Fucking disgusting, poor guy was a literal hero and was spit on for 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 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.
That’s a complete misrepresentation of what the other commenter was saying.
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.
None of this was said or implied.
And yes, it’s conspiracy bullshit to think they’re directly spending money on sowing division in people.
Why? Isn’t that the purpose of Rupert Murdoch’s?
“None of this was said or implied”
Really? Then why mention mass surveillance like it matters then? If they can’t actually go through all the data it means fucking nothing.
Isn’t that the purpose of Rupert Murdoch’s?
Gee wizz what was one of the two industries I listed that actually do profit off of divi- OH YEAH The News!
I represented their arguments exactly as they were laid out and stipulated my position accurately. They’re a conspiracy nutcase that thinks everyone in power is out to get them and the only people who actually benefit off spending money to divide people are the guys making guns and the guys recording it. Period.
Okay, let me spell this out like you are a four year old then:
The claim is that the government has the power to stop abuse en masse and improve life for everyone, but doesn’t, because they benefit from it.
The NSA program (which has been well-known for over a decade) is an example of that.
I represented their arguments exactly as they were laid out and stipulated my position accurately.
LMFAO no you’re not; you’re going off on a completely different tangent about the system as a whole instead of addressing my main claim, specifically how domestic abuse is allowed in order to maintain it, and you’re doing it because you perceive any negative talk against the system as an existential threat to it.
You only address a claim literally everyone else on Lemmy makes: that corporations actively exploit and abuse their workers, and you label it as conspiracy shit.
And you do it because I’m right and you know it, people are realizing it, and that inconveniences and threatens you.
You are exactly the kind of motherfucker who keeps the slave racket going. Because fuck them kids. Fuck them abuse victims. You ordered your Big Mac five minutes ago and you want it NOW
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
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
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.
This is what is meant when people talk about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity hurting everyone. It’s not “all men are bad!” But rather the idea that men aren’t allowed by society to have feelings other than anger, or are unable to be raped, or need to just “man up” when they are suffering-It’s all bullshit, and so harmful to men and boys. I’m so sorry for what you went through, and I hope you were able to find peace.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Men’s shelters are needed. Men are also survivors of domestic abuse.
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.
Stay strong, brother. One day when your child has grown up they’ll understand and be grateful that you fought so hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? That’s…never been a position I’ve ever seen taken seriously in MRA spaces. The opposite actually.
It’s not as bad as it used to be once upon a time, but once upon a time (still in the 21st century, but I’m probably older and been in this kind of conversation longer than most of you) it was mostly feminist types claiming that men couldn’t be victims, or minimizing what that meant (like Mary Koss describing a man being drugged and forced into vaginal intercourse with a woman against his will as just “unwanted contact” rather than assault or rape just 8 years ago).
Are you getting MRAs confused with incels or the grosser flavors of PUAs?
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!
Removed by mod
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).
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”.
Removed by mod
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.
Oh, you mean the comment that got removed by mods, doesn’t show up in the thread, and is at a -24 score looking at it from their profile? Modlog shows it’s been removed 2 days ago so it wasn’t even up when you started commenting. Not sure how did you even find it, definitely not just by “looking at the second page”.
But absolutely, this thread is a setup and one removed and heavily downvoted comment out of 200+ is definitely proof.
EDIT: I see you’re from kbin so I’m guessing it was a federation error not syncing the mod action. Still, unless kbin doesn’t show downvotes, it should be pretty clear it was far from a popular opinion anyway.
I can still perfectly see this comment, which is sitting at a +20/-2.
I can’t see that without a kbin account. This is how it shows up in Lemmy instances. If the difference is so big and it’s a federation issue as well there has to be some manipulating going on, pretty much every reply to his comment is pointing out how unnecessarily aggressive they were to feminism as a whole.
Am i missing something or are you just desperate to defend the claim that women can nothing wrong and men are always the baddies
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.
I was thinking the same. Thank you for saying this.
The real MVP here
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.
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.
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 Reddit Mens Lib group are atrocious. They in no way accept that men are not fully to blame for whatever rubbish that radical feminists come up with.
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.
And you need to join anti-feminist groups and claim Men who advocate for men don’t “sound like men” to fight against these people? Give me an estimate how many feminists do you believe think that all men are rapists or that all men should die. Just a guess.
Oh, I don’t, I haven’t joined any such group, I pretty much consider myself feminist and even donated quite a lot of money to feminist causes before I had to focus my attention on saving some money for personal reasons (though I plan on returning to donating when I have some significant spare money again).
I was just explaining what people really mean by radical feminist and that the claim that it’s about hair color is ridiculous (though I’m sure you’ll find such people, but to paraphrase your question - how many percent do you believe mean just hair color by “radical feminist”?).
To answer your question, my guess would be in the 5-10% range.
You believe 5-10 % of people who call themselves feminists want to kill all men or believe all men are rapists? That is absolutely sad. Do you mind to explain to me what makes you arrive at such a conclusion?
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.
Clearly like your average Facebook comment section under some inflammatory post. That’s how real men™ sound like.
Jesus Christ, 2013 is too late for that.
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 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 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
May we all only share and receive kindness.
Well said, @cokeslutgarbage
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 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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
You’re fucking stupid lol, and people like you who put the label of sex in domestic violence + abuse can honestly go fuck themselves too.
A N Y O N E is capable of violence. To lessen a HUMAN BEING’S suffering just because of their sex? THAT is sexism my friend, literally the definition right there. “Men need to be fixed” because about 14% more are abusers compared to women? Not accounting for rounding, margins of error, silent cases? Considering the fact that men are far more likely to stay quiet in cases like this because of the extreme stigma that people like YOU create in circumstances like this.
Remember, YOU people brought sex into it. I don’t see male or female when I see someone suffering from domestic abuse, I see a victim!
You don’t see “female victim” on the news when you see a woman getting in a car crash, you don’t see a “male victim” headline when a man gets murdered in a street, you see VICTIM. That’s because that’s what they are and that’s what’s important at the end of the day.
The statistics say men are responsible for most of the domestic violence, but good job proving you have a shitty sexist agenda by parroting what I was telling everyone else to benefit you, while rejecting the truth.
The only ones who are going to suffer is… about a quarter of U.S. households, give or take
Parroting what you said huh? Where did I repeat a single word you said?
shitty sexist agenda
That my friend, is what parroting actually is. You brought sex into it because you want to make a specific group of people’s suffering seem insignificant solely based on the genitals they were born with. That’s literally sexism. Victims are victims, giving a specific group special attention leads to ignorance of the other group, and especially considering that about 36% of domestic violence victims are indeed men, that is NOT something that can just be ignored. It is totally ironic that you are sitting here telling me that I have a sexist agenda when you are literally downplaying just how many domestic violence victims are men, solely based on the fact that they are men.
rejecting the truth
I need citations please, show me where I denied any fact based evidence you presented. I said men are victims in an estimated 36% of domestic violence cases, everything you just stated seems like it was an attempt to somehow “prove” that I said something other than what I said.
Again, the very first sentence in my statement holds just as true as everything else I said, you are fucking STUPID.
Project harder, troll.
And the slave racket keeps churning out more broken people while you squabble with me to try to be right about something.
Is you arguing with me going to do anything to save any abuse victims? Any of the male ones who are clearly the only ones you give a fuck about? Hmm?
Oh damn, you got me. Yep. I only care about male victims
He deserves support, and understanding, and resources. Same with his father. Same with all victims of abuse.
edit I do want to thank pinkdrunkelephants@lemmy.cafe for being a shining, sterling example of exactly the kind of toxic people who creep up when you dare to talk about male victims though, and how they always try to twist the argument away from male victims.
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.
Gonna break out all the alts for this, huh?
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.
But why bring this up in a thread about abused men?
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.
“Every time there’s discussion about women’s issues there’s men who try to divert it to their problems and that’s annoying, therefore women should do the same thing so that men get annoyed too”.
Is that really how you want this to work? An eye for an eye?
Should I even bother justifying that with a response knowing you won’t ever listen or care unless it happens to a man anyway?
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.
That is very kind of you, cokeslutgarbage. Not my business but anyway: this may be the moment when a username deserves to be changed.
Yeah it could probably use a cunt at the end for maximum efficacy
😂 I didn’t notice until you mentioned it.
Hoping there’s a r/rimjob_steve equivalent here on Lemmy! 🤞
you were saying?
no.
Well now I’m sad and angry.
Kudos to this man.
This shows me once again that man get no sympathy.
I mean this also proofs different. But it’s harder for men to gain for sure.
Sorry, not sure I understand.
This also proves something different? And what is harder for men to gain?
They get sympathy by some, but it’s harder to gain compared to women (if we reduce the scenario to binary gender roles)
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).
This world sucks
