Mens Rights Thread

volchitsa

2u2me wrote: »

I can only speak for myself but I think the very idea of giving kids hormone blocking drugs is absolutey reprehensible, it amounts to abuse and perhaps torture. I haven't seen any MRAs express the opinion that they are in favour of puberty blocking drugs for kids.

It's strange that you would link "Puberty blocking hormone treatment for children" with "Trans rights". Do you think that should be included in the term 'trans-rights' because I don't.

I didn't say they supported it, I asked whether they as a group have a position on the issue, and if as it appears, they don't, why that should be, ie why they don't feel it's a question that they even need to take a stance on in the first place?

I'm not sure what you're saying in that second paragraph, or rather I don't see how it relates to my point. I wasn't saying that it should be included in that, just that it is, and asking a slightly different question, going on from that.

iptba

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say they supported it, I asked whether they as a group have a position on the issue

I am not an expert on all the different viewpoints that can be seen as feminist but there seem to plenty of issues where there are disagreements between different feminists on issues. It seems to be a double standard to expect men’s rights activists to “as a group have a position” on issues when this is not expected of feminists/feminism.

2u2me

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying in that second paragraph, or rather I don't see how it relates to my point. I wasn't saying that it should be included in that, just that it is, and asking a slightly different question, going on from that.

It may be 'seen more as a women's issue' because feminists have a louder voice when it comes to these issues. They receive a lot more funding. There are plenty of MRAs advocating against hormone blocking drugs.

In fact many MRAs complain because they are not allowed to speak truth to power on social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39lwukNQqkg

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Sounds like you should be arguing to ban divorce then TBF. And it's not really relevant, unless you mean that father get to pick and choose which parts of children's lives they are involved in.

My question is why is the issue of children being given puberty blockers apparently seen as an important issue for women's groups, but not for fathers' groups? Surely it must be of equal importance to both?

I have no idea how you linked my post to divorce... But then, I'm pretty confused about your points and your supporting paragraphs. Just seems odd to me.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no idea how you linked my post to divorce... But then, I'm pretty confused about your points and your supporting paragraphs. Just seems odd to me.

And I find your opinion confusing too so there you go. You said children from single mothers had poorer outcomes - so shouldn't you be trying to stop that happening? Because from the child's point of view, whether single or divorced fathers have legal access to their children is not at all the same thing as growing up in a stable family, is it?

So I wonder why that one issue (access to children) seems to be the only thing that really matters to fathers' groups? Shouldn't all aspects of children's lives and well being be important to them? Which is also why I asked about the trans issues and why it seems to be seen as a women's issue. It shouldn't be, because it affects children's lives too.

volchitsa

iptba wrote: »

I am not an expert on all the different viewpoints that can be seen as feminist but there seem to plenty of issues where there are disagreements between different feminists on issues. It seems to be a double standard to expect men’s rights activists to “as a group have a position” on issues when this is not expected of feminists/feminism.

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear there - I didn't mean that men's groups should have a single voice on the matter, still less that all men should. That's not what I mean, and not what I originally said either.

I'm asking why the whole issue is almost non existent to men's groups at all - including on this forum where it's been described as a women's issue even though there are significant parts of it that are related to child welfare. No threads about it in here, and on the thread on trans (about a kid in drag) that's quite active at the minute, the male posters there mostly seem to be discussing it as a woman's issue.

volchitsa

2u2me wrote: »

It may be 'seen more as a women's issue' because feminists have a louder voice when it comes to these issues. They receive a lot more funding. There are plenty of MRAs advocating against hormone blocking drugs.

In fact many MRAs complain because they are not allowed to speak truth to power on social media.

Not allowed by whom? Anyone can speak on social media, surely?

Also, which people or groups have been advocating against hormone blocking drugs?

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

And I find your opinion confusing too so there you go. You said children from single mothers had poorer outcomes - so shouldn't you be trying to stop that happening? Because from the child's point of view, whether single or divorced fathers have legal access to their children is not at all the same thing as growing up in a stable family, is it?

So I wonder why that one issue (access to children) seems to be the only thing that really matters to fathers' groups? Shouldn't all aspects of children's lives and well being be important to them? Which is also why I asked about the trans issues and why it seems to be seen as a women's issue. It shouldn't be, because it affects children's lives too.

Ahh... I understand now. This isn't a contribution to the Men's Rights thread. It's an attempt to derail it by taking us into controversial topics. Topics that have had threads with dozens of pages, and plenty of high emotional content. I know, because I contributed to many of them, and I saw each thread shut down/locked.

If you want to talk about men's rights and the right of the father regarding his children, fine. I get that... but it doesn't seem that you are.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh... I understand now. This isn't a contribution to the Men's Rights thread. It's an attempt to derail it by taking us into controversial topics. Topics that have had threads with dozens of pages, and plenty of high emotional content. I know, because I contributed to many of them, and I saw each thread shut down/locked.

If you want to talk about men's rights and the right of the father regarding his children, fine. I get that... but it doesn't seem that you are.

No, I absolutely agree that children need contact with their fathers.

And I'm certainly not trying to derail the thread, but then it isn't called "contact" or anything like that. I had a question to ask, something that occurred to me based on how the trans kid thread seemed to be all about how women should react to the issue and I found that very strange.

So I thought it made sense to ask posters who were already concerned with men's issues why that was. This looked like a general thread about men's rights, so I assumed it was, you know, a general thread about men and families and all the issues that that may involve. Was that wrong? Perhaps you'd prefer it on a separate thread? I didn't know if there was enough to discuss to make it worth setting up a thread, and TBH I'm not a big thread starter myself anyway.

2u2me

volchitsa wrote: »

Not allowed by whom? Anyone can speak on social media, surely?

Also, which people or groups have been advocating against hormone blocking drugs?

Look at the great lengths Jeffrey Younger went to stop his son from being 'transitioned'.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm asking why the whole issue is almost non existent to men's groups at all - including on this forum where it's been described as a women's issue even though there are significant parts of it that are related to child welfare. No threads about it in here, and on the thread on trans (about a kid in drag) that's quite active at the minute, the male posters there mostly seem to be discussing it as a woman's issue.

You're the only one calling it a woman's issue. Here's an entire forum devoted to it on reddit; go knock yourself out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/aiis0h/how_is_it_not_child_abuse_to_force_a_child_to_be/

iptba

It seems that almost everything, or at least a huge variety of topics could be argued to affect either men and/or their children*.

I don't think a men's rights thread should feel the need to discuss all aspects of education, including special needs; all aspects of health provision; the environment; justice/law and order; transport; the economy; social affairs; all aspects of the working environment; etc.

*And of course nearly every man will have other relatives that they care about with myriads of issues affecting them.

volchitsa

2u2me wrote: »

Look at the great lengths Jeffrey Younger went to stop his son from being 'transitioned'.

You're the only one calling it a woman's issue. Here's an entire forum devoted to it on reddit; go knock yourself out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/aiis0h/how_is_it_not_child_abuse_to_force_a_child_to_be/

Not sure why the hostility. I'm not on Reddit, so thanks for that, it seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. I'll have a look tomorrow.

(As for calling it a woman's issue, I didn't. Because I don't think it should be. I was reflecting the way it was being treated on the thread I mentioned, and indeed on this one. I'll have a look at the reddit thread as I say.

volchitsa

iptba wrote: »

It seems that almost everything, or at least a huge variety of topics could be argued to affect either men and/or their children*.

I don't think a men's rights thread should feel the need to discuss all aspects of education, including special needs; all aspects of health provision; the environment; justice/law and order; transport; the economy; social affairs; all aspects of the working environment; etc.

*And of course nearly every man will have other relatives that they care about with myriads of issues affecting them.

Well that's not quite what I was saying though. It wouldn't be fair IMO to complain that there should be the same percentage of posts or threads in "The Gentlemen's Club" forum just because - and I didn't say that.

It was actually the whole tone of discussion in the relevant thread that struck me, and not for the first time, which is why I decided to go to the horse's mouth and ask what posters in here thought of it.

I wouldn't actually mind starting a thread on it, if it seems like possibly derailing this one - I just wasn't too sure it would be preferable for a "non gentleman" to come in and start a discussion here rather than join in an existing thread.

2u2me

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure why the hostility. I'm not on Reddit, so thanks for that, it seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. I'll have a look tomorrow.

It's just that you kept asking why men don't care; while I was trying to explain perhaps it's just that you haven't seen it. Mens groups don't get as much as a voice as feminists groups; surely you must agree. Sorry for the hostility.

Another reason that might explain less activity here than on a feminist forum is that more people in the men's movement seem in agreement, its harder to have a discussion if everyone thinks the same, do you see what I mean.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I absolutely agree that children need contact with their fathers.

Except that I didn't say anything of the sort. Since it's obvious.

And I'm certainly not trying to derail the thread, but then it isn't called "contact" or anything like that. I had a question to ask, something that occurred to me based on how the trans kid thread seemed to be all about how women should react to the issue and I found that very strange.

So I thought it made sense to ask posters who were already concerned with men's issues why that was. This looked like a general thread about men's rights, so I assumed it was, you know, a general thread about men and families and all the issues that that may involve. Was that wrong? Perhaps you'd prefer it on a separate thread? I didn't know if there was enough to discuss to make it worth setting up a thread, and TBH I'm not a big thread starter myself anyway.

CA tends to be the go-to forum for trans debates... because the mods know that such debates generally go pear shaped quickly . I'd suggest doing a few searches and you'll find a variety of threads which will answer your questions.

For me, I've seen so many threads about men's issues shutdown so I'm a little protective of this thread. So few threads remain active for long... This is the exception. I'd like to see it continue.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure why the hostility..

My two cents... We've had posters come here before seeking to shut down threads. Those male feminists or feminists themselves who can't tolerate men having a relatively peaceful thread where most of us are in agreement. So, I (and I assume a few others) are a little suspicious when certain topics are linked to men's rights, since those topics lean heavily towards emotional outbursts and complaints.

I don't think you really got any hostility. You just didn't receive much in the way of responses... although IMHO, I'd say it's because you posed your questions with so little of your own contribution. I tend to be wary of posters asking leading questions when they haven't committed their own POV to the thread. There's a few posters who just ask questions, again and again, interjecting a single line in response... and it gets tedious dealing with that style of posting. Not accusing you of being that way... but I am very wary about certain topics being raised outside of CA.

iptba

Bosses give underperforming female workers kinder but less truthful feedback than men, study reveals
Gender divide revealed in study by psychologists at Cornell University, New York
Found women were more likely to receive 'white lies' in feedback than men
This may be due to a desire to preserve relationships and avoid harming feelings
By LUKE ANDREWS FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 16:08, 24 May 2020 | UPDATED: 16:09, 24 May 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8352451/Bosses-underperforming-female-workers-kinder-truthful-feedback-men-study-reveals.html

This is the sort of gender research that I think there needs to be more of: control for everything except gender and see what effect it has.

Interesting that it is only explicitly mentioned that women could lose out from the effects noted in the research.

The gender divide was revealed by psychologists at Cornell University, New York, who asked almost 66 volunteers, including 39 women, to mark essays before revealing the name of the author.

Participants were then asked to re-mark the work, by either 'Sarah' or 'Andrew', based on quality, writing criteria and willingness to recommend as exemplary.

The results, published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, found 'Sarah' had her grades inflated by nearly a full letter and received more positive feedback than her colleague.

No mention of how this could lead to bias in education, for example.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear there - I didn't mean that men's groups should have a single voice on the matter, still less that all men should. That's not what I mean, and not what I originally said either.

I'm asking why the whole issue is almost non existent to men's groups at all - including on this forum where it's been described as a women's issue even though there are significant parts of it that are related to child welfare. No threads about it in here, and on the thread on trans (about a kid in drag) that's quite active at the minute, the male posters there mostly seem to be discussing it as a woman's issue.

There just isn’t as much heard about it because men aren’t coming under threat as it were from trans rights activists who are for the most part people who were born male. They’re not a threat to men’s rights advocates as such, which in my opinion exist solely as an antonym of feminism.

That’s why men’s rights activists are pretty much silent on the issue of trans rights, because trans activists too appear to want to undermine feminism - ‘enemy of mine enemy’ sort of thing going on. That’s why you’ll see some men’s rights activists rubbing feminists faces in it so to speak, because trans activists use the same language of social justice that feminists use in arguing for equality.

It’s entirely disingenuous on the part of trans rights activists, just like it’s entirely disingenuous on the part of men’s rights activists who are quite happy to stand by and watch feminists squirm uncomfortably - they don’t really see it as their problem, and that’s why they aren’t all that interested in being involved.

Pawwed Rig

The perceived threat of hormone blockers in little children is virtually (if not actually) zero in this country which would explain why noone has discussed it as an issue.

2u2me

Another article from CNN with the same theme as before.

Coronavirus is killing more men. But the lockdown is disastrous for women and their rights

The novel coronavirus seems to be more deadly for men. But in many other ways, women are bearing the brunt of this pandemic.

From a spike in domestic violence and restricted access to family-planning services to disproportionate economic impact, the lockdown measures put in place to stop the outbreak are hurting women and their basic rights a lot more than men.

A CNN analysis earlier this year found that in the countries for which data was available, men were 50% more likely than women to die after being diagnosed with Covid-19. But experts say focusing purely on health data is dangerous.

"We think about this crisis in very narrow terms, only focusing on the health impacts, but we're missing the bigger picture," said Julia Smith, a researcher at the Simon Fraser University in Canada. Smith is working on a multi-year project looking at the wider impact of the pandemic.

"Men are having worse health outcomes if they become infected, but when we think about the secondary impacts, here we see that women are being disproportionately affected," she added.

"And unfortunately, women's rights are almost always an afterthought in any crisis situation," she said.

Women's rights are still forefront of thought in any crisis situation. Remember that plane that landed in the Hudson, women out first.

Where was all this talk of 'secondary impacts' when they were complaining about wage equality. Hypocrites.
I added the emphasis.

[fixed url]

CageWager

iptba wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8352451/Bosses-underperforming-female-workers-kinder-truthful-feedback-men-study-reveals.html

This is the sort of gender research that I think there needs to be more of: control for everything except gender and see what effect it has.

Interesting that it is only explicitly mentioned that women could lose out from the effects noted in the research.


No mention of how this could lead to bias in education, for example.

The education system has been heavily tilted towards girls for a long time now. Year after year girls outperform boys in almost every subject in the state exams but all you’ll hear on the six one news is how boys did better in maths and how this is a function of an oppressive patriarchal tyranny and all men conspire to keep females from fulfilling their destiny as a software developer or #girlbossTM

Silentcorner

2u2me wrote: »

Another article from CNN with the same theme as before.

Coronavirus is killing more men. But the lockdown is disastrous for women and their rights


Women's rights are still forefront of thought in any crisis situation. Remember that plane that landed in the Hudson, women out first.

Where was all this talk of 'secondary impacts' when they were complaining about wage equality. Hypocrites.
I added the emphasis.

It's amazing....we have been hearing about this epidemic of Domestic Violence since last Christmas at least long before the pandemic....in that time women have murdered men or children on 4 (7 people murdered in total) occasions in this country!

There is clearly an international effort to keep pumping out misleading information across the developed world.

Epidemic of Domestic Violence (which they never present evidence of )
The crisis is affecting women worse than men
Countries with female leaders are faring much better.

Women are an afterthought....they must think women are completely stupid altogether!!!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

It's amazing....we have been hearing about this epidemic of Domestic Violence since last Christmas at least long before the pandemic....in that time women have murdered men or children on 4 (7 people murdered in total) occasions in this country!

There is clearly an international effort to keep pumping out misleading information across the developed world.

Epidemic of Domestic Violence (which they never present evidence of )
The crisis is affecting women worse than men
Countries with female leaders are faring much better.

Women are an afterthought....they must think women are completely stupid altogether!!!

Except that women benefit by extension by all of this... so they're not going to care. Nor will they complain about such a focus, because for many of them, it confirms elements of what they believe. They might not be accepting of everything, but we've all become rather adept at tuning out the mass media that hits us everyday, instead focusing on whats relevant to us. Throw enough **** against a wall, some of it is going to stick.

It's something I've noticed over the last decade. Many people will comment about how untrustworthy the media is, how much fake news is out there, or how the media fails to represent the reality for normal people... but they'll still use media reports to support their own opinions. They'll cherry-pick media reports, believing those that validate their stance, and dismiss the remainder. I'm not aiming this at women, but at most people of both genders.

I do believe there is a campaign being fought to marginalise men in society. We are being set up to take the fall for everything remotely negative that affects women... either we're the direct enemy, or women are victimized by association. By promoting and enforcing further rights/benefits/protections for women, men will be forced into a lesser status within society.

I don't believe in any kind of shadowy cabal, but I do feel that various groups can coordinate such efforts, or simply benefit from others actions without being directly associated. How many rocks independently falling down a mountain, before an avalanche occurs... ? We know there's no organised thought behind the avalanche, but the results speak for themselves.

Think of all the media, comments, etc over the last decade, and it's easy enough to see the avalanche analogy having some merit.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe in any kind of shadowy cabal, but I do feel that various groups can coordinate such efforts, or simply benefit from others actions without being directly associated. How many rocks independently falling down a mountain, before an avalanche occurs... ? We know there's no organised thought behind the avalanche, but the results speak for themselves.

Think of all the media, comments, etc over the last decade, and it's easy enough to see the avalanche analogy having some merit.

I used to hear the word 'projection' all the time from feminists. Until I realized that's exactly what they were doing to me.

Now I hear the word 'dog-whistle' from them, eveytime I read one of those articles; I can now see exactly what they're trying to say. I believe that's how they rally their troops.

CageWager

2u2me wrote: »

I used to hear the word 'projection' all the time from feminists. Until I realized that's exactly what they were doing to me.

Now I hear the word 'dog-whistle' from them, eveytime I read one of those articles; I can now see exactly what they're trying to say. I believe that's how they rally their troops.

Feminists are masters at shutting down debate. No argument can be logical enough in the face of absolute refusal to even entertain a counter argument. The proliferation of shaming tactics to achieve this is particularly distasteful. The idea that because I disagree with something that I automatically “hate women”. Its just so sick.

Silentcorner

CageWager wrote: »

Feminists are masters at shutting down debate. No argument can be logical enough in the face of absolute refusal to even entertain a counter argument. The proliferation of shaming tactics to achieve this is particularly distasteful. The idea that because I disagree with something that I automatically “hate women”. Its just so sick.

Lets call it what it is....f##king infantile!!!

2u2me

Silentcorner wrote: »

Lets call it what it is....f##king infantile!!!

Or perhaps 'post-modern'

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Lets call it what it is....f##king infantile!!!

or effective?

It works. It's losing effectiveness these days, but it's worked well for over a decade, and I can see many instances where it will continue to work into the near future.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Feminism has changed society dramatically over the last three decades. (Yes, I'm separating the frst wave) There are many areas in society now where a woman can talk over a male, but not vice versa. At least not without being alienated.

iptba

Viral video shows white woman calling cops on black man because he asked her to leash her dog
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-park-karen-calls-cops-black-man-leash-dog/

One could look at this in 3 ways: false accusation by a woman against a man; racism; sexism.

iptba

Women need a new world of welfare and work
Covid-19 recovery plan must address supports for those not on live register

Orla O'Connor

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/women-need-a-new-world-of-welfare-and-work-1.4261997

Some comments underneath

SKI
"By almost every measure, the impact of Covid-19 has been felt most by women. "
Well I can think of ONE pretty big measure where men have done worse.......answer below please!
--
ArnoBelfry

Reply to @SKI: dead men don't talk.
--

TFSmith

Reply to @ArnoBelfry: Here's some Hillary Clinton logic that will explain SKI's conundrum: Men die more often than women after being affected with COVID-19. Therefore, women are losing husbands, sons, and brothers in disproportionate numbers. Therefore, women are the main victims of COVID-19. QED.

--

She writes: "it also tells us that there was a slower decline in the number of unemployed women than men during the economic recovery."

This is undoubtedly correct, but there was a much slower increase in female unemployment in the 2008-2012 downturn too!

Male unemployment peaked at more than 5 percentage points higher than female in 2012, and it took another five years for male and female unemployment rates to converge.

---

Must everything be reduced to this sort of selective, distorted generalisation?

Meanwhile, I’ve never read a single report or lobbyist in The Irish Times about all the young Irishmen (many from the building sector) who went through worlds of mental health issues after the last depression and who, because of “liberal” “free market” “We need cheap labour” government and Irish Times ideology, found their jobs most threatened by foreign labourers and tradesmen.

Is there a single state-funded organisation for those men? For any men? There’s not even a single centre for male victims of domestic abuse in this entire state. Not one. And no organisation to lobby for it. All those issues affecting young lads are ignored bar the occasional mention of the gender reality of suicide statistics - which the girls never bring up (or that women live longer than men, and so much else). Neither are statistics such as that most solicitors are now female (https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/Irish-solicitors-profession-reaches-major-landmark-in-gender-balance/)) mentioned. There is no victimisation of women - and, indeed, decidedly the contrary when it comes to that very, very dark place of family law in Ireland.

Silentcorner

Interesting that the comments were nearly all very negative toward the piece, one comment I found particularly interesting mentioned and linked a piece by Victoria White about a document she saw from the National Womens Council something we should all be aware of....

"I had found a statement in a document published by the National Women’s Council, which called for men to be “socially constructed” as carers and women to be “socially constructed” as workers. I rejoined that I did not want to be “socially constructed” by anyone."

She doesn't elaborate about the document but this is the article...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/who-decided-that-career-is-more-important-than-love-and-family-473102.html?&session=PxdrD2ott+MIZ7ISqPbYVKKp8VbNLtTH/Vabfh38ZXk&_ga=2.97561500.2021229891.1590518509-1082183123.1509972388

Our taxes are funding an organisation that wants to reconstruct the purpose of the male gender....absolute headbangers!!!!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

Our taxes are funding an organisation that wants to reconstruct the purpose of the male gender....absolute headbangers!!!!

TBF it's not exactly a new idea, and it's reared it's ugly head many times throughout history (Fascism, communism, Christianity, capitalism, etc). The reconstruction of people.. Social conditioning has been a thing for a very long time.... it's just that they used to be more subtle about doing it.

Can't say I'm surprised by it... at least they're not calling for large numbers of us to be neutered or forcibly controlled through medication. I've seen suggestions like that in a variety of US academic articles over the years.... which were met with applause by both male and female professors. :rolleyes:

iptba

Silentcorner wrote: »

Interesting that the comments were nearly all very negative toward the piece.

. I do find things like that heartening. With thejournal.ie where you don’t need to be a subscriber such comments aren’t rare and sometimes attract 100+ up votes. Of course, not every such comment is exactly what I would have said.

Silentcorner

The government has used our taxes to fund a handy website to help us address our violence in case we want to beat up our partners...

https://www.moveireland.ie/impact-of-your-behaviour-on-your-children/

There is no corresponding service for abusive woman.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

The government has used our taxes to fund a handy website to help us address our violence in case we want to beat up our partners...

https://www.moveireland.ie/impact-of-your-behaviour-on-your-children/

There is no corresponding service for abusive woman.

I had a look through the site. You're spot on. It's completely focused on men... without acknowledging even slightly that women could be abusive.

iptba

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I had a look through the site. You're spot on. It's completely focused on men... without acknowledging even slightly that women could be abusive.

Also a lot of domestic abuse is mutual: it is likely not properly helping men who can be abusive if difficult situations aren’t discussed.

CageWager

Silentcorner wrote: »

The government has used our taxes to fund a handy website to help us address our violence in case we want to beat up our partners...

https://www.moveireland.ie/impact-of-your-behaviour-on-your-children/

There is no corresponding service for abusive woman.

There should be a government funded recovery programme for women who’s nagging has gotten out of control.

The archetypal nagging wife and henpecked husband has long been a comedic trope and it is just one more area where male to female abuse is taken seriously while female to male abuse is the butt of jokes.

Nagging is tantamount to psychological torture when taken to its extreme. I’ve seen it time and time again with friends, family, and even strangers out in public. It is the kind of “death by 1000 cuts” torture over a long period of time that makes men snap.

iptba

Five ways governments are responding to violence against women and children during COVID-19
https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/five-ways-governments-are-responding-to-violence-against-women-and-children-during-covid-19/

UNICEF=United Nations International Children's Education Fund

FishOnABike

CageWager wrote: »

There should be a government funded recovery programme for women who’s nagging has gotten out of control.

The archetypal nagging wife and henpecked husband has long been a comedic trope and it is just one more area where male to female abuse is taken seriously while female to male abuse is the butt of jokes.

Nagging is tantamount to psychological torture when taken to its extreme. I’ve seen it time and time again with friends, family, and even strangers out in public. It is the kind of “death by 1000 cuts” torture over a long period of time that makes men snap.

Verbal and physical abuse can be deliberately used to try and provoke a reaction at which point the instigator becomes the victim.

FishOnABike

FishOnABike wrote: »

Verbal and physical abuse can be deliberately used to try and provoke a reaction at which point the instigator becomes the victim.

Which doesn't matter because any suggestion that the victim is responsible, is victim blaming/shaming. And it's not even when the person becomes the victim.. in many debates the victim is a victim before anything happens.. hence the removal of responsibility.

Now, if the victim is male, there are different rules, which aren't as comprehensive/flexible as the ones for female victims. (When i say flexible, I'm not saying open to interpretation, I'm referring to finding/using any possible positive perspective for the female victim)

iptba

This tweet has gone viral with over 40,000 retweets and 200,000 likes in less than a day:

https://twitter.com/democracydiva/status/1266109574291038209

The logic seems pretty tenuous, particularly linking toxic masculinity with destroying democracy.

Some people have called him an incel underneath but as one person commented:
https://twitter.com/choerrycoloured/status/1266223708437348352

It's awfully convenient when a twittermoron can take the actions/behavior of one person (Mark Zuckerberg), and assign a judgment towards the whole gender...

Imagine if we were to do that? Take someone like Zoe Quinn, say that she's representative of all women, and that it proves toxic femininity?

CageWager

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Now, if the victim is male, there are different rules, which aren't as comprehensive/flexible as the ones for female victims.

This reminds me of the Sally Challen case in the UK (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/sally-challen-high-court-inheritance-a4452196.html).

Woman bludgeons her husband to death with a hammer. After 8 years in jail for murder her conviction was quashed because the husband was apparently “controlling and abusive” (victim blaming, anyone??) and she was cleared to inherit her murder victim’s fortune.

Just try to imagine that scenario with the genders reversed for one second and try not to either laugh or cry.

FishOnABike

CageWager wrote: »

This reminds me of the Sally Challen case in the UK (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/sally-challen-high-court-inheritance-a4452196.html).

Woman bludgeons her husband to death with a hammer. After 8 years in jail for murder her conviction was quashed because the husband was apparently “controlling and abusive” (victim blaming, anyone??) and she was cleared to inherit her murder victim’s fortune.

Just try to imagine that scenario with the genders reversed for one second and try not to either laugh or cry.

Seems like a licence to kill, but only if the perpetrator is a woman. We're not any better here, where a woman who bludgeoned her sleeping husband to death with a hammer got a suspended sentence.

Can anyone provide an example of a man being treated so leniently for killing an abusive or controlling spouse?

Silentcorner

This was published by the BBC.

"They (women) typically have more complex needs than men. They are more likely to be victims of abuse, and more likely to have been sentenced for offending related to their exploitation by a partner"

As to why women shouldn't be sent to prison.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45627845

I believe it is very simple, men from a dysfunctional backrounds are more likely to commit crimes against the community.

Women from a dysfunctional backrounds are more likely to destroy relationships...creating an endless loop of criminality and partner abuse.

Just watch as the push to exonerate female toxic behaviour in all it's forms is shoved down our throats repeatedly by media.

And they wonder why the BBC has lost the public confidence!!!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

This was published by the BBC.

"They (women) typically have more complex needs than men. They are more likely to be victims of abuse, and more likely to have been sentenced for offending related to their exploitation by a partner"

Ahh well, when you have an agenda to push it's easy to ignore the realities of life. There are many men out there in abusive relationships, either physical or emotional. Their (the men) have certain needs which are just as complex as any womans. Masochism, guilt, mother complexes, etc. there are heaps of needs which many men have which are typically ignore except when it comes up in a comedy sketch.

Just as women are more likely to be victims of abuse because the metric doesn't take into account emotional abuse, or manipulation. Of which, research shows that women are much more likely to engage in, than men. But that wouldn't fit the need to push men as being the aggressors. Even when the area of female/female relationships are suggested, the dangers are downplayed with the discussions redirected to talking about male led abuse.

And they wonder why the BBC has lost the public confidence!!!

I doubt that they do TBH. It's not as if this is anything new. They just don't care.

Silentcorner

They mightn't care...but the British people do...the push to decriminalize the payment of the licence fee is getting much stronger, if that happens they are doomed.

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

They mightn't care...but the British people do...the push to decriminalize the payment of the licence fee is getting much stronger, if that happens they are doomed.

Hopefully.

TBH traditional media like BBC or RTE which does not reflect the needs of the general population should be replaced by something, whose survival depends on public support. Mainly since Modern Media is not to be trusted...

iptba

The Overlooked Disparity: Coronavirus Kills Mostly Men
In the U.S., 54% of those killed by the virus are male. For younger patients the disparity is greater.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-overlooked-disparity-coronavirus-mostly-kills-men-11590775292
https://archive.fo/AHtGR#selection-2145.5-2149.102

Article in the Wall Street Journal on men's health. I'm not sure there's anything particularly remarkable in it, but it is in a mainstream newspaper.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-overlooked-disparity-coronavirus-mostly-kills-men-11590775292
https://archive.fo/AHtGR#selection-2145.5-2149.102

Article in the Wall Street Journal on men's health. I'm not sure there's anything particularly remarkable in it, but it is in a mainstream newspaper.

I saw this tweet in reply to it on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/HRobbea/status/1266817547871105027

https://www.amhf.org.au/is_male_behaviour_putting_mens_lives_at_risk

Taking an evidence-based approach reveals a more nuanced picture. For example, while working-age men claim fewer Medicare services than women; men and women over 65 use a similar number of services and men over 75 use more services. Experience also shows that when support services are offered in a male-friendly way, the number of men who get help increases.

Finally, while helping men change their individual health behaviours can make a difference, they only account for around 30% of poor health. If we want to create a healthier future, we need to take collective action to address the underlying social and structural factors that shape our physical and mental health throughout life.