ridiculed.
And statistics are only based on reported/known crimes. male victims of abuse, domestic or sexual, are far less likely to report due to the social stigmas associated with toxic ideas of what men should be.
Thank you for saying this. It is the same when men get raped by other men. "It is male on male crime" is such a stupid take, it is blaming the person who got raped because of the gender they were born into.
There are resources and help for men. You aren't helping anybody but sexist trolls by pretending they don't exist. The only thing you are "achieving" is that some victims don't even try to get help.
So you're basically one of those sexist trolls who argue that men get abused too, therefore they couldn't possibly be responsible for most of the abuse. And that women's suffering is invalid.
To solve the problem, we have to accept the facts and the fact is, despite the fact that men sometimes get abused, they're the ones doing most of the abusing and therefore are the ones who need to be fixed. Deal with that fact.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say with this comment.
That's a indicative of nervousness over even discussing the problem. Which shouldn't be the case. The existence of a larger problem doesn't mean people should feel nervousness over discussing smaller problems.
Also this isn't a smaller problem for the person affected. A man that is abused is no small problem for that man. It's the biggest problem in their life, just as for a woman that's being abused that's the biggest problem in her life. The fact that more women are being abused than men doesn't lessen the effect of the abuse on the individual whether the victim is a man or a woman.
There's a tendency for statistics to override empathy for an individual. "Ah well, that doesn't happen very often, so whatever." But it did happen for that person and it's just as horrible for that person as it is for individuals in that statically larger group.
So we should make an effort to prevent statistics from negating empathy. There shouldn't be a stigma against someone talking about a problem that's statistically less probable as if low probability means something didn't happen and isn't worth talking about. It happened and and we should be aware of how statistics can have the tendency to turn us into statistical psychopaths which prevents real problems from being addressed.
Because that part is completely irrelevant to the fact that men can be victims of domestic abuse and it's often used to dismiss the men who are victims.
And the fact that he feels the need to pre-emptively dismiss himself that way is sad. He shouldn't have to feel that way.
Yeah, he's maybe taken it a bit far, but his point is still valid. If I'm talking about my experience with abuse it should be allowed to stand alone. I shouldn't have to acknowledge its place in the meta.
It's fine to discuss its place in the wider conversation, but I shouldn't be forced to engage with it when sharing my experience. When people do try to push this it does unfortunately come across as invalidating my experience.
The original commenter posting that bit makes it seem like they're minimising their experience for fear of others' reactions.
you were saying?
Yeah it could probably use a cunt at the end for maximum efficacy
no.
He wasn't weak like some bigots may claim. It's just not that easy to fight the whole world alone. And he tried just that. A very tragic story that is really good to know to start untangling the problem.
If you want a good band that talks about that and are pretty aproacheable, IDLES is a good recent punk act with a lot of bangers. Search for them on youtube, their videos hit hard and their live on KEXP is fire.
This is why, you'll never see your father cry
This is why, you'll never see your father cry
This is why, you'll never see your father
+I mean that live: https://youtu.be/5Sbbiv5iSiQ
IDLES - Samaritans
You are goddamn right.
New album out soon! I can't wait! Fucking class act.
This is really depressing. Men need those type of resources as well.
There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada
1-866-887-0015 for male sexual abuse survivors toll-free 24/7
Menand Canada for further resources
Heads-up Guys Canada especially for mental health issues
This is a list based in Ontario with additional helplines and resources in Canada also for women, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ and other minorities.
I am a victim of abuse. We had a kid too. The court handed my daughter to my abuser when she made false claims and I was arrested. All charges were dropped but the custody battle was delayed and made wildly more complex than it needed to be by the mother. Two months ago I was finally awarded sole custody. It has been so hard. To say male abuse victims have an uphill battle is an understatement.
This is a classic case of the Patriarchy / Toxic Masculinity hurting men too.
For the government officials to fund a Men's shelter would mean admitting that men can have moments of weakness, which the men in power do not like.
It's important to recognize that women are equally capable of waving around a kitchen knife.
Much less likely than a male though. Just look at the numbers.
Absolutely. This just means less resources are required, not no resources at all.
Would you argue for stopping funding for reasearching and combatting rare diseases affecting only a small population? If you were to base funding solely on utilitarianism, you would.
I thought statistically gay male marriages had low rates of domestic violence.
This says the opposite
Men tend to be more physically violent
I believe there is only one in the whole country
Kind of an unfortunate username for that comment 😐
No, this is not true. Why are you writing this? That's the opposite of helping people.
I think the trick here is you're using "men's shelter" to mean "homeless shelter that accepts men" (which Men's Shelter Hamilton is) while they are talking about shelters for abused men - there's a significant difference in what sort of services the two groups need. Same reason why no one argues that homeless shelters that accept women remove the need for domestic violence services for women, they aren't the same thing and don't need the same services. You can count the number of shelters for male victims of DV in North America on one hand with fingers left over, or at least you could last time I checked which was ~2020 (at the time it was two in the US and one in Canada, the CCMF shelter had just opened).
Your CCMF link isn't to find the nearest shelter to you (which would be helpful if there were several options), but to talk about and start the intake process for the CCMF shelter. That the page title is "Family Shelter Registration Form" and they talk about "the" shelter should be your first hints. Here's the poster for the facility: https://menandfamilies.org/...
You are correct, that is what I meant!
Yeah, there is for example this in Hamilton. Men's shelter Hamilton There are a few in Toronto and others in bigger cities.
People can find the closest to them for example on this site: Canadian centre for men and families
Misandry is sadly extremely widespread and often not even recognized as a problem: Erin Pizzey who invented modern women’s shelters quickly found out that women were just as capable of being violent to their partners and logically tried to start men’s shelters as well.
What she had not expected was that instead with the support that she previously got with women’s shelters, the same did not happen with men’s shelters; instead she received insane amounts of hate, victim-blaming and death-threats from radical feminists. She had to repeatedly flee her countries because of material safety-concerns as a result of that.
In some way the peak I encountered of this kind of hate was some Fedi-site that had a rule banning misandry (good!), because it also harms trans people. Now the second part is very much true and as a trans girl I agree that it does and that that is bad, but that should not be the primary argument for why it is bad. That’s like saying anti-judaism is bad, because some Jews are white or saying misogyny is bad, because it also affects trans men or saying anti-black racism is bad, because it might affect white people with a strong tan: The statement is true and the secondary victim group fully preserves protection, but by making that statement you betray an incredibly bigoted mindset that doesn’t even respect the primary target-group enough to care about them at all.
There is a lot feminism that really just amounts to men-hating and that is why I do not use that label for myself. I believe in equivalent treatment and rights and so should everyone;
I think there are a lot of people who practice "White Feminism" which is mainly white women wanting to keep the existing power structures, but just replace the men with women and do nothing to actually address the cause of systemic inequality which hurt many marginalized women. Like all movements, the actual ideology and the movement in praxis are quite different and people are more motivated by a perceived vengeance and indignation than actually trying to get people onboard and change perspectives. This is why you get TERFs and the like.
I've always thought there were two types of feminists. The original feminists who actually want equality for all sexes, who are strong willed but also know and understand the difference between a genuine desire to help and the fucked up idea that "you are woman, therefore you're incapable"
And the radical extreme feminists who want to go even further than equality and completely flip the script from patriarchy to matriarchy, purely out of bad experiences and shitty role models resulting in an "all men bad" belief alongside the idea that "we suffered, so you must now also experience our suffering too" and thinking that equality isn't enough to right the wrongs. When in reality all they are actually doing is continuing the cycle.
My god, what an awful story.
I felt my heart break after reading that...how can people be so cruel?
Men suffer too, and this kind of bullshit makes it harder for y'all to get help...
Isn't like 33% of domestic abuse female > male? It's more than you'd think I know that
also men with men relationship violence adding to the numbers. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648
Lesbian partner violence stats are also shocking. It's as if everyone can be an abuser.
It's really sad the way he was treated and extra aggravating that the bigoted side of the men's rights movement has tried to take advantage of his death for themselves rather than to actually progress anything involving men's rights issues.
On that note, I'm going to go ahead and remove the quote sentence from the bigoted and extremely misogynistic A Voice For Men publication in the Legacy section. It's not even referenced anyways.
I’d just like to make the note that the men’s liberation movement is the exact opposite of the men’s rights movement, despite the two sounding similar.
The men’s lib movement was founded specifically as being complementary to women’s lib and uses many of the same approaches and intellectual analyses. It explicitly rejects the MRA/red pill narratives while still trying to figure out masculine toxicity and honor cultures, as well as trying to elevate the idea that too few men seek or are able to receive the care they deserve. It’s very much against the patriarchy.
Unfortunately, like many communities on lemmy, it’s less active here than it was on Reddit, but it’s worth using the term as a search of nothing else.
The men’s lib group here on Lemmy is just as pathetic. Read any of their posts and they do not sound like men, but instead like a beaten down, passive group of people that cannot stand up for themselves.
they do not sound like men
Ah I see. So, what are men supposed to sound like?! That misandry, right there.
Yes, exactly what this guy is saying is true. This is the kind of person whose presence is unwelcome in the men’s lib movement. This is the kind of crap up with which we shall not put, which is why I feel comfortable recommending it to people.
So, buddy, let me be clear. The harms we see and talk about and try to deal with are inflicted by toxic masculinity. It has nothing to do with “radical feminism” and I honestly have no idea what that means to you. I’ve heard the term used for everyone ranging from women who point out and fight against rape culture to women with purple hair. But, yeah, if you’re the kind of man who complains about radical feminism, especially when the discussion is centering around issues affecting men including everything from education to economics to the culture of violence and racism… well, your input is probably going to be disregarded.
Not OP, but you're omitting what people actually mean by radical feminists. And it's not purple hair, you're being ridiculous. People usually mean women who say all men all rapists, all men should die and so on.
So you’re saying people critical to the Men’s Lib movement aren’t welcome in the Men’s Lib movement?
That tells me everything I need to know about it’s “intellectual methods”.
extra aggravating that the bigoted side of the men's rights movement has tried to take advantage of his death for themselves rather than to actually progress anything involving men's rights issues
This seems quite inflammatory. Is it true? Where have you seen this happening? Can you please link to where you see this happening, so I know what you’re referring to?
Yeap, nobody cares about men
No one does.
They tell you to open up and talk about your emotions, to be vulnerable and they leave you cause you're weak, and spread rumors about your sexuality (because straight men arent supposed to have feelings) when you do.
You ask for help, and you get ridiculed and called weak and told endless stories about how hard real victims/women have it.
Anything you do except suffer in silence is unacceptable.
And just by the gods make sure you don't make your silent suffering to noticeable to impact others, because god damn then the ridicule and the "well ackshually"-ing about other peoples suffering will really start.
Rarely do I ever hear such sage wisdom, well said!
I think you need to re-evaluate the people you surround yourself with, friend.
Gonna have to find me a whole new intelligent species if you don't want to be surrounded by a society that does this.
You can’t fix the world, but you can at least influence who you personally interact with. Easier said than done, but any little incremental improvement still means today is better than yesterday.
Hopefully the folks on here have been mostly good to you!
Society does those things.
Friends don't.
Has nothing to do with feminism.
Its this toxic idea of stoicism, that men arent supposed to be anything but strong and not feel anything but anger, thats the problem.
It actually has a lot to do with feminism.
As soon as men start behaving like women, they start being less attractive to women.
Women won't tell you this, so you'll have to figure it out yourself using your powers of observation.
There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada
1-866-887-0015 for male sexual abuse survivors toll-free 24/7
Menand Canada for further resources
Heads-up Guys Canada especially for mental health issues
This is a list based in Ontario with additional helplines and resources in Canada also for women, indigenous people, LGBTQ+ and other minorities.
There are shelters for men. You can find them for example here (this is for Canada): Men and Families Canada
There's a certain irony here, as Men and Families Canada was started by the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE). CAFE who got their first real taste of gendered bullshit when they tried to do a series of talks on men's issues at the University of Toronto c. 2012, starting with one about suicide in men. Angry feminist protests ensued.
Ever seen the "Big Red" antifeminist meme? She's a real person and she became a meme because of these protests, in which at one point she was basically shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd and calling anyone who tried to engage things like "fuckface". She became the meme shorthand for "angry feminist" for a good while afterward as a consequence.
EDIT: Gave the wrong year, I apologize. Corrected.
Where is the irony?
Specifically that you have gone out of your way to defend feminism and express disdain for anyone that isn't all on board with feminism or sees feminists as often being obstacles to dealing with men's issues and then use the CCMF shelter as your first example of the services available. CCMF (and their parent org CAFE) who have been criticized, challenged, etc at basically every step until fairly recently and that nearly exclusively by those doing so under the banner of feminism.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/... https://globalnews.ca/...
Those are regarding their men's help center that predates the shelter.
There's a feminist blogger they quote in that second article with lines like: “I think they work really hard to discredit the feminist movement and to kind of take back a lot of the gains that women have made” and “They’re basically an anti-feminist organization and they’re kind of masquerading this as ‘oh well, it’s just for disenfranchised men’ when they kind of have an ulterior agenda.” Do those statements sound similar to things that have been said in this thread? Including I believe by you?
Going further back their parent organization CAFE got it's first taste of both trying to touch on men's issues and also being protested by feminists when they tried to do a series of talks on men's issues in 2012 at University of Toronto. Here's a video of the first such talk, so you can see the kind of thing they were protesting (warning: this is the entire talk so it's two and a half hours long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4
Yep, the shitty thing is that it's generally other men that are the problem when it comes to "less manly" things like getting abused by a woman. Since every man is "supposed" to be tough you're generally thought of as weak if you admit to something like this. I say this as another guy.
Gay men do
Some people do. I do.
Society ingeneral does not...
That's kind of a hyperbole, there are resources and advocates for men in Canada.
Shouldn't the amount of upvotes here and the numbers of articles about Earl show you that they do? It's one of the most upvoted threads on the Fediverse and the most upvoted in it's community.
It’s one of the most upvoted threads on the Fediverse
Not really…? It’s far from even being top 300.
Plus, I’m guessing it was an exaggeration. Obviously men get sympathy from a lot of people, but what happened to him shows it’s nowhere nearly enough (at least at the time, in that area).
Watch an episode of 90 Day Fiance if you have a hard time imagining the woman being the abuser.
Absolutely, since women generally are the weaker of the two they don't use violence/physical force a lot of the time, their weapon of choice is emotional abuse.
Of the 13 women I've dated, 8 were physically violent with me. I've been slapped, punched, kicked, scratched, bitten, spat on, hit with blunt objects, and in one case burned by women I was with. And I suspect that number is as low as it is because the violence came mostly from women I was going long-term with; flings and one night stands were less likely to hit.
I never struck any of them. Not once.
Of the five I’ve dated, none have used violence except my last ex, who started slapping me once during a drunken argument. So one out of five I guess.
Damn, sorry to hear that.
That tracks with what I've read. Women are responsible for most of the nonreciprocal domestic violence cases, by a whopping 70% or some such.
Cowards are cowards, they hit people when they know they won't be hit back.
That is not necessarily true. Yes, women are generally weaker than men, but individual variation means a woman can be stronger than a man.
Aside from that, the difference in strength doesn't matter that much- no matter how much my mom hit me, I never really had the desire to hit her back. Even when I was a teenager and could have wrecked her, I didn't want to. Then on top of that, there's the very real problem of authorities getting involved, they're going to assume the male is the aggressor, really limits your available options...
It was the same for my dad. I still remember their last fight before the divorce. They were cleaning up after dinner, and my dad dropped the ice cube tray, scattering ice across the floor. This set my mom off and she started screaming at him about how worthless he was, and she tried to kick him in the gut. He caught her foot, purely out of self defense, but that threw her off balance and she fell on the cat dishes, which led to some pretty gnarly bruising... I didn't see the whole fight, I was upstairs, but I heard it going on and came down just in time to see my mom sitting on the floor (sobbing, like she hadn't started the whole thing) and my dad standing there with a look of "I can't take this anymore"
Anywho, the point of all that was, it's not about physical strength - an abuser has a meanness that their victim(s) lack, and that matters far more.
Violence and physical abuse is always also emotional abuse.
Also mental abuse, in the form of concrete gaslighting.
Gamergate was a false conspiracy that radicalized young white men. It was a horrible attempt at a "return to normalcy". Gamergate was one of the first dominos to fall in this current realm of disinformation.
I honestly still don't understand what gamergate is or was.
I "lived" through it, and both read and saw post mortem videos about it, as well as had various people try to explain it to me. And yet it never made any sense to me.
Nobody can, it seems, point to the specific thing it was about. It's vague, it's nebulous, and it seems to me more like there was controversy for controversy's sake.
It's because it doesn't make any sense on the surface. Why were people so angry? Why was the jovial jokey part of the internet being so serious and violent? It marked a shift of the internet being srs bzns to serious business.
It's because it was a lot of things. People are right* in saying there were some toxic elements of it, like on 4chan. But there were also people criticizing how IGN and others seemed to be very lazy in their reviewing, and criticizing Anita Sarkeesian for (from my perspective) valid reasons.
Game media's mailing list and their gamers are dead articles all coming out at once.
Now someone gave you an exact fucking event. It's not even hard to find, so I kind of question your intent.
If you grew up on 4chan and haven't read It Came From Something Awful, I highly recommend it. It lays out how gamergate was the inflection point. It also makes the case that counter culture is now forever dead. Makes you feel pretty bad about things, actually. It feels pretty correct though.
Also, it's an incredible anticonsumerism piece. If you ever feel like you can no longer fight the machine, this book tells you that you're not alone.
Gamergate was a false conspiracy
What was the false claim?
Gamergate was one of the first dominos to fall in this current realm of disinformation.
I agree it led to popularity of a lot of the same outlets that helped elect Trump, I also agree it led to mistrust in main stream media sources. So I guess I agree that's true to an extent.
The idea that there was a grand conspiracy against men, and that it started in the gaming industry.
Here in Poway, we had someone shoot up our synagogue as a result of this movement. It's a dangerous rabbit hole. 4chan can be bad, but 8chan (in it's "prime") was much worse. It's platform was well designed, and full of vitriol.
It's well known now that gamergate and large parts of the "MRA" movement were organized specifically to radicalize young white men, as a test run that would eventually become the alt-right pipeline to radicalize even more people. Steve Bannon and his band of merry trolls were heavily involved.
So, yes, it really was sexist, racist, full of hate, and directly led to the alt-right movement online.
It’s well known now that gamergate and large parts of the “MRA” movement were organized specifically to radicalize young white men
Organized by who? And to what extent? Bannon exploiting something doesn't mean he caused it.
This information is not hard to find, if you cannot or do not wish to learn about the entire situation, which is much more complicated than could be boiled into a reply here, perhaps you are willfully doing so. please look it all up. There have been plenty of articles and even documentaries made about it through the years since. It is not my job to teach you about it, and I'm not qualified, nor do I have sources ready.
Today I wish I didn't learn....
It is a man’s duty to learn from horror.
Hmm, now I have concerns after watching this thread unfold. OP created their account 2 days ago and this thread is the only thing they've posted. They haven't even made any comments here or elsewhere.
And, different from the beginning, this thread is quickly becoming just the usual whinging from the bigoted MRA types that hate all women.
This thread feels like it was a setup.
Even if the messenger might have dubious motives, I think the message deserves to be heard.
Yeah, I'm glad to know about it. I just hate that this might be a further example of Silverman's life and work being taken advantage of by the bad parts of the men's rights movement.
🤔 So we need to focus on solutions.
What do you think would solve the problem of domestic abuse as a whole?
I mean, the most straightforward way that would have the best outcome is if all domestic abuse claims are treated as credible and investigated equally. The current issue with how domestic abuse victims that are men are treated, which itself is rather tied into the long-term stereotypically viewpoint on men that the bad parts of the MRA groups have perpetuated, is the idea that men can't be abused, raped, or anything like that.
Changing that perception socially is the key to better treatment and outcomes being available, for organizations like what Silverman made to be taken seriously.
It's especially sticky because "Men's Rights" is a bait-and-switch, ripping off "Men's Liberation."
Men's Liberation is associated with feminist movements, because patriarchy hurts everyone. That's not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
So Men's Rights does the thing where it appeals to people with genuine grievances, but offers them a bullshit solution that benefits grifters and people in power. It's not this systemic problem, it's this group of people, and if only we could deal with them, everything would magically fix itself. In this case, "It's not patriarchy, it's not capitalism, it's feminists, and women in general. If only we could get them back in their place, your life would be back on track. So vote for me/sign up for my course..."
So, bringing up the ways in which men also suffer under sexism can kick up some dirt to muddy the waters, intentionally or not. Some will be bad faith actors who just want to shit on feminism. Others will be taking the feminist side on this. And those in the middle, who see things turn toxic, can go any way—but if they stay neutral, or especially move right, then the reactionaries gain some ground.
So I don't know what's in OP's heart. But, at least from way too many fights online, I've found that the best course of action is to assume good faith, and give reactionaries enough rope to hang themselves. They don't have the better ideas, and they don't have the better plans, but they're good at shit-flinging. If you just make a good case, they tend to unmask pretty quickly and fall apart. There's no point trying to convince a die-hard bigot, but you can play to the audience by just making the better case and helping bigots embarrass themselves.
In my opinion, at least, for whatever that's worth. Sorry for the rambling!
This is why I like Leftwing Male Advocates instead.
Men’s Liberation is associated with feminist movements,
In my experience, men's lib is like men's rights if the first rule of men's rights was to never question any feminist position, the second rule was to never question any woman's position unless it contradicts the first rule, and the third rule is any men's issue needs to be framed in such a way that it's primarily about benefiting women. Just follow those three rules and you too can discuss men's issues without it being evil altright misogyny!
I actually found it amusing to see MensLib types talking positively about Contrapoints "Men" video, for example. I actually had to go back and rewatch some old stuff to make sure she wasn't directly plagiarizing Alison Tieman since some of her points were so close to things Tieman wrote like a decade before that. Alison Tieman of course being best known for Honey Badger Radio.
I suspect I'm a bit older than most in these conversations, or at least have engaged with it longer. I'll say this, feminism has improved with how they deal with men's issues over the last 25 or so years. Though to be fair, 25 years ago simply claiming it's impossible for a man to be the victim of abuse was the default position, so that's a low bar.
2008 you had angry protests in Canada because a group called CAFE had a speaker giving a talk about suicide in men - if you've ever seen the "Big Red" feminist meme, it came from this protest, she was a protester and was basically shouting a Jezebel article at people and screaming at anyone who dared interrupt her calling them things like "fuckface."
We could also look at Mary Koss, who is kind of a major figure in research around sexual assault in the US. She performed the first real study on the topic, and her definitions and instruments and ones descended from them are still used. As recently as 8 years ago she responded to a question about a man being raped by a woman by asking how that could even happen. When given an example in which a man was drugged and ridden by a woman she outright stated that she wouldn't call that rape but "unwanted contact". https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape
Also, women's studies and feminist theories aren't about truth but about providing a scholarly veneer backing activism. To quote Kelly Oliver, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University who specializes in feminism, political philosophy and ethics: "feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, 'natural facts.' Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories."
because patriarchy hurts everyone.
Patriarchy is the wrong way to view it all. Patriarchy theory has it's origins in Marxist class conflict which is a reasonable way to view economic class but breaks down the farther you wander from economic class (hell, the only reason it even kinda works for race in the US is because of what the three largest racial groups are and their economic relationship to each other both historically and currently).
It's just a bad model for how gender works. A great example of this is that you can point to all kinds of stats as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and oppresses black people, but break down those same measurements by sex instead of race and that same argument would suggest that the criminal justice system is sexist and oppresses men, which the same people who will use those measures re:race as evidence of oppression will also tell you is definitely wrong because it's backwards from their presumed hierarchy.
That’s not to equivocate between the extents to which men and women suffer under it (or any group under systemic bigotry), but liberation and egalitarianism would help us all.
My biggest gripe with feminism is that when equal treatment and what benefits women are not the same thing, feminism breaks in favor of what benefits women. See for example pushes for family court to adopt a rebuttable presumption of shared custody, most of the opposition against which would frame itself as feminist. Or the DeVos Title IX policy changes and the anger and backlash at them, where most of the changes were either codifying things schools had been successfully sued over or establishing some frankly fucking obvious notions of fair due process, like that the person representing the accuser's side and the person deciding the result should not be the same person (the DeVos setup requires at least three people aside from the accused and accuser be involved in a hearing, serving roles analogous to prosecutor, defense attorney and judge) or that the accused shouldn't be punished until after a determination is made (instead it calls for non-punitive measures where needed, like adjusting schedules to avoid contact between parties or other things that would minimize issues while not damaging anyone's educational progress).
The problem is that everytime a mens issue comes up, like this thread, we get a bunch of feminists/mens lib coming in and posting shit like this, instead of talking about the issue.
And its not like feminists/mens lib are egalitarian, they mainly fight for women. Thats great, they have a topic and they stick to it. But they dont fight for men.
Imagine if there were a group of men where every time a women's issue came up, they would barge in and started talking about how its really women's fault. Its not a good look. Thats mens lib, and thats why theres more MRAs then Men Libs.
this thread is quickly becoming just the usual whinging from the bigoted MRA types that hate all women.
Where, exactly? Is pointing out men have issues that get ignored (by women and men alike) equal to hating women? Because in 200+ comments i’ve seen maybe 3 or 4 actually hating on women.
One of the top comments is all about calling feminists "shitbags", as just one example.
True feminism is absolutely fine, as true feminism would be for such a shelter existing. Feminism is about equality between the sexes.
In this case “feminists” didn’t like this. So, yeah, fuck those “feminists”.
This is the only comment in the thread with the word "shitbag". And there is only one upvoted top comment who even mentions feminists, saying "There is a lot (of) feminism that really just amounts to men-hating". Coincidentally, from a trans girl praising a woman.
Really, I don't get where those "bigoted MRA types that hate all women" are supposed to be in this thread.
It's weird that I have to inform you on how Lemmy/Kbin comment sections work, but when they get long enough, multiple pages of comments are made. They aren't all viewable on the same page.
Look for the second (or more) page buttons at the bottom. It might blow your mind.
You're looking for a top level comment by Binthinkin, by the way.
Lay off the conspiracies. I am not a part of MRA or Men’s lib nor do I care to be. I thought this story and the man behind it deserved recognition. I used a throwaway because I (correctly) assumed people would come after me for making this post. It’s ridiculous that you can’t even acknowledge the lack of men’s shelters without people screaming ulterior motives.
I was thinking the same. Thank you for saying this.
See, you're proving my point. This thread should be about men's rights issues and focusing on improving treatment and options, like the facility that Silverman setup. But y'all instead are trying to make the subject matter about how all women are bad.
It's especially about how feminism is bad. That's the center point about the majority of the manosphere. They do not care for men or men's issues. They care about anti-feminism. It has gotten so bad that a lot of people now equate feminism with misandry, at least that is my impression from what I read online. Mind you, this is the intended effect of the rhetoric MRA's use on social media.
It’s especially about how feminism is bad.
For some men's issues, feminism is the primary obstacle.
For example, one issue that gets brought up time and time again is family court bias, especially regarding custody. It used to be once upon a time that custody went to whoever could best materially provide for a child (typically the father). Early what I guess you call proto-feminists successfully replaced that with the tender years doctrine (essentially that a child needs it's mother), which later got dropped in favor of essentially whatever that judge happens to think is best decades later when women getting custody by default was deemed part of patriarchy. The problem is that by that point it had enough cultural inertia that a bias remains in favor of it.
The typical MRA suggestion to fight this is formal law or policy stating that family court must start from a position that shared custody is best for the child unless there is a good reason for it to be otherwise - a rebuttable presumption of shared custody. This generally meets opposition from feminists who essentially start arguing about cases that are nearly always also things spelled out as examples of "good reasons otherwise" (such as abuse). In one case, feminist protesters basically described men who wanted more equal custody as the abusers lobby because in their eyes the only reason men would want to see their children more is to use those children as a means to abuse their ex.
A rebuttable presumption of shared custody has actually passed into law in two states, the first was Kentucky.
Well, obviously. Men's issues will continue to be ignored as long as they are used as an emotional cudgel to deny women's validation for theirs, and that's a bitter pull the MRA douchebags need to swallow and fast. That is, if they actually care about men.
Feminism has often spoken out against the draft, recently and historically. And the majority of feminist scholars and groups are anti-war and anti-military in general. Stop trying to push this on feminism. Being anti-feminist isn't the way to tackle men's issues.
Can you show me evidence of 'feminism often speaking out against the draft'?
Also, how come you completely ignored my point about feminists ignoring fair representation in less-desirable jobs?
It depends on the feminist, but feminism itself is actually pretty egalitarian
Why should they?
The same ones that are against traditional gender roles. I don't think they'd argue for mandatory military service so much as no one should be forced to serve in a war
Then why no big vocal outcry when Russia attacked Ukraine and Ukraine allowed women, children and the elderly to flee if they could, but men who were hypothetically of fighting age were required to stay?
A lot of feminists in the US supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made women eligible for the draft. The fact that women would've been eligible for the draft was used by anti-feminist groups as a fake feminist argument against the ERA.
I've also heard plenty of feminists complain about "men's" and "women's" sanitation products, including men for whom women's razors work better and women for whom men's razors work better.
A lot of feminists in the US supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have made women eligible for the draft. The fact that women would’ve been eligible for the draft was used by anti-feminist groups as a fake feminist argument against the ERA.
Most MRAs would LOVE to see the ERA passed, so long as it was passed without that rider that basically enshrined any kind of traditional benefits for women. And by that I mean that were the ERA to pass groups like NCFM would be launching entire fleets of lawsuits nationwide.
But then, there are all kinds of laws I'm amazed manage to stand without being tossed on equal protection grounds, even without the ERA.
For example, all the laws that exist to punish men who fail to register for Selective Service (because charging them with failure to register is so unpopular it hasn't been enforced since the 80s), by requiring you provide proof of registration in order to get access to various benefits or jobs if male. Meaning (for example) male applicants literally have one more requirement to get state jobs or be admitted to state colleges in my state.
Or the Affordable Care Act, since the contraception coverage mandate applies to all categories (but not all brands within each category) of women's contraception, including barrier methods but do not apply at all to any form of men's contraception (even noting there are currently only two approved by the FDA at all - condoms and vasectomy).
I’ve also heard plenty of feminists complain about “men’s” and “women’s” sanitation products, including men for whom women’s razors work better and women for whom men’s razors work better.
They were talking about sanitation jobs, not sanitation products. Feminists routinely fight for equality in high-status cushy office jobs, but not so much in things like sanitation workers which are also heavily male dominated. It's just another example where equality is great so long as being more equal benefits women, and if it doesn't then we should just ignore it or even fight against it (see shared custody laws).
Imagine thinking that feminimism didn't existed before 1970.
LMFAO you are so propagandized
What did they say?
and got co-opted by a bunch of psychopaths into the fucking terrible movement it is today.
Interesting. So In this theory of yours about how movements work, who exactly owns and dictates the movements? The ‘gov’ment’? The neighbour you hate? A woman calling the cops on someone? celebrities? People with opinions and jobs? A person with a magaphone/picket sign? Someone posting online?
What a weird question. No one specifically owns and dictates the feminist movement, and op didn't imply that there was. The answer you're demanding is at the core of cultural movements evolve, which is an incredibly complicated topic and I think it's kind of shitty to ask this pose this question like some obvious truth they're missing or something.
Modern feminist culture is incredibly poisonous, because its values were gradually eroded from bad actors. The people who dictate movements are simply the more passionate and convincing people that choose to try to. If a movement happens to have pretty vague ideas about its goals, it's actually very easy to undermine its greater purpose to more nefarious specific goals. Or rather, it's hard to keep from happening, because often the more selfish and destructive people are the ones who seem most passionate.
Modern feminist culture is incredibly poisonous
What authors or activists do you think represents modern feminism and what makes upu think they are poisonous?
You’re going to get that anywhere and could go off with the same argument that everything is poisoned. To hate it you’re supporting it’s a movement is both a sum and to help serve individual requirements. Claiming bad actors is just a part of it. Helping others is another. You will get that in all movements. To define it so you can have some batting practice is reductive.
You’d spend your energy more wisely being additive with issues that need to get addressed. And focus on that.
There is debate about how this is measured and the scientific methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/...
Findings regarding bidirectional violence are particularly controversial because, if accepted, they can serve to undermine one of the most commonly cited reasons for female perpetrated IPV; self-defense against a controlling male partner.
They also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims.
As both Fiebert and Archer point out, although the numerical tally of physical acts in these studies has found similar rates of intimate partner violence amongst men and women, and high rates of bidirectionality, there is general agreement amongst researchers that male violence is a more serious phenomenon, primarily, but not exclusively, because male violence tends to inflict more psychological and physical damage than female violence.[3][79] Male violence produces injury at roughly six times the rate of female violence.[4] Women are also more likely to be killed by their male partners than the reverse (according to the US Department of Justice, 84% of spousal murder victims are female),[78] and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouses than all other types of assailants combined.[80] In relation to this, Murray A. Straus has written "although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered by women, they are the predominant victims. Consequently, the first priority in services for victims and in prevention and control must continue to be directed toward assaults by husbands."
Basically men right's movement are using bad science. And if you are spreading the notion that feminism is just a bunch of sociopaths, then you are spreading misogyny / fascist propaganda.
Basically men right’s movement are using bad science.
Yes, bad science that considers mutual violence to be mutual violence, and not exclusively women defending themselves from violent men. Frankly, this is just another example of hyper/hypo-agency (basically men are treated as having more responsibility for their actions than they actually might and women are treated as having less - it's the same tendency that plays into women getting lower bail when arrested, lower sentencing for the same crimes, that sort of thing, in this case that a woman engaging in IPV isn't responsible for her violence, but rather responsibility for that violence belongs to the nearest man).
A fun followup for the reader: If women's IPV is primarily defending themselves from violent men, what would that lead you to predict about rates of abuse in gay male and/or lesbian relationships, and does that prediction match reality?
Differences in physical harm basically come down to size/weight and if anyone is using a weapon. This basically means a petite woman should have open season to beat on her SO as much as she wants, but if he raises a hand in his own defense that makes him the abuser - he should just take it indefinitely. Or leave, because leaving an abusive partner is the easiest thing in the world if you aren't a woman (see above about agency).
Fear expression is one of those things bound up in cultural nonsense - it's unmanly to be scared of a girl, so most will process around that or just bottle it and refuse to express it. Related is why NISVS has a bad habit of getting results that suggest that women force men into non-consensual intercourse about as often as men do that to women in the previous year but then wildly different lifetime numbers - give it a few years where you've internalized the message that that's not a thing that can happen to you because you're a man and eventually you believe it.
Hell, I was sexually assaulted a couple of decades ago. Was playing driver for the group, had been up 22 hours because I'd had an early morning and we were doing a late night and when we made a stop for two of the people in the car that was going to take a bit, I leaned the seat back and napped with one other person in the vehicle (a woman). Woke up to her midway through performing a sex act on me, noticing the others were on the way back and her saying "I guess we're more than just friends now." Took me a decade to recognize that as sexual assault rather than just filing it away and trying to ignore it because that's not something that happens to men.
The problem is that this topic is getting politicized by fascists. And some facts remain: 84% of spousal murder victims are female. This is what is happening today to overwhelming women. So if someone wants to post some emotionally manipulative meme to further fascist ideology, I'm not willing to engage in a debate about what men suffer. Because that is the strategy of the propaganda.
Campaigning for men's rights is absolutely justified, but you have to do it far away from fascist propaganda.
Yes sexual dimorphism is the driving factor here, men on average have 60% more upper body strength and also longer arms. I could go around all day strangling women with my bare hands without much resistance. And that is why we have evolved social mechanisms to prevent that. That is not the same as discrimination against men.
In the meantime, men are still overwhelmingly murdering women.
someone getting helped isn’t a dig on someone else. That post is not addressing the issue. it’s nothing more than lateral infighting. Getting yourself heard isn’t poking holes in someone else’s life saver til you get what you want. That’s just being a psychopathic bully.
killing humans is never the answer. it devolves you into something worse than youre trying to combat because you, presumably have a choice.
dont be that person
Don't use the words never or always. It rarely leads to an accurate statement
I think it makes sense to use violence against people committing genocide, for example
Consciously I know that. But having lived under cruelty for many years I cant compute it emotionally in this case. The amount of cruelty needed to drive someone to suicide (not saying its always like this) is just not bearable for me.
That’s basically tautological. That which is not bearable is that which drives a person to suicide.
No idea what you‘re talking about.
Nobody can really say what drives a person to suicide but afaik, it is a culmination of things:
Having hardship but still having friends and family to combat it or a positive perspective on life might save someone.
But leaving someone who already spent effort to help others in particular need - likely having a history of spousal abuse themselves - ridiculing them which drives them to suicide is beyond cruel imo.
Thats why I‘m pretty devoid of empathy towards the people responsible.
killing humans is never the answer
What if you are in a war or being attacked or something
cmon, you know what this is about. dont be a pedant
I don't know what you mean, that's why I'm asking
I fail to see a path to rehabilitation for people who drive others to suicide. For me its a lot worse than murder. The amount of cruelty needed to really drive someone to do it is incomprehensible to me.
@lemmy.world
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
That's it.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Let everyone have their own content.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
That's it.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Let everyone have their own content.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
go to feed...
Every fracture, bruise and STABWOUND I've had as a 6ft1 230lbs dude, in my 45 years on this earth were caused by one 5ft2 woman.
That 18 year relationship left me with serious PTSD, constant anxiety I'll get a call she killed herself, constant anxiety she may seek contact again and severely aggravated my pre-existing dislike for any sort of physical contact.
It took well over a year before I was able to even hug the woman that is now my wife.
save