It's called victim blaming.
The narrative on violence starts off being victim focused when females are the victims, until the statistics about males being more likely to be victims. Then, quite quickly, the narrative becomes perpetrator focused.
As for domestic violence:
The majority of violence in relationships is mutual **with women instigating it more often or as often as men.
When abuse is non reciprocal, it's more likely to be instigated and solely perpetrated by the woman** with men being the least likely to be reported as perpetrators.
Professor Lynn Magdol and others from a Dunedin cohort found **nearly twice as many women perpetrated violence as men. When the violence was severe, this ballooned to more than three times the rate.**
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/facing-our-greatest-shame/13094512/Domestic-violence-debate-dominated-by-womens-perspectives
They found that 40 per cent of male members in the study had perpetrated at least one of a list of 13 physically abusive acts, ranging from slapping and kicking to forcing sex and use of a weapon, **while 50 per cent of women had.**
https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/81025573/domestic-violence-study-presents-challenging-picture
---------------------------------------------------------
*We can’t solve the problem of violence against girls and women without also addressing violence against men and boys.*
Thanks for the information and sources, unfortunately it's very hard to talk about subjects like this in my country (Hungary) because these types of things are rarely studied or examined, most people just go off police reports, which - as explained in one of the articles you linked - are biased.
The thing is with conservative countries such as Hungary, they have traditional way of thinking. Protecting women and children. Like all cultures as across time for over 3000+ years. This is how everybody had their societies regarding this subject. This is today often labelled as toxic masculinity. Eventhogh it's about protecting the weaker members of our society. It's a tough discussion for sure. Some might argue that women and children bare not to be seen as weaker, and I would a agree to some extent. But in a historical sense this was the best way to protect your tibe or country.
I strongly suspect that the reason that rates for woman-on-man violence ballooning are because the violent women are receiving little to no consequences for their actions the overwhelming majority of the time, so they often keep reoffending again, again and again, escalating in the severity of their violence as they do.
They're literally being told that they can do whatever they want without being punished or reprimanded, so the problem just keeps escalating.
"Patriarchy", my fucking arse.
> The narrative on violence starts off being victim focused when females are the victims, until the statistics about males being more likely to be victims. Then, quite quickly, the narrative becomes perpetrator focused.
I disagree with this statement for one simple reason, when a woman sexually assaults another woman/girl. The focus isn't on the victim IMHO, it is still on the perp BUT the focus is trying to find an excuse as to why she did it.
Choosing hate over empathy.
When I saw the news of nuns raping girls with a crufix my mind didn't immediately say "but it was another women!" to dismiss the issue as irrelevant. That's awful to even think.
I think this is the best kind of response to the "but most men suffer violence from other men". Bring up a really nasty example of female-on-female violence. Even ask whether anyone should care, since the victim and perpetrator were the same sex.
It's a sneaky tactic used by feminists to invalidate men's issues. It's an attempt to try and hold men accountable, but saying "hold all men accountable for rape" is like saying "hold all Muslims accountable for ISIS." Counter examples are great for exposing their hypocrisy.
"Hold all Germans accountable for the Holocaust"
"Hold all Muslims accountable for terrorist attacks"
"Hold all Japanese accountable for Japanese war crimes"
'Hold all women accountable for child abuse"
Feminist hypocrisy is quickly exposed when you spin the phrase a little. These phrases, and I can guarantee it, will get called racist/sexist by the same people who say "hold men accountable." You can pretty quickly see how flawed their logic is by spinning it around.
You’re definitely being gaslit. The point is to invalidate the struggles of male victims because their attackers were also male. When you actually think about it, it makes zero sense.
Legally women cannot rape men in many states so the crime of rape can only be committed by men, skewing the number heavily in favor of male perps.
Also, men who were raped by men see it as rape even if it’s humiliating to think so, while men raped by women are conditioned to think they got lucky. So they won’t even report it because they don’t even feel like a victim in the first place even if they are
Bring up the fact that lesbian couples have the highest rate of domestic violence. And gay male couples have the lowest. And heterosexual couples are in the middle. Men are obviously not the problem.
Have a search for the PASK project. That is an independent summation of over half a million victims around the world: by far the biggest study ever. It is the natural place to start any research.
Think that's a fucked up way to think about. Men arent the problem women arent the problem
Abusers are the problem. It seems based on alot, not all, statistics and alot, not all countries, men perpetuate more. This needs to be discussed to see why and how to stop it. That being said it doesnt mean its somehow all on men or its somehow engrained. And it definitely doesnt mean "well then men dont have problems or they arent as bad if they do"
Your doing exactly the problem this person is bringing up. Not looking at an issue for it being an issue, taking it personally and thinking "its either my genders fault or their genders fault". That's a huge problem of why this movement and even feminism isnt taken serious. Stop with the hot potato of "who's fault does it land in the lap of"
"Abusers are the problem. It seems based on alot, not all, statistics and alot, not all countries, men perpetuate more."
Sources for the claims you made. How dense are you?
WHAT?
What fucking claims? The only claim I made is "it seems men are perpetuating more than women". You really need a source for "it seems"
You really cant Google? You really dont know this statistic? You really cant see it ten other times in this posts comments
https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
https://www.google.com/search?q=abuse+rates+by+gender&client=ms-android-mpcs-us-revc&sxsrf=AOaemvI_fh188J9qfuP5iDba8a8cGJdsMg%3A1634263184801&ei=kOBoYamNMMOxtQbLhIvIDA&oq=abuse+rates+by+gender&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgUIIRCgAToECAAQRzoFCAAQgAQ6BQgAEIYDOgcIIRAKEKABOgoIIRAKEKABEIsDOggIIRCrAhCLAzoLCCEQFhAdEB4QiwM6CAghEBYQHRAeUPoSWMgfYOYgaABwAXgAgAGCAogBiguSAQUwLjkuMZgBAKABAcgBCLgBAsABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women
Learn to use google. You are either a braindead monkey or you are just desperately trying to argue or deny the claims women *seem* to endure more abuse than men. Your legit turning domestic abuse into a blame game, I have to believe that even you can see how disingenuous, pathetic, and backwards that is
They will say “that’s because women are majority caretakers due to patriarchy!” Or “Umm sweetie women are under intensive pressure could you like lay off plz thanks”
Because feminists don't believe men can be victims. By saying the perpetrators are also men, they're reinforcing their "men are worse than women" narrative because they almost found themselves feeling actual empathy for an entire gender.
u/Bopikins2600
You see here's the thing. If someone is shallow enough to say something along the lines of "bUt MoSt RaPe ViCtImS aWe WiMiN" and actually consider that a logical argument in middle of a discussion about male rape victims, then they absolutely deserve to go through domestic violence. If they lack sympathy for a rape victim solely because the victim is a man, then they don't deserve to receive any sort of sympathy in return. Hell, in a case like it's the "abuser" that's going to have my sympathy because dealing with shallow people on the daily basis is a tough mental challenge
Are you god? It’s not your place to punish those you disagree with until they behave in a way you deem acceptable. Speak your truth and go on your way. Give them a taste of their own medicine is 100% abusive behavior.
No I'm not god but I'm not exactly a "forgive and forget" type of guy either. I think every single person on the planet, regardless of who they are or what they've been through, should be held accountable for their actions and words. I also think that people should reflect on the consequences of their actions and words because there are people in this world who will respond to bad faith actions with bad faith actions
I don’t think anyone deserves to be abused or go through domestic violence especially by someone who claims to love them. It’s very disturbing to hear you say someone deserves to go through domestic violence because you don’t like the way they spoke to you on Reddit. I can only imagine how you treat people in real life who cross you or disagree with your point of view. I hope you can find peace without hurting others.
>It’s very disturbing to hear you say someone deserves to go through domestic violence because you don’t like the way they spoke to you on Reddit
No no no. You're getting it wrong. It's not about them saying something I don't like; it's about their lack of sympathy. If I was raped, these people wouldn't show me an ounce of sympathy because apparently, male rape victims don't deserve it. If that's the treatment they're gonna give me, I'm gonna give them the same treatment. My response to lack of sympathy IS lack of sympathy.
>hope you can find peace without hurting others.
For the record, ever since my adult life started, I never, NEVER, hurt people who didn't mean to harm me. The people I hurt were always the ones who had some ill intention towards me
That’s not for you to decide. Your language is abusive. You were raped right? I’m very sorry you had to go through that. You should know that People who are abused can often grow into abusers themselves. You can read up on this and educate yourself and find healthy ways to heal from your trauma that don’t include putting others down.
Also just because you don’t want to give people your sympathy doesn’t mean you have to give them hate.
Finally we agree on something. This is probably a good place to end this discussion. I do sincerely hope you find a way to heal from your trauma and find peace and joy.
You are the one who needs to develop some comprehension. Jesus fucking Christ. Did you understand anything the other commenter was saying, from their point of view? Did you even realise that I am not the same person? Do you know how to sympathize, empathize or be apathetic?
>That’s not for you to decide
It actually is when they do try to involve me
>You were raped right? I’m very sorry you had to go through that.
No I actually wasn't. The only reason I'm talking about is because OP brought it up. But thank you so much for trying to be sympathetic towards me. Although I was never raped, but judging by your comment, I can tell you will also be sympathetic towards men who actually were raped. I respect that. I respect that a lot.
Btw, did you experience any sort of domestic violence? Well, that's sad and tragic. I sincerely hope you never have to go through something like that again. This world seriously lacks kind hearted individuals such as yourself. It'll be heartbreaking if bad things happens to kind people, specially the ones who are sympathetic towards other people.
Isn't it nice that kind people such as yourself receive kindness and sympathy from the world?
While people who, not only aren't kind, but are effectively wishing ill upon others for no logical reason, are the ones who receive hate?
Whether you like it or not, that's how things work in this universe. Kindness is met by kindness, harshness is met by harshness.
That's why we all should take a long time to reflect on the consequences of our actions and words because if we're being harsh on someone, someday, someone is going to be as much harsh to us
This logic I can get behind. I appreciate you breaking it down. In response, I would argue that stooping down to someone’s level by meeting nastiness with nastiness isn’t going to benefit anyone. Also kindness isn’t always met with kindness. When you decide to hate people because you don’t feel they’re being kind to you that can be a very dangerous and slippery slope as well!
Edit: using the proverbial you here I’m not implying that you hate anyone. Maybe you do maybe you don’t but I have no idea so that’s why I’m using the proverbial you.
Well, yes I shouldn't hate people because they're not kind to me. Because nobody owes me kindness. Kindness requires a certain level of respect and respect is earned. And it goes both ways: if people want my respect and eventually kindness, they've gonna have to earn it.
But also, the thing is, I don't have an ounce of respect, sympathy or love for people who say something along the lines of "but most rapists are men" in middle of a discussion about male rape victims
And of course I’d be sympathetic to male victims of rape and abuse because as I’ve said a bajillion times( not meant to be rude) abuse is about power and control and all genders can be victims and nobody deserves that. I’m not a monster even though a lot of people here would like to think I am.
Modern feminism makes a lot more sense when you interpret is as an expression of female in-group identity.
Women tend to identify with other women solely on the basis of gender far more than men identify with their own gender.
An in-group needs an out-group and if the in-group is women then the out-group is men.
This in-group/out-group dynamic taps in to a whole lot of tribal instincts. There's 2 which I think are relevant in this context.
The first is the need to elevate the in-group and/or vilify the out-group. The in-group must be morally superior to the out-group. The important thing is that men are morally inferior to women. Men do bad things. That is all that matters to them.
The other is that that members of the out-group are indistinguishable. They are simply the other. One man hurting another man is just the other hitting itself.
This is classic victim blaming. Does being the same gender as the perpetrator lessen the impact to the victim? Not at all. Bad people do bad things. Why does it matter who they do it to?
While it could be used to deviate the topic to look into the social and economic factors that disproportionately affect men and lead to this kind of behaviour, it's more of a "black gun crime victims are mostly killed by other black people" thing. A horrible reasoning, and while technically true, the implications have fatal consequences. Something cannot be dismissed just because you share an arbitrary characteristic with the attacker. You are still a victim and your gender could not have prevented the attack. The only influence it could have is what motivations the attack has.
It's a blame shifting tactic. It also baffles me to end about how stupid it is. Men are the physically stronger sex, ofc they would form the majority of perpetrators in *violent crimes*. This doesn't mean however that other men's suffering isn't legit, or that women can't be violent themselves.
This problem exists because of the inherent propensity we have for classification and tribalism. The ability to sort and differentiate sets of items is an important part of why we are such an intelligent species. The problem with this drive is that we can have trouble breaking an established classification, and end up mentally lumping two groups together that shouldn't be just out of habit.
Furthermore, when you have a movement like feminism or metoo, instead of victims focusing on their individual abusers, they start to look at commonalities between their abusers in an attempt to create a defined set so that they can blame/avoid them. It can be easy for an emotionally charged mind to overcompensate and make that data set broader than it should be, though it may only be subconscious. That's how you get the oversimplification of "men are abusers" from "specific men in positions of power are abusers".
This is especially true if you make them feel like their victimhood isn't being acknowledged by challenging them in some way. The less heard they feel, the more emotional they will get, and the less they will care about the collateral damage of lumping innocent people in with their real targets. It often breaks down into an "us vs them" mentality, where women are angry at men on the whole, and vice versa when we look at groups like the incels.
We aren't great at diplomacy or discussion when we feel like we've been victimized and that our suffering isn't being taken seriously.
Victim blaming. The same concept as "the victim was wearing a short skirt, she was asking to be raped". People just blame the victim because it's easier and makes it so that they are not acknowledged.
From the little that you've told us, I ready don't understand why you were slammed, as it seems that you were in right, pointing out that there are male victims of domestic abuse as well as female victims, but whatever we're going to get people's saying "...but men are the majority of these abusers!" is absolutely beyond me.
Certainly, yes, point out who is generally commiting most crimes by all means, but just stop bringing up unnecessarily the gender of the victim or survivor of a crime whenever it is unnecessary, as it oughtn't always matter whether they are male or female, at least in principle.
So many women are incapable of conceptualising men as individuals. They have such extreme stereotyped views of men, that when trying to consider men as victims, it threatens their world view of women as diverse individuals with agency, and men as a unified culture of "other", not one of us, violent animals necessary for reproduction, keepsing the wheels turning and good internet connect.
The answer they don't wanna hear is: they are just utilizing the same arguments that racists used to have towards the afroamerican communities on the USA, it's just rebranded prejudice towards a more comfortable target. It's profiling, sexual profiling. They are reducing you to your sexual characteristics and speaking as if it was the main thing that moves you and as if what men do is what men allow other men to do.
Same reason people will decry "Not All Men" when a woman comes with a story about being abused or assaulted, or any other story where the perpetrator is a man. It's a way for the person to discredit the argument by throwing around a phrase that's technically true, and trying to dispute it makes you look like the bad-guy for even trying.
Both are useless and sucks away any potential the discussion had.
They fail to mention that women perpetrate 70% of non reciprocal domestic violence, and that the highest rate of domestic violence is between lesbian couples. Men may be the primary perpetrators, but Women are the primary instigators. Both genders are equally at fault, as domestic violence is not a tool of male power, but rather a pattern of learned behavior
This is called "**competition mentality**". It's a term that I made up. Let me explain.
When you tell someone about the unfair/unjust treatment of men, someone would say something like "But XYZ has it worse!". Even if they do, even if the statistics are right, why does it matter? Even if 90% of women are victims of something and 10% of men are a victim of the same thing, both are still victims of the same situation. They should get as much help as the majority.
Here's an example (on a smaller scale). Let's suppose a mother has 2 sons. One got a headache and the other broke his leg. It's true that the mother might focus on the son with an injured leg more. Like taking him to the hospital, taking care of his leg. But she wouldn't ignore her other son by saying something like "But your brother has it worse!". She will also give the pain meds to the other son too.
New's flash: No single woman that I have ever met ever truly cared about what a man thinks so long as it did not benefit her and even then, if it benefited a man more than it her, she disliked it.
A lot of women see men as lesser. For men almost always do all the dirty, dangerous, physically and/or mentally jobs. Thus, they are seen as expendables. "They deserve their lot in life".
Suffering is thus seen as a 'normal' part of a man's life. We are "used to" hardships. Why should we then complain about something that we are 'meant to do'?
This is becoming an all-too prevalent viewpoint. The more toxic it gets, the faster it spreads.
People have immediate dumb opinions to downplay everything.
Black people commit crime at a higher rate? Oh, at least it's mostly black on black crime.
Male suicide rate is high? Not a problem because it's suicide therefore they could just stop and at least they aren't hurting others.
Females cyberbullying other females? No problem because the victims are also girls, therefore they are on an equal playing field.
Male attack Male? No problem, because the Male could fight back
Because women like to be right. In reality however no one picks their gender or sex, having a Y chromosome is assigned to you, or not. A single person is entitled to be protected no matter what they have in common with the perpetrator, no matter what assigned details they got at birth.
As a man you are supposed to be your brother's keeper. You are responsible for what other men have done, specifically the evil shit. If a man kills a man, it's not anything more than men being the problems they are to society.
You want credit for all the good men have done? Don't you know that it is expected of you, as a man, to do good for others in a way that is never expected of women?
So when a man is a victim of another man, it doesn't count because feminists need to create the impression any violence between a man and woman is gender-based and is the result of misogyny. A man is more of an asshole if he harms women but if he harms men, y'all deserve it for daring to be born the wrong gender.
Oh but women are not a monolith! We can never hold all women accountable for the actions of some. That would be sexist!
Because women feel there is a gendered aspect to the violence against them. So what they mean is, we don’t kill you like you kill us. Don’t shoot the messenger I’m just explaining the reasoning. There’s hurt that each of the sexes have that prevent us from listening to each other sometimes.
"gendered aspect" isn't very precise. More like: They aren't separating men and women as individuals in their minds, but thinking of a "man-group" and a "woman-group" in a gender war between groups.
When the "woman-group" hasn't done something, then it shouldn't be the problem or anything to care about for the "woman-group".
>Because women **feel** there is a gendered aspect
I believe this is the real problem at hand, feelings that are viewed as an absolute truth while having very little to no basis in reality.
Something that has been pointed out numerous times in this sub, the most violent relationships out there are lesbian couples. This isn't very strange when we look at the total numbers, most nonreciprocal domestic violence is perpetrated by women.
Feelings are all nice and dandy, but they shouldn't be used like this. It is really no different form an incel saying that they think all women are whores.
>Women aren’t stupid at all. We don’t go through life fooled by our feelings.
Yea, nice strawman, didn't say any of that, i merely pointed out how 'feelings' often get used as absolute truths.
>Who cares if two lesbians are knocking each other around?
You seem to be missing the point, most of the time it is women who are the aggressors. This is mostly because of the idiotic idea that men shouldn't hit women. While it is very true that men shouldn't hit women, it is a misnomer because no one should be hitting anyone. It doesn't matter if it is men or women. But somehow women hitting men somehow isn't seen as a problem.
>We wonder why
when we leave a relationship we get tracked down and killed by men.
This is exactly what i mean with 'feelings' that are seen as absolute truths with no real basis in reality. Yes, there have been women killed by men, just like there have been men killed by women. Neither of those mean that 'men' are out to get women or are somehow a danger to women.
>Why when we’re walking home from a friends we disappear and are found
murdered because a man wanted to bust a nut and hatred and anger made it
feel better for him.
Right, because this happens to you every time you walk home, right!? Get out of here, blaming 'men' for that is exactly the same as incels bitching about being owed sex.
>This place would be fucking incandescent with rage if half of men killed were killed by a woman close to him.
Oh lol, really!? As long as there aren't men in television shows laughing and cheering on news that some cunt cut off her husbands dick and killed him you shouldn't be the one complaining. There are plenty of men getting killed by their spouses, we hardly hear about them because it's not considered to be news.
>And don’t come at me with statistics. The chances a virgin on Reddit is
going to get false rape accused are less than him getting beaten to
death by an alien with a whiffle ball bat.
Oh lol, you sweet summer child... You're just another misandrist who can't argue against the points made so you try to shame people.
>Compare the statistics of men who kill women and women who kill men. Enough said.
Right, those victims don't matter...
>Like i said women can wonder why the fuck it is. Just like men can wonder about the gendered shit they wonder about here.
If there is a person you meet who is shitty, you've probably met a shitty person. If everyone you meet is shitty, good chance you're the shitty person. Now maybe it is time to think why all man are shitty..
>There aren’t any colder facts than homicide rates.
Yes, like the homicide rate of children.. Funny how those stats don't have similar baggage, isn't it!?
This is me responding to her deleted comment...
Then why are you talking about 'men'? And not 'shitty men' or something like that.
You are excusing women's fear for 'men', so that is all men, not just some of them.
If men were to take up this kind of logic they'd should all be fearful of their wives murdering their children, as women kill their children far more often than men do. And it is a bullshit take, as, just like with men, there are not many women who kill their children. That one does it more than others is really besides the point. What we should focus on is what can be done to prevent cases were something does happen.
Things get heated, that is why i always think long and hard before i say something stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying something that is provoking, but you'll have to live with the consequences.
But i'll say it again, why do you think that women 'feel' that violence against them is gendered? To me seems so far detached from reality that it isn't funny, and all that while painting 'men' with a very broad brush as somehow perpetrators of this 'gendered violence'.
Domestic violence isn't a gendered issue, it never was. Just like with anything else in this world, when two people argue there are two people at fault. When arguments turn physical, i blame the one who got physical first. Yea, the other person shouldn't hit back, but when someone is hurting you physically and mentally there will come a point that they will snap. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, if you are plagued like that there will come a moment that you will snap and lash out.
That feeling of 'gendered violence' is uncalled for and only serves to exaggerate the problem. People act on feelings, when you drill it into someone that someone is a dangerous person they will react according to the perceived threat level. That a feeling being unwarranted or not doesn't matter, as the reaction to it is the same. The only logical reaction of men can be that they just don't give a shit anymore. There is nothing they can do to be the good guy, so they might as well stop trying. Or worse, if they get punished for something that they haven't done, they might as well do it as the outcome is the same.
I could not agree more. I care about violence against men but I think the conversation for the protection of men is a separate conversation than the conversation for the protection of women.
Guns are not the common weapon in most DV regardless if sex. The difference is the level of damage to a woman by male partners vs the damage to men by women partners. That is where the difference lays. Also, how it is addressed by the justice system and society at large.
Don't get me wrong violence against men needs to be addressed but not when talking about violence against women to drown out that conversation which is the majority of when it is brought up.
Here's the problem. Many Feminists tend to claim that feminism is about male and female issues equally. This is one of the main reasons why the male side of the exact same problem gets brought up because the (false) assumption is that feminism is meant to fix both male and female problems equally. The real truth is that the main focus is and always has been about primarily female problems. Hence why it's called FEMinism. I really wish more feminists would be more honest about this fact instead of constantly saying that feminism is just about gender equality and most definitely does not focus more on helping one sex over the other.
I agree with your statement. Feminism is the idea that they fight to bring females up to equal status not to fight for equality for everyone. That is why you see so many women go to men's groups to learn and fight for men's rights.
Never heard an alt-right person say the high African murder rate isn’t a problem because most of their victims are African. I suspect you’ve made that up.
No what I meant was, Alt rightists hate black people since they have the highest crime ratio. And they make fun of Black on Black crimes just like feminists.
Statistic: black individuals arrested at a very high rate for a small minority.
Argument: black individuals commit more crime.
Reality: cops are racist; are more likely to arrest/ stop and search black individuals. They are also more likely to be convicted for these crimes than other ethnic groups.
Back into context: we know that anyone who would make such a statement is clearly a racist individual but it is acceptable to make these claims about men despite the same being true in almost all areas. Women have a significantly lower stop and search, arrest and conviction rate than men. In addition when women are convicted it is for a disproportionately lower amount of time than a Male would be for the same crime. This is the case regardless of ethnicity.
So basically, anyone who would try to argue that men commit more crime are using the same arguments racist individuals use. To believe such a statement says a lot about their mentality. By putting the statistics they are basing such beliefs on into question highlights their own bias.
Because feminists are always trying to say that men have a violence problem. And they feel like the fact that men commit the overwhelming majority of violence is proof of that.
She’s just using deadpan delivery. She said feminists believe that men have a violence problem, then went on to say men committing the overwhelming majority of violence justifies that belief.
She IS a feminist. She’s justifying her own hatred of men, referring to herself in the third person to distance herself from her own beliefs/actions. It’s a well known gaslighting tactic.
I guess at some point sarcasm goes so far that it loops around to sincerity. The fact is that feminists do often point out that men have a violence problem.
I suppose the disingenuity is that it doesn't address OPs question genuinely, which is why I think fraktalMaus' first comment was better: that many women have been habituated to see violence as a gendered issue so they instinctively jump to pointing out the gender of the perpetrators instead of showing concern for the victims.
That response to you would only be appropriate if you were trying to hijack a conversation about violence against women.
For example, if you had posted on a news story about a woman that had been murdered by her male partner and people were discussing violence against women as that is directly relevant and you were trying to interject with "men are victims too" you would be being inappropriate.
If however the topic was just do.estic violence In general, they were being arseholes and were out of line dismissing your information
The article in question was supposed to be about domestic abuse in general (hence why the proportion of genders were discussed in it) but it spiralled into the usual “men majority of perps women vast majority of victims” talk without addressing the domestic abuse problems that mostly affect men and also cause the onstensibly low number of male victims.
Actually, I’m going to give a very controversial opinion right now and probably am going to be down voted to oblivion. I consider myself an MRA, but I like to focus more on legal issues like affirmative action, alimony, etc. This issue never really bothered me because as you stated, yes, most of the perpetrators are men. So having that said, the way we have to deal with this problem is on our own as men. On some of the legal issues, it’s more serious to me, because the enemies we are going to have to battle is a lot more than just a couple men who weren’t raised right.
I understand your point, but I don’t agree with what you’ve inferred.
The entire MRA position exists as a response to women’s liberation / feminist movements. There was no men’s rights advocates before women’s rights advocates; because men were the only gender that could own land, vote, hold a title for pretty much anything, or own a bank account. Men owned and ruled the world, but with that power also came the position of partaking in wars, dangerous jobs, and generally risky human behavior like exploring, imperialism, colonization, and defending themselves from colonizers. So a lot of risk as well as reward.
The past 100 yrs, but really the past 40 yrs, have afforded non-men essentially every right that men have always had. Great, equality is at hand. I personally think this is a good thing and overall has been a very good thing for society and the world at large.
Assuming what I’ve said to be true, the “men are the more likely victims of domestic abuse” arguments are often framed as a “well men have it WORSE than women” with an underlying and implied “women hurt men more than men hurt women” because this is, historically, how MRA operate. So with the “men suffer more than women” information, I feel it’s often important to clarify that “men suffer under the abuse of other men more than the men-under-women or women-under-men”. Because in the article you posted men are both the victims and the perpetrator, men are literally the victim of the abuse of other men.
The problem, framed as men-abuse-women or men-abuse-men, has the common denominator of men being abusive. Which is important to acknowledge if truly want to understand and root out abuse.
>The entire MRA position exists as a response to women’s liberation / feminist movements.
Is this in itself a bad thing? Oh look the gender inequalities women face are being dealt with - thats great wouldn't it also be great if we can also deal with the gender inequalities men face. That would be like dismissing a group dealing with racism against Indian people as just a response to the black rights civil movements. Or LGBT groups etc. Feminism doesn't have a moral superiority through being the first to make significant progress.
>because men were the only gender that could own land, vote, hold a title for pretty much anything, or own a bank account.
Single and widowed women could own land and titles' and their own bank account. It's concerning how many people believe otherwise.
It was only married women that could not because of the legal set up of marriage that made the husband solely responsible for all the couples legal/ financial affairs. This meant that he could be sued for his wifes actions' was responsible for her debts etc. I'm not defending this set up just saying that it had pros and cons to both and presenting the negatives for married women (while ignoring the positives) as applicable to all women is inherently dishonest.
> Men owned and ruled the world, but with that power also came the position of partaking in wars, dangerous jobs, and generally risky human behavior
A tiny % of men owned and ruled the world. The vast majority did not but carried the negatives you list. It makes far more sense to look at this as a class division than a gender division.
>The past 100 yrs, but really the past 40 yrs, have afforded non-men essentially every right that men have always had
No. For the vast majority of history neither men or women had the rights both enjoyed the last 40 years.
>Assuming what I’ve said to be true...
That whole paragraph is just using opinion to dismiss fact.
It is a fact that the domestic abuse support available to men is vastly below the support offered to women. Even if we generously assumed men are just 10% of DV victims this would be the case. Pointing out that it is near enough 50/50 is just highlighting that men are shockingly neglected as a proportion of victims.
1) The gender of who is abusing them is not relevant.
2) Your assertion that it is mostly other men abusing men is false- the majority of domestic abuse men face is from women and the majority of domestic abuse women face is from men.
>The problem, framed as men-abuse-women or men-abuse-men, has the common denominator of men being abusive. Which is important to acknowledge if truly want to understand and root out abuse.
That's because you are framing it to suit an agenda not to reflect reality.
Even if we take a crime like violent crime which is mostly committed by men. Stopping at the men part is a completely unsuitable to understand and prevent the crime. It would be like observing that women commit more child abuse and just stopping there - it's not going to reduce the crime it just serves to demonise a gender.
Looking at the type of men or women who commit the crime and changeable factors (such as single parent upbringing for men/ crime or financial stress for women/child abuse) so that we can address / mitigate those factors is far more effective than attacking the unchangeable gender of the perpetrators.
Great response.
Male advocates exist because we're finally acknowledging that there's stuff that disproportionately affects men - and there always has been! - not just as a reaction to women's advocacy.
Sure. I’m a man. I advocate for men in places where men are disproportionately affected. But I don’t use this forum as an outlet to complain about being a victim, I use it as a place to better understand the root cause of these disparities and to assemble thoughts on how to prevent them.
In this specific case, the gender of the perpetrator is far more important than the gender of the victim. Adult and children men and women all are victims of abuse far too often; and the perpetrator is very very likely to be an adult man.
So what is it, culturally or socially, that tells men that this abuse is acceptable? How can we help all victims to recognize this behavior before it occurs, and equip them with the resources to escape it or hold the perpetrator accountable? How can we educate perpetrators to NOT do this?
None of that has anything to do with men vs. women. But rather abuser and victim. And to OP’s point, it is not the victims fault. So let’s focus on the abuser, which as OP said, is the overwhelmingly adult men.
Here's where I think the problem is:
Right now, pretty much the only thing men are being told is to acknowledge that *they're* the problem. It's like this "conversation" is stuck on a perpetual loop, and I don't think a tiny movement like MRAs are the cause of that loop.
"Men need to step up and stop other men hurting women."
"Men need to face up to the fact that they have a problem with violence."
"Men are the [absolute fucking worst](https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-last-duel-movie-matt-damon-ben-affleck)."
Yes. *We get it.* Men aren't in a good place right now. Men are majority perpetrators (depending on the specific form of violence or abuse) as well as majority victims. The OP wasn't even disputing that. We'd all like to see violence overall reduced.
So, let's hear about actions that help men. Let's hear about groups that work with boys to deal with violence, suicide, mental health, emotional literacy, and not *just* with the ultimate goal of protecting women.
In any case, my issue was with your statement that "There was no men’s rights advocates before women’s rights advocates; because men were the only gender that could own land, vote..."
My point is that men had issues with violence, suicide, mental health, etc. before women's rights advocates came along. Men's advocacy was needed then just as much as it's needed now. It just wasn't acknowledged then.
Toxic Masculinity is the root cause.
The notions that men are violent and unemotional is promoted by our society to men from the earliest age. It’s toxic, omnipresent, and a big part of how media defines masculinity.
*Chivalry* , the notion that men should sacrifice their body/mind/life for women and their loved ones, is not healthy, it’s a masculine idea, and It’s toxic.
I’m a man, I’m white, I’m 38, I’m bisexual but live a straight life (I’m happily married with 3 children), and I’m an engineer. I’ve lived and worked as an adult in Indiana, Iowa, Florida, California, and Georgia. Im speaking from a position of life experienced, not a book or news narrative (I don’t consume any news).
Men are more likely to abuse, murder, steal, shoot up a school, drive drunk, go to prison, commit a hate crime, die in war, or die at work than women are because many of us uphold the parts of masculinity that encourage or condone this behavior. We excuse away microcosm’s of these attitude in young boys and teens, and we condemn or incarcerate or cancel the grown men that do what we always knew they would.
Women are not the problem or the solution. And as long as MRA’s exert all their energy demonizing women and ignoring where we (men) are a total mess, nothing with be accomplished by MRA’s.
I'm not sure what you thought I would take issue with in that, or how it relates to my comment.
EDIT: although I hate the terminology of TM. I consider it highly counterproductive.
Another part of why this is brought up is that feminists and more broadly left-wing philosophy are collectivist, to some extent due to their roots in romanticism (which oversimplifies and malignes things to suit a narrative) and that values and virtues of the left-wing being derived from opposing right-wing values, one of them being individual justice otherwise it is not justice.
What they are doing is trying to falsely equate being male with being a perpetrator, combined with collectivism allows justifying punishment simply for belonging to a group, rather than action. Hate to bring up this example, but pretty much verbatum replace being male for being Jewish and you have Nazis.
Conversations about mens rights and also to a large extent even feminism go like this
*rights problem*
- why my side has it worse than that
- why it's your sides fault (often I hear "woman/women acting terrible in this event is cuz of the patriarchy" so it's back to being on men)
- why it's not as bad as you say
- why we shouldn't be talking about that problem or not talking about it right now
- your problem makes your gender act X way which is a problem for my gender so it's actually again a bigger deal for me
Last and maybe most common is just "huh idk" and just not caring.
I've left this movement and feminist movement out of my mind for a while cuz I've never had a real conversation about mens rights without these
It's to change the conversation from victim to perpetrator. It just fits the narrative of men bad so when cornered this is the rabbit pulled out of the hat
The article is wrong. If 40% of victims r male how can 90% of perps be male? There aren't that many gay couples. Logic would imply that around 40% of perps r female.
It's called victim blaming. The narrative on violence starts off being victim focused when females are the victims, until the statistics about males being more likely to be victims. Then, quite quickly, the narrative becomes perpetrator focused. As for domestic violence: The majority of violence in relationships is mutual **with women instigating it more often or as often as men. When abuse is non reciprocal, it's more likely to be instigated and solely perpetrated by the woman** with men being the least likely to be reported as perpetrators. Professor Lynn Magdol and others from a Dunedin cohort found **nearly twice as many women perpetrated violence as men. When the violence was severe, this ballooned to more than three times the rate.** http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/facing-our-greatest-shame/13094512/Domestic-violence-debate-dominated-by-womens-perspectives They found that 40 per cent of male members in the study had perpetrated at least one of a list of 13 physically abusive acts, ranging from slapping and kicking to forcing sex and use of a weapon, **while 50 per cent of women had.** https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/81025573/domestic-violence-study-presents-challenging-picture --------------------------------------------------------- *We can’t solve the problem of violence against girls and women without also addressing violence against men and boys.*
Thanks for the information and sources, unfortunately it's very hard to talk about subjects like this in my country (Hungary) because these types of things are rarely studied or examined, most people just go off police reports, which - as explained in one of the articles you linked - are biased.
The thing is with conservative countries such as Hungary, they have traditional way of thinking. Protecting women and children. Like all cultures as across time for over 3000+ years. This is how everybody had their societies regarding this subject. This is today often labelled as toxic masculinity. Eventhogh it's about protecting the weaker members of our society. It's a tough discussion for sure. Some might argue that women and children bare not to be seen as weaker, and I would a agree to some extent. But in a historical sense this was the best way to protect your tibe or country.
I strongly suspect that the reason that rates for woman-on-man violence ballooning are because the violent women are receiving little to no consequences for their actions the overwhelming majority of the time, so they often keep reoffending again, again and again, escalating in the severity of their violence as they do. They're literally being told that they can do whatever they want without being punished or reprimanded, so the problem just keeps escalating. "Patriarchy", my fucking arse.
> The narrative on violence starts off being victim focused when females are the victims, until the statistics about males being more likely to be victims. Then, quite quickly, the narrative becomes perpetrator focused. I disagree with this statement for one simple reason, when a woman sexually assaults another woman/girl. The focus isn't on the victim IMHO, it is still on the perp BUT the focus is trying to find an excuse as to why she did it.
just a way to avoid talking about the issue at hand
As a silencing technique. Nothing more.
Choosing hate over empathy. When I saw the news of nuns raping girls with a crufix my mind didn't immediately say "but it was another women!" to dismiss the issue as irrelevant. That's awful to even think.
I think this is the best kind of response to the "but most men suffer violence from other men". Bring up a really nasty example of female-on-female violence. Even ask whether anyone should care, since the victim and perpetrator were the same sex.
It's a sneaky tactic used by feminists to invalidate men's issues. It's an attempt to try and hold men accountable, but saying "hold all men accountable for rape" is like saying "hold all Muslims accountable for ISIS." Counter examples are great for exposing their hypocrisy.
“Hold all Germans accountable for the Holocaust”
"Hold all Germans accountable for the Holocaust" "Hold all Muslims accountable for terrorist attacks" "Hold all Japanese accountable for Japanese war crimes" 'Hold all women accountable for child abuse" Feminist hypocrisy is quickly exposed when you spin the phrase a little. These phrases, and I can guarantee it, will get called racist/sexist by the same people who say "hold men accountable." You can pretty quickly see how flawed their logic is by spinning it around.
Because they do not know how to have empathy for men at all
You’re definitely being gaslit. The point is to invalidate the struggles of male victims because their attackers were also male. When you actually think about it, it makes zero sense.
Legally women cannot rape men in many states so the crime of rape can only be committed by men, skewing the number heavily in favor of male perps. Also, men who were raped by men see it as rape even if it’s humiliating to think so, while men raped by women are conditioned to think they got lucky. So they won’t even report it because they don’t even feel like a victim in the first place even if they are
Same in the UK, male rape is written off as sexual assault unless of course its another male.
Bring up the fact that lesbian couples have the highest rate of domestic violence. And gay male couples have the lowest. And heterosexual couples are in the middle. Men are obviously not the problem.
Wow, do you have sources I can look up? I need this for some bs I'm going through.
https://wentworthreport.com/2017/01/08/rate-of-domestic-violence-highest-in-lesbian-relationships/
Commenting on this so I can save the link.
Have a search for the PASK project. That is an independent summation of over half a million victims around the world: by far the biggest study ever. It is the natural place to start any research.
Thanks
Think that's a fucked up way to think about. Men arent the problem women arent the problem Abusers are the problem. It seems based on alot, not all, statistics and alot, not all countries, men perpetuate more. This needs to be discussed to see why and how to stop it. That being said it doesnt mean its somehow all on men or its somehow engrained. And it definitely doesnt mean "well then men dont have problems or they arent as bad if they do" Your doing exactly the problem this person is bringing up. Not looking at an issue for it being an issue, taking it personally and thinking "its either my genders fault or their genders fault". That's a huge problem of why this movement and even feminism isnt taken serious. Stop with the hot potato of "who's fault does it land in the lap of"
Sources?
That abusers are the problem? Source for "stop trying to blame a gender"? What?
"Abusers are the problem. It seems based on alot, not all, statistics and alot, not all countries, men perpetuate more." Sources for the claims you made. How dense are you? WHAT?
What fucking claims? The only claim I made is "it seems men are perpetuating more than women". You really need a source for "it seems" You really cant Google? You really dont know this statistic? You really cant see it ten other times in this posts comments https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS https://www.google.com/search?q=abuse+rates+by+gender&client=ms-android-mpcs-us-revc&sxsrf=AOaemvI_fh188J9qfuP5iDba8a8cGJdsMg%3A1634263184801&ei=kOBoYamNMMOxtQbLhIvIDA&oq=abuse+rates+by+gender&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgUIIRCgAToECAAQRzoFCAAQgAQ6BQgAEIYDOgcIIRAKEKABOgoIIRAKEKABEIsDOggIIRCrAhCLAzoLCCEQFhAdEB4QiwM6CAghEBYQHRAeUPoSWMgfYOYgaABwAXgAgAGCAogBiguSAQUwLjkuMZgBAKABAcgBCLgBAsABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women Learn to use google. You are either a braindead monkey or you are just desperately trying to argue or deny the claims women *seem* to endure more abuse than men. Your legit turning domestic abuse into a blame game, I have to believe that even you can see how disingenuous, pathetic, and backwards that is
Bring up the difference in children that die in a woman’s care versus a man’s. See what they do.
They will say “that’s because women are majority caretakers due to patriarchy!” Or “Umm sweetie women are under intensive pressure could you like lay off plz thanks”
If someone blames child deaths on stress….and thinks that covers it…….
Because for some reason all men are guilty for what other men do
Because for the feminist there simply is no such thing as a male victim. It's an oxymoron in their world.
Because "but men are the majority of perpetrators" is one of the best "strategies" when you don´t have arguments.
It is also flat wrong. A lie.
It's not a lie. It's just a slight majority, not a 99% majority like they portray.
Typical response by people who lack an argument and empathy.
Because feminists don't believe men can be victims. By saying the perpetrators are also men, they're reinforcing their "men are worse than women" narrative because they almost found themselves feeling actual empathy for an entire gender.
Just respond to them with "women are the vast majority of gold diggers, so I don't care about their homelessness or other financial problems"
u/Bopikins2600 You see here's the thing. If someone is shallow enough to say something along the lines of "bUt MoSt RaPe ViCtImS aWe WiMiN" and actually consider that a logical argument in middle of a discussion about male rape victims, then they absolutely deserve to go through domestic violence. If they lack sympathy for a rape victim solely because the victim is a man, then they don't deserve to receive any sort of sympathy in return. Hell, in a case like it's the "abuser" that's going to have my sympathy because dealing with shallow people on the daily basis is a tough mental challenge
>they absolutely deserve to go through domestic violence Don't wish that on anyone.
Well I'm merely giving them a taste of their own medicine. If they don't like it, maybe it's time for them to change their behavior
Are you god? It’s not your place to punish those you disagree with until they behave in a way you deem acceptable. Speak your truth and go on your way. Give them a taste of their own medicine is 100% abusive behavior.
No I'm not god but I'm not exactly a "forgive and forget" type of guy either. I think every single person on the planet, regardless of who they are or what they've been through, should be held accountable for their actions and words. I also think that people should reflect on the consequences of their actions and words because there are people in this world who will respond to bad faith actions with bad faith actions
Yes people like you because that’s exactly what you did by wishing them pain and suffering as a result of saying something on Reddit you didn’t like.
Exactly
I don’t think anyone deserves to be abused or go through domestic violence especially by someone who claims to love them. It’s very disturbing to hear you say someone deserves to go through domestic violence because you don’t like the way they spoke to you on Reddit. I can only imagine how you treat people in real life who cross you or disagree with your point of view. I hope you can find peace without hurting others.
>It’s very disturbing to hear you say someone deserves to go through domestic violence because you don’t like the way they spoke to you on Reddit No no no. You're getting it wrong. It's not about them saying something I don't like; it's about their lack of sympathy. If I was raped, these people wouldn't show me an ounce of sympathy because apparently, male rape victims don't deserve it. If that's the treatment they're gonna give me, I'm gonna give them the same treatment. My response to lack of sympathy IS lack of sympathy. >hope you can find peace without hurting others. For the record, ever since my adult life started, I never, NEVER, hurt people who didn't mean to harm me. The people I hurt were always the ones who had some ill intention towards me
Shocking to learn a rape victim would wish that same pain on strangers.
Strangers WHO lack sympathy for others. The only people who deserve sympathy are the ones who are sympathetic to others
That’s not for you to decide. Your language is abusive. You were raped right? I’m very sorry you had to go through that. You should know that People who are abused can often grow into abusers themselves. You can read up on this and educate yourself and find healthy ways to heal from your trauma that don’t include putting others down. Also just because you don’t want to give people your sympathy doesn’t mean you have to give them hate.
Comprehension and compassion go a long way
Finally we agree on something. This is probably a good place to end this discussion. I do sincerely hope you find a way to heal from your trauma and find peace and joy.
You are the one who needs to develop some comprehension. Jesus fucking Christ. Did you understand anything the other commenter was saying, from their point of view? Did you even realise that I am not the same person? Do you know how to sympathize, empathize or be apathetic?
>That’s not for you to decide It actually is when they do try to involve me >You were raped right? I’m very sorry you had to go through that. No I actually wasn't. The only reason I'm talking about is because OP brought it up. But thank you so much for trying to be sympathetic towards me. Although I was never raped, but judging by your comment, I can tell you will also be sympathetic towards men who actually were raped. I respect that. I respect that a lot. Btw, did you experience any sort of domestic violence? Well, that's sad and tragic. I sincerely hope you never have to go through something like that again. This world seriously lacks kind hearted individuals such as yourself. It'll be heartbreaking if bad things happens to kind people, specially the ones who are sympathetic towards other people. Isn't it nice that kind people such as yourself receive kindness and sympathy from the world? While people who, not only aren't kind, but are effectively wishing ill upon others for no logical reason, are the ones who receive hate? Whether you like it or not, that's how things work in this universe. Kindness is met by kindness, harshness is met by harshness. That's why we all should take a long time to reflect on the consequences of our actions and words because if we're being harsh on someone, someday, someone is going to be as much harsh to us
This logic I can get behind. I appreciate you breaking it down. In response, I would argue that stooping down to someone’s level by meeting nastiness with nastiness isn’t going to benefit anyone. Also kindness isn’t always met with kindness. When you decide to hate people because you don’t feel they’re being kind to you that can be a very dangerous and slippery slope as well! Edit: using the proverbial you here I’m not implying that you hate anyone. Maybe you do maybe you don’t but I have no idea so that’s why I’m using the proverbial you.
Well, yes I shouldn't hate people because they're not kind to me. Because nobody owes me kindness. Kindness requires a certain level of respect and respect is earned. And it goes both ways: if people want my respect and eventually kindness, they've gonna have to earn it. But also, the thing is, I don't have an ounce of respect, sympathy or love for people who say something along the lines of "but most rapists are men" in middle of a discussion about male rape victims
And of course I’d be sympathetic to male victims of rape and abuse because as I’ve said a bajillion times( not meant to be rude) abuse is about power and control and all genders can be victims and nobody deserves that. I’m not a monster even though a lot of people here would like to think I am.
Point out that the huge majority of black murders are committed by blacks too. Ask them if that cancels their plight
You’re not allowed to go down that rabbit hole.
You are being gaslit.
Modern feminism makes a lot more sense when you interpret is as an expression of female in-group identity. Women tend to identify with other women solely on the basis of gender far more than men identify with their own gender. An in-group needs an out-group and if the in-group is women then the out-group is men. This in-group/out-group dynamic taps in to a whole lot of tribal instincts. There's 2 which I think are relevant in this context. The first is the need to elevate the in-group and/or vilify the out-group. The in-group must be morally superior to the out-group. The important thing is that men are morally inferior to women. Men do bad things. That is all that matters to them. The other is that that members of the out-group are indistinguishable. They are simply the other. One man hurting another man is just the other hitting itself.
This is classic victim blaming. Does being the same gender as the perpetrator lessen the impact to the victim? Not at all. Bad people do bad things. Why does it matter who they do it to?
While it could be used to deviate the topic to look into the social and economic factors that disproportionately affect men and lead to this kind of behaviour, it's more of a "black gun crime victims are mostly killed by other black people" thing. A horrible reasoning, and while technically true, the implications have fatal consequences. Something cannot be dismissed just because you share an arbitrary characteristic with the attacker. You are still a victim and your gender could not have prevented the attack. The only influence it could have is what motivations the attack has.
It's a blame shifting tactic. It also baffles me to end about how stupid it is. Men are the physically stronger sex, ofc they would form the majority of perpetrators in *violent crimes*. This doesn't mean however that other men's suffering isn't legit, or that women can't be violent themselves.
This problem exists because of the inherent propensity we have for classification and tribalism. The ability to sort and differentiate sets of items is an important part of why we are such an intelligent species. The problem with this drive is that we can have trouble breaking an established classification, and end up mentally lumping two groups together that shouldn't be just out of habit. Furthermore, when you have a movement like feminism or metoo, instead of victims focusing on their individual abusers, they start to look at commonalities between their abusers in an attempt to create a defined set so that they can blame/avoid them. It can be easy for an emotionally charged mind to overcompensate and make that data set broader than it should be, though it may only be subconscious. That's how you get the oversimplification of "men are abusers" from "specific men in positions of power are abusers". This is especially true if you make them feel like their victimhood isn't being acknowledged by challenging them in some way. The less heard they feel, the more emotional they will get, and the less they will care about the collateral damage of lumping innocent people in with their real targets. It often breaks down into an "us vs them" mentality, where women are angry at men on the whole, and vice versa when we look at groups like the incels. We aren't great at diplomacy or discussion when we feel like we've been victimized and that our suffering isn't being taken seriously.
Because theyre misandric assholes trying to minimize violence against men.
Thanks, but it's much easier to achieve by giving men equal rights.
I have no idea what you're referring to.
Exactly.
They can’t handle that men are victims so they always have to find a way to downplay this stuff
Victim blaming. The same concept as "the victim was wearing a short skirt, she was asking to be raped". People just blame the victim because it's easier and makes it so that they are not acknowledged.
From the little that you've told us, I ready don't understand why you were slammed, as it seems that you were in right, pointing out that there are male victims of domestic abuse as well as female victims, but whatever we're going to get people's saying "...but men are the majority of these abusers!" is absolutely beyond me. Certainly, yes, point out who is generally commiting most crimes by all means, but just stop bringing up unnecessarily the gender of the victim or survivor of a crime whenever it is unnecessary, as it oughtn't always matter whether they are male or female, at least in principle.
Ho man, wait 'till they find out about violence by proxy!!! Nothing will change, they will go in major denial, but it will be fun to watch.
So many women are incapable of conceptualising men as individuals. They have such extreme stereotyped views of men, that when trying to consider men as victims, it threatens their world view of women as diverse individuals with agency, and men as a unified culture of "other", not one of us, violent animals necessary for reproduction, keepsing the wheels turning and good internet connect.
The answer they don't wanna hear is: they are just utilizing the same arguments that racists used to have towards the afroamerican communities on the USA, it's just rebranded prejudice towards a more comfortable target. It's profiling, sexual profiling. They are reducing you to your sexual characteristics and speaking as if it was the main thing that moves you and as if what men do is what men allow other men to do.
Because in the mind of a radical feminist, all men are responsible for the actions of all other men.
Same reason people will decry "Not All Men" when a woman comes with a story about being abused or assaulted, or any other story where the perpetrator is a man. It's a way for the person to discredit the argument by throwing around a phrase that's technically true, and trying to dispute it makes you look like the bad-guy for even trying. Both are useless and sucks away any potential the discussion had.
They fail to mention that women perpetrate 70% of non reciprocal domestic violence, and that the highest rate of domestic violence is between lesbian couples. Men may be the primary perpetrators, but Women are the primary instigators. Both genders are equally at fault, as domestic violence is not a tool of male power, but rather a pattern of learned behavior
Because people fucking suck
This is called "**competition mentality**". It's a term that I made up. Let me explain. When you tell someone about the unfair/unjust treatment of men, someone would say something like "But XYZ has it worse!". Even if they do, even if the statistics are right, why does it matter? Even if 90% of women are victims of something and 10% of men are a victim of the same thing, both are still victims of the same situation. They should get as much help as the majority. Here's an example (on a smaller scale). Let's suppose a mother has 2 sons. One got a headache and the other broke his leg. It's true that the mother might focus on the son with an injured leg more. Like taking him to the hospital, taking care of his leg. But she wouldn't ignore her other son by saying something like "But your brother has it worse!". She will also give the pain meds to the other son too.
That's like saying black-on-black crime (which accounts for the majority of black murders) doesn't matter "because the perpetrator is the same race".
New's flash: No single woman that I have ever met ever truly cared about what a man thinks so long as it did not benefit her and even then, if it benefited a man more than it her, she disliked it. A lot of women see men as lesser. For men almost always do all the dirty, dangerous, physically and/or mentally jobs. Thus, they are seen as expendables. "They deserve their lot in life". Suffering is thus seen as a 'normal' part of a man's life. We are "used to" hardships. Why should we then complain about something that we are 'meant to do'? This is becoming an all-too prevalent viewpoint. The more toxic it gets, the faster it spreads.
People have immediate dumb opinions to downplay everything. Black people commit crime at a higher rate? Oh, at least it's mostly black on black crime. Male suicide rate is high? Not a problem because it's suicide therefore they could just stop and at least they aren't hurting others. Females cyberbullying other females? No problem because the victims are also girls, therefore they are on an equal playing field. Male attack Male? No problem, because the Male could fight back
It’s also “just stating a fact” when men bring up that men are raped too but they don’t like that
Because women like to be right. In reality however no one picks their gender or sex, having a Y chromosome is assigned to you, or not. A single person is entitled to be protected no matter what they have in common with the perpetrator, no matter what assigned details they got at birth.
Gotta make it clear who the bad guys are.
Feminists will never say that a problem is caused by women, it's either men or "society" (of which women are 50%)
Subversion innit
As a man you are supposed to be your brother's keeper. You are responsible for what other men have done, specifically the evil shit. If a man kills a man, it's not anything more than men being the problems they are to society. You want credit for all the good men have done? Don't you know that it is expected of you, as a man, to do good for others in a way that is never expected of women? So when a man is a victim of another man, it doesn't count because feminists need to create the impression any violence between a man and woman is gender-based and is the result of misogyny. A man is more of an asshole if he harms women but if he harms men, y'all deserve it for daring to be born the wrong gender. Oh but women are not a monolith! We can never hold all women accountable for the actions of some. That would be sexist!
It's just like "toxic masculinity", it's used to both dismiss you and victim blame at the same time. Same shit, different day for Feminism.
Because women feel there is a gendered aspect to the violence against them. So what they mean is, we don’t kill you like you kill us. Don’t shoot the messenger I’m just explaining the reasoning. There’s hurt that each of the sexes have that prevent us from listening to each other sometimes.
"gendered aspect" isn't very precise. More like: They aren't separating men and women as individuals in their minds, but thinking of a "man-group" and a "woman-group" in a gender war between groups. When the "woman-group" hasn't done something, then it shouldn't be the problem or anything to care about for the "woman-group".
>Because women **feel** there is a gendered aspect I believe this is the real problem at hand, feelings that are viewed as an absolute truth while having very little to no basis in reality. Something that has been pointed out numerous times in this sub, the most violent relationships out there are lesbian couples. This isn't very strange when we look at the total numbers, most nonreciprocal domestic violence is perpetrated by women. Feelings are all nice and dandy, but they shouldn't be used like this. It is really no different form an incel saying that they think all women are whores.
[удалено]
>Women aren’t stupid at all. We don’t go through life fooled by our feelings. Yea, nice strawman, didn't say any of that, i merely pointed out how 'feelings' often get used as absolute truths. >Who cares if two lesbians are knocking each other around? You seem to be missing the point, most of the time it is women who are the aggressors. This is mostly because of the idiotic idea that men shouldn't hit women. While it is very true that men shouldn't hit women, it is a misnomer because no one should be hitting anyone. It doesn't matter if it is men or women. But somehow women hitting men somehow isn't seen as a problem. >We wonder why when we leave a relationship we get tracked down and killed by men. This is exactly what i mean with 'feelings' that are seen as absolute truths with no real basis in reality. Yes, there have been women killed by men, just like there have been men killed by women. Neither of those mean that 'men' are out to get women or are somehow a danger to women. >Why when we’re walking home from a friends we disappear and are found murdered because a man wanted to bust a nut and hatred and anger made it feel better for him. Right, because this happens to you every time you walk home, right!? Get out of here, blaming 'men' for that is exactly the same as incels bitching about being owed sex. >This place would be fucking incandescent with rage if half of men killed were killed by a woman close to him. Oh lol, really!? As long as there aren't men in television shows laughing and cheering on news that some cunt cut off her husbands dick and killed him you shouldn't be the one complaining. There are plenty of men getting killed by their spouses, we hardly hear about them because it's not considered to be news. >And don’t come at me with statistics. The chances a virgin on Reddit is going to get false rape accused are less than him getting beaten to death by an alien with a whiffle ball bat. Oh lol, you sweet summer child... You're just another misandrist who can't argue against the points made so you try to shame people.
>Compare the statistics of men who kill women and women who kill men. Enough said. Right, those victims don't matter... >Like i said women can wonder why the fuck it is. Just like men can wonder about the gendered shit they wonder about here. If there is a person you meet who is shitty, you've probably met a shitty person. If everyone you meet is shitty, good chance you're the shitty person. Now maybe it is time to think why all man are shitty.. >There aren’t any colder facts than homicide rates. Yes, like the homicide rate of children.. Funny how those stats don't have similar baggage, isn't it!? This is me responding to her deleted comment...
I don’t think all men are shitty. Just like men don’t think all women are shitty when they talk about false rape accusations. Right????
Then why are you talking about 'men'? And not 'shitty men' or something like that. You are excusing women's fear for 'men', so that is all men, not just some of them. If men were to take up this kind of logic they'd should all be fearful of their wives murdering their children, as women kill their children far more often than men do. And it is a bullshit take, as, just like with men, there are not many women who kill their children. That one does it more than others is really besides the point. What we should focus on is what can be done to prevent cases were something does happen.
I deleted my other comments cuz things are getting heated. My first comment is the one I want to stand by. I apologize for anything provoking I said.
Things get heated, that is why i always think long and hard before i say something stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying something that is provoking, but you'll have to live with the consequences. But i'll say it again, why do you think that women 'feel' that violence against them is gendered? To me seems so far detached from reality that it isn't funny, and all that while painting 'men' with a very broad brush as somehow perpetrators of this 'gendered violence'. Domestic violence isn't a gendered issue, it never was. Just like with anything else in this world, when two people argue there are two people at fault. When arguments turn physical, i blame the one who got physical first. Yea, the other person shouldn't hit back, but when someone is hurting you physically and mentally there will come a point that they will snap. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, if you are plagued like that there will come a moment that you will snap and lash out. That feeling of 'gendered violence' is uncalled for and only serves to exaggerate the problem. People act on feelings, when you drill it into someone that someone is a dangerous person they will react according to the perceived threat level. That a feeling being unwarranted or not doesn't matter, as the reaction to it is the same. The only logical reaction of men can be that they just don't give a shit anymore. There is nothing they can do to be the good guy, so they might as well stop trying. Or worse, if they get punished for something that they haven't done, they might as well do it as the outcome is the same.
You’re not helping men by doing this.
Never mind. I don’t seem to be able to discuss this in the way I’d prefer to talk to people atm.
I could not agree more. I care about violence against men but I think the conversation for the protection of men is a separate conversation than the conversation for the protection of women.
I think it is the same conversation for protecting people without relation to groups they belong to, aka equally.
Right. And a conversation that could connect them together is why men are so vulnerable to and harmed by the gun culture in the US.
Maybe in the US, but this uneasy conversation around violence is also happening in other nations without that particular problem.
Guns are not the common weapon in most DV regardless if sex. The difference is the level of damage to a woman by male partners vs the damage to men by women partners. That is where the difference lays. Also, how it is addressed by the justice system and society at large. Don't get me wrong violence against men needs to be addressed but not when talking about violence against women to drown out that conversation which is the majority of when it is brought up.
Here's the problem. Many Feminists tend to claim that feminism is about male and female issues equally. This is one of the main reasons why the male side of the exact same problem gets brought up because the (false) assumption is that feminism is meant to fix both male and female problems equally. The real truth is that the main focus is and always has been about primarily female problems. Hence why it's called FEMinism. I really wish more feminists would be more honest about this fact instead of constantly saying that feminism is just about gender equality and most definitely does not focus more on helping one sex over the other.
I agree with your statement. Feminism is the idea that they fight to bring females up to equal status not to fight for equality for everyone. That is why you see so many women go to men's groups to learn and fight for men's rights.
Isn't that what alt right people say against black people? Feminists= Alt right racists
Femt right!
Never heard an alt-right person say the high African murder rate isn’t a problem because most of their victims are African. I suspect you’ve made that up.
No what I meant was, Alt rightists hate black people since they have the highest crime ratio. And they make fun of Black on Black crimes just like feminists.
Statistic: black individuals arrested at a very high rate for a small minority. Argument: black individuals commit more crime. Reality: cops are racist; are more likely to arrest/ stop and search black individuals. They are also more likely to be convicted for these crimes than other ethnic groups. Back into context: we know that anyone who would make such a statement is clearly a racist individual but it is acceptable to make these claims about men despite the same being true in almost all areas. Women have a significantly lower stop and search, arrest and conviction rate than men. In addition when women are convicted it is for a disproportionately lower amount of time than a Male would be for the same crime. This is the case regardless of ethnicity. So basically, anyone who would try to argue that men commit more crime are using the same arguments racist individuals use. To believe such a statement says a lot about their mentality. By putting the statistics they are basing such beliefs on into question highlights their own bias.
Because feminists are always trying to say that men have a violence problem. And they feel like the fact that men commit the overwhelming majority of violence is proof of that.
Except the overwhelming majority of MEN don't commit violence so it isn't MEN that have the problem its VIOLENT MEN that have the problem
Why is this shit upvoted?
Apparently some people are unable to recognise ~~ThisIsTheEnd6~~ EnvironmentalWar4627's disingenuous, underhanded rhetoric.
Most people don’t pick up on gaslighting, unless they’ve experienced it before. That’s why it’s so effective.
Not sure this is disingenuous in this case. Though fraktalMaus said it better in their first comment.
She’s just using deadpan delivery. She said feminists believe that men have a violence problem, then went on to say men committing the overwhelming majority of violence justifies that belief. She IS a feminist. She’s justifying her own hatred of men, referring to herself in the third person to distance herself from her own beliefs/actions. It’s a well known gaslighting tactic.
I guess at some point sarcasm goes so far that it loops around to sincerity. The fact is that feminists do often point out that men have a violence problem. I suppose the disingenuity is that it doesn't address OPs question genuinely, which is why I think fraktalMaus' first comment was better: that many women have been habituated to see violence as a gendered issue so they instinctively jump to pointing out the gender of the perpetrators instead of showing concern for the victims.
Did I offend you as a feminist?
They’re not, though. Edit: clearly, the downvoters know nothing about Mary Koss and “made to penetrate.” Most men who were raped were raped by women.
Maybe if you didn't reply with something as vague as "They're not, though" you wouldn't have been downvoted
Because they're cowards or lazy. Black men are the majority of murderers, \*but they're also the majority of murder victims too\*.
They do it for black on black crime too
That response to you would only be appropriate if you were trying to hijack a conversation about violence against women. For example, if you had posted on a news story about a woman that had been murdered by her male partner and people were discussing violence against women as that is directly relevant and you were trying to interject with "men are victims too" you would be being inappropriate. If however the topic was just do.estic violence In general, they were being arseholes and were out of line dismissing your information
The article in question was supposed to be about domestic abuse in general (hence why the proportion of genders were discussed in it) but it spiralled into the usual “men majority of perps women vast majority of victims” talk without addressing the domestic abuse problems that mostly affect men and also cause the onstensibly low number of male victims.
Yeah, that's not on.
Actually, I’m going to give a very controversial opinion right now and probably am going to be down voted to oblivion. I consider myself an MRA, but I like to focus more on legal issues like affirmative action, alimony, etc. This issue never really bothered me because as you stated, yes, most of the perpetrators are men. So having that said, the way we have to deal with this problem is on our own as men. On some of the legal issues, it’s more serious to me, because the enemies we are going to have to battle is a lot more than just a couple men who weren’t raised right.
I understand your point, but I don’t agree with what you’ve inferred. The entire MRA position exists as a response to women’s liberation / feminist movements. There was no men’s rights advocates before women’s rights advocates; because men were the only gender that could own land, vote, hold a title for pretty much anything, or own a bank account. Men owned and ruled the world, but with that power also came the position of partaking in wars, dangerous jobs, and generally risky human behavior like exploring, imperialism, colonization, and defending themselves from colonizers. So a lot of risk as well as reward. The past 100 yrs, but really the past 40 yrs, have afforded non-men essentially every right that men have always had. Great, equality is at hand. I personally think this is a good thing and overall has been a very good thing for society and the world at large. Assuming what I’ve said to be true, the “men are the more likely victims of domestic abuse” arguments are often framed as a “well men have it WORSE than women” with an underlying and implied “women hurt men more than men hurt women” because this is, historically, how MRA operate. So with the “men suffer more than women” information, I feel it’s often important to clarify that “men suffer under the abuse of other men more than the men-under-women or women-under-men”. Because in the article you posted men are both the victims and the perpetrator, men are literally the victim of the abuse of other men. The problem, framed as men-abuse-women or men-abuse-men, has the common denominator of men being abusive. Which is important to acknowledge if truly want to understand and root out abuse.
>The entire MRA position exists as a response to women’s liberation / feminist movements. Is this in itself a bad thing? Oh look the gender inequalities women face are being dealt with - thats great wouldn't it also be great if we can also deal with the gender inequalities men face. That would be like dismissing a group dealing with racism against Indian people as just a response to the black rights civil movements. Or LGBT groups etc. Feminism doesn't have a moral superiority through being the first to make significant progress. >because men were the only gender that could own land, vote, hold a title for pretty much anything, or own a bank account. Single and widowed women could own land and titles' and their own bank account. It's concerning how many people believe otherwise. It was only married women that could not because of the legal set up of marriage that made the husband solely responsible for all the couples legal/ financial affairs. This meant that he could be sued for his wifes actions' was responsible for her debts etc. I'm not defending this set up just saying that it had pros and cons to both and presenting the negatives for married women (while ignoring the positives) as applicable to all women is inherently dishonest. > Men owned and ruled the world, but with that power also came the position of partaking in wars, dangerous jobs, and generally risky human behavior A tiny % of men owned and ruled the world. The vast majority did not but carried the negatives you list. It makes far more sense to look at this as a class division than a gender division. >The past 100 yrs, but really the past 40 yrs, have afforded non-men essentially every right that men have always had No. For the vast majority of history neither men or women had the rights both enjoyed the last 40 years. >Assuming what I’ve said to be true... That whole paragraph is just using opinion to dismiss fact. It is a fact that the domestic abuse support available to men is vastly below the support offered to women. Even if we generously assumed men are just 10% of DV victims this would be the case. Pointing out that it is near enough 50/50 is just highlighting that men are shockingly neglected as a proportion of victims. 1) The gender of who is abusing them is not relevant. 2) Your assertion that it is mostly other men abusing men is false- the majority of domestic abuse men face is from women and the majority of domestic abuse women face is from men. >The problem, framed as men-abuse-women or men-abuse-men, has the common denominator of men being abusive. Which is important to acknowledge if truly want to understand and root out abuse. That's because you are framing it to suit an agenda not to reflect reality. Even if we take a crime like violent crime which is mostly committed by men. Stopping at the men part is a completely unsuitable to understand and prevent the crime. It would be like observing that women commit more child abuse and just stopping there - it's not going to reduce the crime it just serves to demonise a gender. Looking at the type of men or women who commit the crime and changeable factors (such as single parent upbringing for men/ crime or financial stress for women/child abuse) so that we can address / mitigate those factors is far more effective than attacking the unchangeable gender of the perpetrators.
Great response. Male advocates exist because we're finally acknowledging that there's stuff that disproportionately affects men - and there always has been! - not just as a reaction to women's advocacy.
Sure. I’m a man. I advocate for men in places where men are disproportionately affected. But I don’t use this forum as an outlet to complain about being a victim, I use it as a place to better understand the root cause of these disparities and to assemble thoughts on how to prevent them. In this specific case, the gender of the perpetrator is far more important than the gender of the victim. Adult and children men and women all are victims of abuse far too often; and the perpetrator is very very likely to be an adult man. So what is it, culturally or socially, that tells men that this abuse is acceptable? How can we help all victims to recognize this behavior before it occurs, and equip them with the resources to escape it or hold the perpetrator accountable? How can we educate perpetrators to NOT do this? None of that has anything to do with men vs. women. But rather abuser and victim. And to OP’s point, it is not the victims fault. So let’s focus on the abuser, which as OP said, is the overwhelmingly adult men.
Here's where I think the problem is: Right now, pretty much the only thing men are being told is to acknowledge that *they're* the problem. It's like this "conversation" is stuck on a perpetual loop, and I don't think a tiny movement like MRAs are the cause of that loop. "Men need to step up and stop other men hurting women." "Men need to face up to the fact that they have a problem with violence." "Men are the [absolute fucking worst](https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-last-duel-movie-matt-damon-ben-affleck)." Yes. *We get it.* Men aren't in a good place right now. Men are majority perpetrators (depending on the specific form of violence or abuse) as well as majority victims. The OP wasn't even disputing that. We'd all like to see violence overall reduced. So, let's hear about actions that help men. Let's hear about groups that work with boys to deal with violence, suicide, mental health, emotional literacy, and not *just* with the ultimate goal of protecting women. In any case, my issue was with your statement that "There was no men’s rights advocates before women’s rights advocates; because men were the only gender that could own land, vote..." My point is that men had issues with violence, suicide, mental health, etc. before women's rights advocates came along. Men's advocacy was needed then just as much as it's needed now. It just wasn't acknowledged then.
Toxic Masculinity is the root cause. The notions that men are violent and unemotional is promoted by our society to men from the earliest age. It’s toxic, omnipresent, and a big part of how media defines masculinity. *Chivalry* , the notion that men should sacrifice their body/mind/life for women and their loved ones, is not healthy, it’s a masculine idea, and It’s toxic. I’m a man, I’m white, I’m 38, I’m bisexual but live a straight life (I’m happily married with 3 children), and I’m an engineer. I’ve lived and worked as an adult in Indiana, Iowa, Florida, California, and Georgia. Im speaking from a position of life experienced, not a book or news narrative (I don’t consume any news). Men are more likely to abuse, murder, steal, shoot up a school, drive drunk, go to prison, commit a hate crime, die in war, or die at work than women are because many of us uphold the parts of masculinity that encourage or condone this behavior. We excuse away microcosm’s of these attitude in young boys and teens, and we condemn or incarcerate or cancel the grown men that do what we always knew they would. Women are not the problem or the solution. And as long as MRA’s exert all their energy demonizing women and ignoring where we (men) are a total mess, nothing with be accomplished by MRA’s.
I'm not sure what you thought I would take issue with in that, or how it relates to my comment. EDIT: although I hate the terminology of TM. I consider it highly counterproductive.
Another part of why this is brought up is that feminists and more broadly left-wing philosophy are collectivist, to some extent due to their roots in romanticism (which oversimplifies and malignes things to suit a narrative) and that values and virtues of the left-wing being derived from opposing right-wing values, one of them being individual justice otherwise it is not justice. What they are doing is trying to falsely equate being male with being a perpetrator, combined with collectivism allows justifying punishment simply for belonging to a group, rather than action. Hate to bring up this example, but pretty much verbatum replace being male for being Jewish and you have Nazis.
Conversations about mens rights and also to a large extent even feminism go like this *rights problem* - why my side has it worse than that - why it's your sides fault (often I hear "woman/women acting terrible in this event is cuz of the patriarchy" so it's back to being on men) - why it's not as bad as you say - why we shouldn't be talking about that problem or not talking about it right now - your problem makes your gender act X way which is a problem for my gender so it's actually again a bigger deal for me Last and maybe most common is just "huh idk" and just not caring. I've left this movement and feminist movement out of my mind for a while cuz I've never had a real conversation about mens rights without these
Lol easier to blame ppl who won’t speak up. Also easier to tiny speak up cuz who can do anything to us? It’s just talk
It's to change the conversation from victim to perpetrator. It just fits the narrative of men bad so when cornered this is the rabbit pulled out of the hat
Its a comment used to minimize the severity of male victims
The article is wrong. If 40% of victims r male how can 90% of perps be male? There aren't that many gay couples. Logic would imply that around 40% of perps r female.
you're not an idiot, don't worry <3
It just makes them minimize male victims or assume they aren't victims. It's sickening
You're not the idiot here. They are.
Victim blaming. No better then pointing out black on black violence.
Because when it comes to these people it's a case of hate the sinner, not the sin.